Okay. and Addie, just as a little reminder, we were gonna do the ANRS first and we have John Bolan here from Stampsky. >> Okay. >> Um I don't know if when once you call the order.
>> Yeah, it's not quite time yet. >> Yeah. [clears throat] All right. It looks like it is now 7 o'clock. Um, I'd like to call to meeting to order this meeting of the Town [snorts] of Carile Planning Board. Um, Monday, March 30th, 2026, 7:00 p.m. on
Zoom only. Um, we will have a continued public hearing for the site plan review for the Carile Fire Station that we will start soon, but first we will do our ANR plans um that we can hopefully manage quickly.
So, up first is the approval not required plan for 641 South Street. >> Um, >> and Jonathan, do you want me to screen share them or do you want to? So, I did make you a co-host, so you can >> um if you if you want to do it, that's fine.
>> Sure. Yeah, no problem. Okay. Can you all see my screen? Everyone's good. 641 South Street plan. Okay. Um I don't know since John, since you're here, if you want to just talk through them quickly. >> Sure. Yep. So, I'm Jonathan Bolan with
Stamps and McNary. Um this ANR it's on South Street. There's an existing uh it's a vacant lot now and the proposal is to divide it into into three lots with a potential in the future to divide lot two again. Um there is going to be a
common driveway special permit filed for this too, but the um you know the lots all conform to zoning and um so there's any questions? >> Uh any questions from the planning board? I I guess I could there there is a stone
wall along there, right? That that will have to be adjusted for the driveway. >> Yeah. And I mean, I believe it's a it is a um a scenic road, so that'll be that'll all be part of the permitting
for, you know, for the development. So, this is just for the the creation of the lots. There's no development that's being proposed associated with it. >> Exactly. At this point, it's just to create the lots. >> Anyone else?
>> No questions at this time. Um any um Julie, do I take questions from the public or comments from the public? >> You can if you want to, but you're not required to for an ANR. And this is not a public hearing.
>> Okay. >> Um I will just if you want to comment on this, raise your hand quick. from the public. Seeing and hearing none, um
I will take a motion to not approve because it's not required. What is it that we do? M uh Julie endorse >> endorse the plan. Not required. >> Yeah. Take a motion to endorse the approval not not required plan.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Who was it that seconded? Dwight. >> Right. Uh we'll do since we're online, we'll do a roll call vote. >> Adam's eye. I
uh >> Jas Idy. Yes. >> I We don't have Stacy. So that and we don't have Sarah. That's everybody, right? >> Okay. Motion passes. Shall we go to the
uh ANR plan for Kimble Road? >> Can you all >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, this one there there was a a court case. The um the owners of of the uh Kimmel Road address, 280 Kimmel Road,
filed an adverse possession claim against part of the um property of 41 Swanson Lane, and the court um awarded them a small part of that property. So, this plan is just to kind of memorialize that and get it recorded so that it's uh
something that people can find in the future. So, there's no new lots. Um, both lots still conform, but the the court's already said that that title is transferred to that um
little parcel. >> That's adding that parcel to 280. >> Exactly. Yep. Um, I'm just having a hard time seeing what was what what was shifted here. Julie, can you maybe >> Yeah, teeny tiny bit. Okay, got it.
>> Right here. >> There's a little detail of that up at the top right corner of the plan. >> I see now. Yeah, that's about the uh >> um Okay. Any questions from the planning board,
comments? >> No. >> Uh anything from the public? Raise your hand or Well, you can't speak up. Raise your hand. Okay. Hearing none, I will take a motion to endorse the approval not required plan for
Kimble Road. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. >> Adams. I >> may I grad.
>> You sure are. >> And Stacy and Sarah are not here. Um, these need to be signed. The myars need to be signed. Um, can folks get to
town hall tomorrow >> to do so? >> I can. I'll be able to go. >> Great. [clears throat] >> We'll need four of you. >> Yeah, we need a simple majority of the board to sign the plan. So, >> when will they be ready, Julie?
>> Um, we have them. So, we'll just send out an email reminder tomorrow morning. You guys can come by. >> What What's the earliest to come by in the morning? >> Um, I mean, I usually get in pretty early. So, what time do you want to come? >> What time [laughter] do you get there?
>> I'll get there by 8 probably. >> Okay. I can come by in the morning. >> All right. >> I can come by in the morning, too, but probably not that early. >> I'll be there at 7. I'll be there at 7. >> Town Hall usually opens at 8:30, so
8:30. >> I do usually get in pretty early on Tuesdays, but depends on how late tonight goes. >> Yeah. >> Do you have any meetings tomorrow morning? >> No. >> Thanks everybody.
>> How late are you there? >> How late are you there tomorrow, Jill? >> I'm there all day. >> What is all day? >> Like seven. >> Okay. All right. I'll be there sometime towards the end of the day. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Wow. Really making you work for this.
[gasps and sighs] [clears throat] >> All right. Um, moving on to um the continued public hearing for the site plan review. Is that where we should go next, Julie? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um so the continued public hearing for the site plan review the Carile fire station renovation and expansion 80 Westward Street parcel 21-1-0 applicant Fussen O'Neal on behalf of the town of Carile. Um,
so we had we've received as of late last week the full bid set plans and we received as of this morning the
updated permitting set plans. the uh review process I think is um kind of ongoing. I think we still have quite a bit that we need to absorb. Um, but I what I wanted to do to sort of
maybe reset a little bit from um the the meeting on the 9th uh where we felt that we didn't have the the materials we needed as well as the personnel, the staff that we needed from
the project team. I think it's worth taking a step back and kind of talking through what our role as the planning board is on a site plan review like this, what uh we're looking at and for pursuant to our rules
and regulations for site plan review and kind of getting on the same page about timing and sort of what is the what is the kind of plan set that we'll
be able to look at and provide direct feedback to that can then be actionable on the basis of our discussions. So I know that um what we had previously
received was more rendering style design um documents. I think that the the full bid set is what gives us what we need to understand what is planned from an architecture perspective.
Um as well as um uh other aspects like lighting and the um the phototric plans etc. Actually, I don't know if the bit set contains lighting, but what I thought would make sense to
do is um ask if Scott or Scott Triayola from the select board or a member of the building
committee, the uh fire station renovation committee is here and can give us a I don't see Scott on. He did say he would be Oh, no, I see him. Hi, Scott. So, it' be helpful, I think, if we could
understand from the select board what the um goals and objectives of this project are, what the timeline has been, and what you anticipate the timeline being going forward so that we can
understand how our review fits in and how we will have sort of the full picture of what we need in order to adequately conduct site plan review process. >> So I can give a very quick highle overview of um the early work on this
and then maybe Greg or Eric you can step in to talk about >> the renovation committee. So if we go back a year and a half um the select board made it a priority to move the uh fire station renovation expansion project forward um and make it a top
priority. So essentially the select board became the de facto uh building committee um driving the early work um in selecting the OPM and selecting Tecton in working with them on the
conceptual design which ultimately was uh funded town meeting a year ago. design work that allowed us to do the work leading up to last special town meeting in November to present a conceptual design to the town and to request the uh design funding which was
also approved. Um the project from from when we began with Tecton and and the the priorities and the goals that we also uh put into the charter for the building committee were and I'll just read through them very quickly. It's to
meet the current anticipated safety standards for Carlilele firefighters and EMT to provide living and working space necessary to attract and retain on call firefighters, accommodate gender equity, uh maximize the existing space or the existing station and only add cost effective space based on needs
assessment and maintain a high level of sustainability in the completion of the project. So those are our goals. Um those are the goals that we also passed on to the building committee and our goal has been um and we know it's been an aggressive goal and we've been
working with Tecton and CMS and the building committee was to get this project out to bid so that we could bring a bidded project total to this town meeting. So we know that's been an aggressive goal. It's one we periodically and repeatedly check in on
to see um if it's if it's if we're still on track. And I've I've attended a couple of the building committee meetings and have asked the questions of them. Um and to this point, they've continued to to work and push forward um
and believe they can meet that goal. So, uh, again, in November, we created the building committee with the charter that's on the website that reflects those goals and at that point turned it over to them. They've done their work from a select board standpoint. We met with them on March 10th. They presented
the updated um design and and cost trade-offs they had done. This was about a week prior to sending out the bid documents. Um, at that meeting we saw an updated render, the updated floor plan, and the select board at the end of that voted to uh unanimously support moving
forward with the bidding process. So, I'll turn it over to Greg or Eric at at this point to talk about the building committee. >> Oh, great. Yeah, thank you. And good evening and uh thank you everybody for your time tonight. Uh, my name is Greg
Zerlo. I'm co-chair of the committee with Eric Balis. Um the the work has been with our architect and the project management team uh town departments and eventually it'll uh dovetail in with the
construction team. Um you know we're working within the parameters of the budget, the schedule and the core values of the project and where we are now. Uh the documents um are out to bid, the drawings and the specifications.
Um you know, we're looking to obtain, you know, really good reliable pricing that both the select board and eventually town meeting could uh could vote on with confidence. We uh we anticipated two agenda in the process.
um and CMS our OPM perhaps can speak to detail on on schedule uh if needed but you know the thinking is is the conversation about design continues uh within the committee or through the planning board's review process uh the
committee's final recommendation to the select board may include a strategy of how we incorporate no cost or lowcost changes into the scope of work after uh the addendum period. So the committee is meeting tomorrow. Uh
we will focus our design review agenda item on what what it is that we hear today. uh will take that into consideration and also uh help that uh allow that to
inform uh our plans and and how and how this works with uh capturing some of the comments in the next uh addendum uh or if we need an alternate plan. Uh the design has evolved um since uh folks
have last seen it and we expect uh Tecton's presentation tonight uh to walk us through that point how the design has evolved over time. The um you know we don't expect the planning board to have a reaction to every detail uh but rather
focus on the issues of site design and overall building character. I mean the role of the planning board as it relates to our work uh is is important for strengthening the project. Um you know we we think that that input is is critical for what's appropriate to the
town. So u thank you uh for this meeting and Eric and I will do our best to answer any questions that we have along the way. >> Thank you. Can you explain um what the bid process means? So what does going to bid
mean? What level of of sort of plan completion are you going to bid with or have you gone to bid with? Uh what is the agenda process that you've outlined? Does that have to do with the bid or does that have to do with design these
sort of plan revisions? And what is your expectation for um sort of the start of the construction and [clears throat] the final construction documents that need to be produced in order to get to a building
permit and a construction start? >> Okay. I I I think I would ask uh uh someone from the CMS team to talk about specific dates, but it was always anticipated that the addendum that would
be issued uh would really primarily be focused on uh the typical bid process, the requests for informations or clarifications from the bidding subs and and the general contractors. Um knowing that we're we're in motion uh with uh
design comment both within the committee and now here in front of the planning board. Uh those are opportunities to bring uh the items that we discuss or we feel are important for the design uh to bring it to bring it into the final bid
by getting it into one of the uh one of the upcoming uh addendum. uh the actual uh uh start date. We may have something penciled out if you know as things move forward, but I think um uh I would ask CMS if they have handy the the actual
dates if we want to get down to that level they share that with us. Um >> thank you, Greg. >> I'll take that question. Um >> so in terms of the bidding process, uh we went through an extensive pre-qualification requirement. Um again, sort of
background information through February and into March. Uh bid documents were put onto the street about uh 10 days ago. Um filed sub bids will be received by the town on or about April 9th of
this uh coming about week and a half from now and general bids will be received on the 23rd of April. Those dates are what was published in the contract and what will be anticipated
unless they are adjusted and or shifted uh in time. In terms of addendum, I would envision that we will have one addendum issued between now and the date of the filed
sub bids and one additional addendum between the date of the filed sub bids and the general bids and again that it could be more but at a minimum there would be one addendum in each period.
Um in terms of the anticipated start of construction, we would envision with a successful um presentation and endorsement of the project at town meeting and the subsequent debt exclusion vote that we
would execute the contract and have a notice to proceed with the contractor in place on or about um mid June to late July. uh excuse me, mid June to the 1st of July
and a 14 16 15month construction schedule. Matt, 15 months is what's currently planned for the project. >> 15 months. That's correct. >> Conclusion would be the fall of planning board. process questions,
timing questions, etc. >> Um, as it relates to the addendum, um, how much contingency is factored into cost changes with addendum, whether it's design, construction, or
all of it. So u as of right now the budget I believe the budget that we presented to the select board was estimated at 5% contingency on an estimated construction cost of uh 14.5
million round numbers. Um so I I don't have that number in front of me but I can certainly share it. Um >> Neil, does that so construction cost of 14 a.5 uh what about soft costs um architectural fees and so forth? What's
the total proposed? >> It was it was Eric it was 5% of each. So it's 5% of the total project cost. >> Thank you. >> I can I can grab those numbers. Hold on one second. >> Thank you. And Neil, while while you're
uh pulling that up, just to note that with the contingency in uh it's kind of like a design uh design and pricing contingency, there's an escalation of a of a 1 and a.5%. So really the total contingency
uh in the town's construction budget is 6 and a half%. And um any other sorry planning board any other process questions? I guess my my biggest question uh and I'm not sure if this is the right time Addy but um is around um specific
material selection and specification. >> Yeah, I have one I have one more process question. Um, so based on your engineer's estimate, if your bids come back beyond
the contingency that you have set in place for that, what's plan B? So we um part of the early pricing the the design development phase pricing uh when we saw we're trending over over
budget uh we went through a value engineering process. So we know that we've we've uh squeezed down on the scope of work uh not cutting but getting the same value uh for the money uh where
possible. um that that resulted it will the expectation is that it results in a in a tighter bid. Uh we have found uh through uh uh CMS's reporting u personal experience that uh bids are coming in
pretty favorable. So what happens if in fact uh we are over budget uh even by said dollar uh we would present to the board make a recommendation present to the select board uh make a presentation
about the merits of proceeding with the project uh with that overage or uh there needs to be an alternate plan. So, for the select board, if this does come to play, uh, and just talking purposes, the, uh, the bid comes in at, uh, you
said it was 14 million, so say it comes in 10% over, 15% over, you know, now we're up to 154, 16 million. Is the select board, um, what is the select board's position on that for um, either
partially proceeding with this in hopes of getting additional funding or how does that affect the process? Well, the next [clears throat] step in the process would be a decision on whether to bring the article to town meeting. And so that would be based on whatever that number would be. And
ultimately the the town would have to approve the project. Um if it was so out of line that it it wasn't conceivable that we would bring it to to town meeting and that's not my expectation then um the
issue there is that we wouldn't if we were not to bring the article to town meeting then we would probably have to wait to a special town meeting perhaps to do additional design funding. >> So the the other question with that is um this is all being funded through bond. Is that correct?
>> This debt. [clears throat] Yeah. >> All right. >> This is what's proposed at town meeting. Again, this the current funding was approved. The current design work, the 1.4 that they're working under currently was approved at last town meeting. >> Mhm. >> So, essentially that money runs out. Um,
if this project is not approved at town meeting, then we'll have to wait till a future town meeting to to figure out next steps. >> Okay. Thank you. I have one more process question myself which is um
so this is uh obviously municipal work it's um chapter 149 right? >> Yes. >> The contract form is
a lump sum right? >> Yes. And uh how um how might the cost
u change once the contract is signed? >> Uh it would follow a contract change order process that's prescribed in the contract documents. >> And what would the what could those change orders be based on? Uh normally there are that normally a
change order results from one of four conditions. It's either an owner request, an unforeseen condition, a third party request such as from a building inspector or another town committee or simply an unknown condition
>> or a hole in its scope. Right. errors and emissions, right? >> Yeah. Errors and emissions. Correct. >> Okay. >> There any more [clears throat] questions on process? So I don't want to put too fine a point
on it Addy but again if there is a lack of specificity in any particular portion of the architecture engineering material selection um that is not part of the bid set um
and we move down the road um so Neil I think what I'm trying to just ascertain from you is let's say There's a there's a a note on the on the bid set that says uh exterior material is stone block. I I
don't know. Right. and and then biders put a number to that and then ultimately once the specifi uh the the specification is identified by the contractor um and it's not acceptable to the town would that be considered part of a
change order that was requested by the town for kind of let's just say a more expensive material >> that that certainly is a potential >> okay >> I If if if it let's let's look at it
this way. If it's a simple change in color, right, I would not ex without without changing the material itself, I would not expect that that would be a significant price increase. If it's a whole scale change in material and we
have to re-evaluate another building system, that certainly is a horse of a different color, no pun intended. So um one one more question about the design um and apologize it's taking so long. Um the 1.4 4 million that you was
referenced earlier. Does that include CPS submitts, RFIs, DCRs, etc. Certification? >> Are you referring to the construction phase uh services? >> Who's overseeing the construction phase
to address RFIs, submittals, um to Eric's point, and you know, all the other things, possible design, DCRs, uh design, construction change or reviews, changes, whatever. But yeah, there's all that. I assume as that's included in the design fees that you've mentioned for the 1.4.
>> No, it is not. Uh construction phase services would be appropriated with the construction funding at town meeting this spring. >> So they're they're not in they're not currently included in the project. >> Understood. So is that including the $14 million construction cost?
>> No. >> So we're asking for more than $14 million. >> Correct. >> So it's going to be probably, you know, >> Yeah. construction. We have we've only we've only funded uh through this phase design funding through bidding. None of the other soft costs associated with
construction or furnishing the building, the construction or uh services of the OPM or the architect have been funded at this time. >> So, so what would we be expecting for CPS services >> dollwise? 20% 30%.
>> 4 and a half million. >> I don't know if you're able to pull those numbers up, Neil. I don't have them off the top of my head. >> I I I don't have them met. >> Okay. >> I just want to make everyone aware that there's there's more money involved here that we're not seeing that, you know,
and granted it may not be under our purview, but some of the stuff is in terms of your construction phasing and plan and all that stuff. But as a as a as a taxpaying citizen here, I'm asking these questions because I want answers. >> So this was this was presented at the select board meeting and public public
meeting and at the time the current total project cost estimate was >> $17.5 million including the hard the construction costs and the soft costs. >> Okay. And Scott, does that also include uh [snorts] uh site construction
landscape plan that that was included in the most recent um bid set? >> Yes, you guys can speak to the specifics, but our understanding as a select board was that was the quote unquote all-in cost >> that we were looking at. they provided some um additional breakout of of how
they got to that number, but um that was the estimate and that was just just for um for clarity. That was um when we when we spoke to the town back in November, um I I forget the exact numbers involved. I don't have in
front of me, but this was about a million and a half a million to two million north of the total project budget we had um estimated at town meeting in November. So I think at the time we had we had set an expectation of
16 to 17.5 million um in November when we when we spoke to the town and that included the 1.4 million in design cost. So we're we're a little bit north of that in in their estimated in their internal cost estimate. We have to wait
to see what the bids come in at. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's super helpful. >> Yeah. So, just from a I just want to be clear from a public communication standpoint. Um, you know, we we've been as forthright and transparent with with
the total project cost and how that that builds up. And part of the reason we're doing it this way is we we didn't want to bring a project to the town until we had bids and have a concrete number. Um, unlike other projects where we've we've brought a project to town meeting and then you get into it then you realize
you need another 10 15%. um we didn't want to we didn't want to do that with this project knowing the um the importance of it and size of it. >> But based on what Neil said before with the 5% contingency on construction that's adding another call it 700 and
change rate. So >> that was included in that total the contingency >> in the 17 and a half that includes that 5% contingency. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Correct me if I'm wrong anybody. >> Yeah. No, that's that's correct. And just to add a little color on, you know,
in in in building construction, right, we have, you know, design and and construction, the hard cost and the soft costs. And on on the owner's side, the town side, the soft costs include, you know, all of the detail that you would uh you would hope to be carried in a
budget for planning, including testing and inspection by third party. you know, all of the miscellaneous costs from the architect to uh the minor things that we have to be prepared for, including a soft cost contingency. >> Sorry, one last thing. And I'm assuming
that the um new stretch energy code is the um is the code of that we're conforming to. >> That's correct. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Yeah. One of the elements um and again, chime in if I'm incorrect with this. One
of the elements that this design includes is is um solar panels which was not part of the original concept but is needed to comply with stretch code. So part of the the work that the building committee has done is is to ensure that it it complies.
>> So so this um starts to get into some of the site plan review commentary and questions that we continue to have. Um, and I just want to sort of pause here and note that, um, you know, I think a lot of this questioning, well, first of
all, I think you have a Oh, and Eric, I love your deck house. I live in one, too. Um, I I think what you have here on the planning board is a is a uh more uh in the industry planning board than you might typically have. Um, we have
architects, developers, contractors, etc. um you know, veterans of the MBTA. So, we're asking questions because we're worried about scope holes and potential for things changing along the way. Um,
and we want to have a a a set of plans on which we're making a determination that's within our jurisdiction and our purview that that is based on what's actually planned to get built and what's um what's being
bid to get built. And so there's some this part of this line of questioning as is related to that. I believe um I think that um you know we some of the things that
we're looking at are they were not available in the plans that we have seen until very very recently. you know, just as by way of example, rooftop equipment, um, and the, you know, how that is visible from the
street, um, the solar panels that are going to be on the roof. I don't haven't seen a plan yet that includes those things. So, we're trying to make sure that we see the full picture here. I think there's there's some others of us who or some I shouldn't say others but there are those of us who will also have
some thoughts on sort of the architectural approach and uh our purview with with respect to the site plan review rules and regulations you know asks us to look at the fit with the neighborhood um and we want to be able to
uh address that and um look at ways in which we might have an opportunity to um credulously make a ruling on that.
So, that's sort of where some of this is coming from. And I apologize if it feels sudden um or if it feels abrupt. Um we, you know, we met on March 9th. We didn't have a whole lot of actual documentation to to respond to.
I don't know that there were folks there in the meeting who were able to answer many of our questions. Um, and it, you know, it the it went the next night for select board approval. And so
this the process is feels a little out of order. Um but but here we are and we want to do what we can to ensure that um we give this the site plan review that is robust as it needs to be and it
should be. It's a municipal project. Yes. Um but site plan review regulations apply. So with that, I would like to move on to looking at the plans themselves and work
on sort of providing some feedback. Um, I think we can provide some kind of detailed slspecific feedback as it relates to the civil um site plan drawings.
I think that we can maybe provide more highlevel feedback as it relates to the architecturals. Um, and hopefully we can reconvene and better understand what we're looking at from the standpoint of the the fit
with the neighborhood. Does that work for folks? >> If I may, um, less with Fosil, part of the design team. Um, I don't know if we have time. I know we we've gone through, you know, some of
the time going over other aspects. Um, Matt, I don't know if you agree. I I think it would be beneficial if Matt and I get to speak a little bit, just talk about where we are with the design and how this defer from what was just submitted to now. Um, and maybe that
helps the board, you know, as they look at the new set. Um, but I'll defer to you to tell me if you think that's a good idea. Nope. That's exactly where I was headed next was to ask you to explain the site plan for us. >> I guess I'll just chime in. Um I just
want to be clear that the Tecton CMS the building committee have been working under the directive of this the select board with this aggressive timeline. Um, and we've had pretty clear communications with them and they've had been pretty clear with us in terms of
where they were and also that everything we're seeing still needs to go through site plan review and and conservation review. So, um I just want to be clear that we've been driving an aggressive timeline and and the building committee and and Tecton and CMS have from our
standpoint been doing a very good job um setting the appropriate expectations and making sure that they're clear and we're clear that while it is an aggressive timeline, you know, we are not cutting corners here. We are not looking to bypass any processes. So, I just wanted to say that.
>> Thanks, Scott. And I I hope I didn't wasn't suggesting that you were trying to cut corners. No. Um we're just trying to make it um efficient. So um let's dive right in. If uh Faniel, if you want to uh pull up a site plan and walk us
through it. >> We'll do share my screen. >> Can everybody see my screen? Can you tell us which set your Sorry. >> Sorry. What about now? >> I'm sorry. Give me one second.
I lost my Zoom. Oh, there it is. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can Can you see my screen? >> Yes. >> All right. Perfect. So, we we put a um presentation to show kind of like the more of a finished look of the building as well of like a color side plan that
we want to go over to um you know, kind of give you an update um of of where we at right now and how we got here. Um before that I want to do a quick parenthesis and really quick just um say
that um the the original plans um dated from beginning of February to the plans that um were actually submitted um on Friday on response to comments from land peer review. um from a
completion standpoint and civil perspective, they have the same level of information. Um but things changed along the way. We received um comments from you know the
town from conservation commission. Um we kind of like um worked towards the the the bid set and there were a few things here and there but from a like overall um level of detail grading you
know side plans and all these things like they were pretty close. Um, I want to add that when those plans went in initially, I'm I'm flipping really quick to before I actually go over my presentation to the original set that was submitted to the board. This is this
one dated February 2nd, 2026. Um, that one um also included um some of the typical um building elevations that you will see on a submission for planning board. Um on this you can actually see that there were stuff on top of the
building. on those elevations, those were there. Um, from a detail standpoint, um, we had all the typical details that you will see now. Um, and you actually had like a full-blown site plan, um, grading plan and utility plan.
We've made changes since, for the better, we think, um, to get to where we at right now. Um, so that being said, I just want to say that the the plans that we have today from a completion standpoint are necessarily not more
complete are just slightly different because of comments that we have received um to make the project um you know pretty much responding to comments that we have received. um these revised set that we
sent on Friday um we feel pretty confident that um should be sufficient um to address the comments we received from Lantech. Um from a technical standpoint, we didn't really have any big technical comments there. Um so I
know Julie said she was going to be sharing those with Lantech. So, our hope is that once they review those, um, we're going to be in pretty good shape at least with Lent Tech. So, that being said, um, I will start our presentation
now. Um, and just I'm going to go to our latest side plan. Um, so pretty much this latest side plan again already has um all the latest pertinent information that was included
on the last bid. Um, last Friday it was really good that we were able to get comments from the peer reviewer. I think Julie has done a pretty good job also passing on um, comments from from the board. Same thing goes for mega on the conservation commission um that we
actually got approved by the conservation commission last Friday because we have successfully responded to all their comments. Um all those comments from land technical review, conservation commission and anything received up to last week have been already addressed on the set that is um
on the board hands right now. And this is a pretty much a um color rendered of of of that set if I if you could say that. So from a general standpoint, the layout hasn't really
changed. Most of the changes that has happened since are pretty much negable unless I tell you specifically what those are. Other than the landscaping that was added um pretty much um in the front of the building here
um in the front of the out building um as well on the right side of the site on the eastern side um to help kind of mitigate some of the tree cut it. Um most of these landscaping on the right side came from comcomments. Um a lot of the landscaping on the front
of the building and out building as well as the um a 4ft tall um fence that is also acting as a um fall protection um that came from planning board on the last hearing. So all those items um have been incorporated. Um other than that um
the actual number of parking spaces um the circulation of the site um location of EV charging spaces or accessible spaces um location of out building main building none of that has um really
changed um since. Um so again really quick you have your eastern drive that is an way in and out um with about 1 2 3 4 5 six um nine parking spaces in this area with the EV um a
couple of EV spaces here. I want to point out these are EV ready spaces. Um it's not part of the project right now to actually install the charging stations. Um what EV ready means is just the com will be there. So it's like a plug-in situation. the town can go and actually buy the charging stations in a
later date and just plug it in and everything they need to get it to work will be already in there. Um, this is in compliance with the stretch code which states that 20% of your proposed parking space needs to be EV ready. They do not require any of those spaces to be
actually um working um stations um at the beginning of the project. So, as you keep um coming through the side right there, you have um the the front area here, it's the existing fire station to remain and be remodeled um
with the apparatus base there to remain. Um and then on the back, you can see the proposed fire station building addition. um which is pretty much um what is driving u most of the side work to be pushed towards the back of the site to
be able to get the fire department um the program they need um from an operation perspective. So you have your oneway drive as you navigate to the back. Once you get to the back you have again you go back to a two-way situation. Um um 22 to 24 feet driveway
per town bylaws. you need a 225 22 foot on driveway width. We did make the one on the back 24 um as we were coordinating with the fire department because they felt as these are is a little bit tighter they wanted to make sure that the turning movements work and we provided like multiple turning
movements and we worked together with fire department to make sure that they felt um comfortable about where we were with that. So this drive on the back is 24. Everything else is 22. Um that is two-way as you keep coming um pretty much counterclockwise.
Um then you have um your accessible spaces here in this area which is the area closest to the um new main entry. Um and then you have still your retaining walls on the other side um of the of the drive. Um as you know we have
wetlands pretty close. Um, so that's why you don't really see any parking spaces on the other side of the drive. Um, we only have a guard rail with the retaining wall um to make sure that we are kind of like accounting for the grade difference there and protections
for the vehicles as we have like a considerable um grade change from the top top of the wall to the bottom of the wall. As you keep coming and navigating pretty much in this direction where my cursor is, you get to the um out building area where is where um they're
going to pretty much use it for storage and maintenance um for some of the vehicles they have. Um and then there is um another retaining wall with steps just to provide access to this lowlevel area here. And that's more just for like um the fire department to be able to use
her for like the annual picnic um barbecue area. they're going to put like a few um tables down there and cook, you know, some nice cooked meals and just, you know, have their annual barbecue and also have access to um where um the leashing field, the proposed leashing
field will be located. Um so that's kind of like the the the intent with those steps um there. So that way they don't really have to like walk all the way down the driveway and kind of like leave the side to then come back and access that area. Um, now that sends us back to the front
of the site where again we have these new revised um, landscape areas that you're going to be also able to see on some nice renders that u we work with Tekon to to put. So like in the next slides um, Matt will go over those. So
you'll have other views of of of what that planting looks like um, and the finished product of the building. Um overall then you have your utility um generator transformer area in this area which is pretty close to where it is
right now. Um that's kind of the existing location of the generator. Um and then you have um many bowlers here just to protect that area with um the retaining wall in the front of the building being reconstructed and with a new layout to accommodate that um
transformation generator. Um other than that um I want to give a quick update on um the status on that like I mentioned before we got approval from ComCom um last Friday we also got
conditional approval from the board of health on the leashing field um um few weeks ago I want to say almost a month ago at this point and then the one item that is being coordinated right now is the well um public versus private
well in which it seems more and more that we're getting towards the the public route um for the public well. Um however, there's still discussions on how we want to proceed to make sure that the actual Thailand project is not impacted and there are discussions that
we might move forward with permitting the private well and then still through the denda process get a new location for a public well. That way um even though we might not be done with the peritting permitting of the public well because that will be done through DP, it takes
about six months at least to get that done. If we locate that well in an area that regardless if it is private or public, it will not have any impact to the actual development or the site layout per se. it will be much better
because it will only be a permanent effort, not necessarily any repercussions on your side layout or scope of work outside of the well. So that's already on the works and the plan is to be able to have that um through the agenda process now so it's accounted
on the final bid numbers that we get from the contractors from the biders. >> Um >> quick question. >> Yes, >> sorry to interrupt you. Thank you for this. Um, is there a site plan that expands beyond the scope of this property that shows where a public water
supply would be located and that it's the um the wellhead protection zone is possible. >> Yes. So, um sheet um GI 0 that's part of
the plan set of permanent plan set. We call that like our index sheet is pretty much like to your point like a graphical representation of a bigger scale of you know everything that is around your site per perspective. This is the limit of of of your site. This is the web one that
we've been referring to. And then um there there is um a um you know your district boundary of like general residence A versus general residence B. Um, in this one, one thing we don't show
on this one because it's for context only is the actual location of your public well, um, from the town hall that is located. Um, I'm gonna, sorry for this, but I'm going to flip really quick. >> Okay. >> To the side plan just to show kind of
the limit of the existing public wall just for reference. you can see that is pretty much um you know within this wetland area and like almost hits your proposed building location. So on that perspective you can see that it pretty much ends right before where your
proposed parking will end for the for the new development. Um so going back to that index sheet again I apologize for the back and forth. I know it's not easy on the eye. um you looking at that
public well boundary not going past where this red line is right now. I don't know if you can see this line. >> Yes. So that being said, um the early considerations that we are um talking about about the the possible location for a new public well, it's it's
somewhere in in this area up here in which we will make sure that it will not overlap with existing public well zone one and it will also not overlap with the proposed leashing field um kind of like 100 foot buffer that you need from from the well to that. So we feel
confident that we have areas up here that we can locate that well and avoid any kind of like overlapping with um the existing public um well sun one and the proposed leashing field location. I don't know if that answered your question but that's kind of like
>> it's a great first start. Thank you so much for for illustrating that and no worries flipping back and forth between slides. I just um it's an important aspect to me and I just want to make sure that that the feasibility of that is not diminished at this early stage of
planning. Um >> no no we we we feel pretty comfortable that we can do that. Um you know I don't want to oversimplify it. Um from a cost perspective the biggest thing is going to be longer um runs for your for your for your trenching of >> course. Um, from a construction
standpoint, um, I think the biggest impact for the project will be the cost and time implications with the mass DP permanent, not necessarily construction wise, but permanent wise is where the >> right, which which I think is is fine. I
I just want to make sure that there's a feasible route to a public supply >> that includes whatever. I I don't know enough about it to do more than cause trouble tonight, but I um I I just want to make sure that we have, you know, if we need access to the wellhead for
maintenance and service that we're not uh per, you know, banking on something that's going to be problematic from a conservation standpoint, wetland standpoint and so forth to be able to get, you know, access in perpetuity to to that wellhead service location. >> Yeah. and and and this will probably you
know help you ease um your mind on that in a little bit. Um I believe one of the um conditions that we will get from ComCom because that that was discussed in last meeting is that if the new well location ends up being within the 100 foot of the wetland which is the
conservation perview uh we're going to have to kind of like go back to them for for the well just to make sure they have a chance to look at that and that they feel comfortable with that location. Um so so that's already part of the plan. Um so yeah definitely a pretty good question because Com had kind of the
same line of thought. So thank you. Thank you. >> So just so I understand just just way the um the existing well you said is a public water supply but we can't reuse that because it comes too close to the uh buildings
um construction to fall to meet the uh the no build zone or something like that. So there are um >> you showed a radius. You showed a radius.
>> Yeah, that was that was for the town hall. Well, not not the fire department. Well, >> yeah. So, yeah. So, exactly the town hall well, it's it's it's the one up here. This is that son one. That's the public one. The existing fire station,
um it's under a private well. That well is located right here. I don't know if you can see this little circle with the D. >> Thank you. >> That's the location um of the um existing Well, no, I lied. It's right here. The one with the W. >> Makes more sense than the D.
>> Yeah. So, that one it's the the private one. I want to point out that one of the biggest kind of like things that we we've been trying to coordinate is that under the thresholds from mass DP of what's considered a public well versus private
as it currently stands the proposed fire station would fall as a private well. However, the town is concerned about how the um kind of like the training room will be used by the public and they
don't want to kind of constrain how much they can use it. The current plan is for the fire department to use that training room about three times per month, which it's about 36 times per year and that's 50 people in that room. So technically,
I don't want to get too um technical on what the requirements are, but just to keep it simple, that leaves you with about one to twice per month for the public to be able to use the training room without the well having to be considered a public well. So that's
where the town feels um the board of health in this case and I even feel Matt Gif the building committee feels pretty similar to this that they they want to find a way in which that once or twice per month for the public use how they
can find a way not to constrain that not to say that they know for a fact they will use it more than that they just want to know can we decide in a way that we have the ability not to so that's where the private versus public well. Um kind of like the dilemma or situation
comes from um >> and the town hall well can't be used for this purpose. >> No, because right the well if that's it's not out of the picture. It could be
um you could well it could be we will have to do a physibility analysis to know if it could be used but that's a possibility pretty much >> and the the site plan activities within the
um zone one area of the town hall well is allowed per the wellres. >> So that's a pretty um great question. So where we land right now is that there are pretty specific um regulations of
what you can and cannot do within a son one. Um the biggest thing is you you you are not supposed to provide um propose any infiltration systems there which we are not. um in
theory under regular circumstances even adding in previous area um it's a you know pretty hard sell to the EP however um there also put a lot of importance into
making it better than what it is right now and that's our argument because right now under existing conditions it will sound weird but the existing leashing field actually is within the sun one. Furthermore,
a lot of this current impervious area under existing conditions, I'm going to flip really quick to my survey. All this impervious area here, this is the limit of the impervious area currently flows untreated to the sun one. So, you're
getting runoff from some water that is not being treated directed into that sun one. So under proposed conditions, what we are doing now is number one um that leasing field will be relocated to a location much farther all the way in the
front here. And number two, even though we are adding impervious area, all this area now all the impervious area from the site will be fully treated before being discharged to the wetland that connects to the sun one. Furthermore, our discharge point is going to be kind
of like the farthest it can be from the sun one. It will be all the way on this extreme of the wetland. So, we're not only making it, you know, we're not only treating the storm water, we are sending it much farther that will also help to provide additional call it water like
natural water quality treatment that happens to the wetland system before it reaches the sun. So, that's the argument. And so that that well uh permitting process you expect to be concurrent with this permitting process. When is that process
>> included? >> So it it will be um a separate item we hope for um we've been coordinating with the with the building inspector um and it's now confirmed that we need to have a permitted well to get building
permits. That's why the goal is probably going to be to get the private well permitted because it will be sufficient for the proposed project and then that way we can start construction and move forward and then as we work towards getting the public well permanent in
some other areas that like I said before it won't really have any impact on the actual scope that you see from a site plan perspective. it would just be longer routes pretty much for your for your water lines and that's kind of the
goal that we're shooting for. >> Um >> I appreciate that your uh ability to jump around among the plans. That's super helpful and um thank you for sharing all that. Um
as you were going through your presentation, were you moving on from where what were you going to next? because I have some site plan questions and I think the board may as well and it might be beneficial to pause. >> Yes, for sure. I was just going to point I think I was done with with the portion of the site plan and then we can hear
listen to your questions and then we have also Matt from Tacton to answer and go over side renders and and and building related questions. I I also want to point out that if needed, we have it handed here our official response to comments to Lantech. Um that
shows um you know responses to each of their comments and how we address their comments. Um and like I said before um those comments um should already um be addressed on those plans. So yeah, I'm more than happy to listen to any site
plans questions you have um and and and answer if if it's if possible. Okay, I'll open up to the board. I have questions myself, but um I'll open up to the board for site plan questions. >> Not sure where to stop. >> Um
>> well, let's remember um let's maybe remember what our charge is. >> Uh understood that it's hard not to nerd out because that's what we do. Um,
so you know, we're looking at maybe um maybe Julie can kind of summarize for us the kind of purview of the planning board and what we're looking at uh from the
standpoint of the site plan, circulation, safety, etc. >> Yeah. So, one second real quick. I'll just screen share with you guys. So, under the zoning bylaw, the jurisdiction that you have under site
plan review is listed here under 7.6.3. Um, okay. So, let's just look at that quickly. So that's uh protection of adjoining premises, convenience and safety of vehicular and per pedestrian movement. Um adequacy as to the arrangement of
number of parking spaces and loading spaces. Adequacy as to the arrangement of proposed buildings, structures, freestanding signs, sighting, screening, landscaping. Adequacy for the methods of sewage, refuse, and other waste disposal. Protection of the town's resources.
Protection of the public health and safety and maintenance of ways against extraordinary wear or damage. Is there is that the extent of 7.6.3? >> Yes. Um and then under the planning board's rules and regulations for site
plan review, the the regulations do expand on these themes and then also include design review as well. and um looking at the building in terms of its relation to the neighborhood character, terms of scale, massing, architecture,
all that. Okay, I can pull that up if you would like me to as well. Um, no, I think that I think that's fine. Uh, I was just trying to, uh, make sure that we
kind of generally stay in our lane. And that's as much about that's as much a message to me, Joe, as it is to you. So, take it away. So you get you provided uh turning turning movements uh as one of the uh
the files that you looked at for uh I believe was coming into the facility um in particular to the first set of garage bays. Um and some of those movements show like they're they're pretty close to curb lines. And given
that you're going to have a a granite curb with a 6-in reveal, I would have concerns about tire curb interface issues with flat tires. Um, is there anything uh that can be done to possibly address that
given that uh your turning diagram comes fairly close and I know it'll won't be the same consistent movement each time, but um I see that as a problem. >> Yeah, that that's a great question. I'm I'm gonna steal the screen. Um, actually, am I sharing the wrong screen?
>> I know you've got a a tapered uh curb someplace. I don't know if it's called out here or not, but that would solve my concern obviously, but um >> so I think these are the turning movements um you are referring to that
we submitted um with the application. >> Yeah, in particular the bottom one. All right. You can see that making contact with the curved corner. We're pretty close. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Close enough. Close enough that someone's going to hit that. Let's put it that way. Or ride up over it,
>> which Yeah. You know, you're probably going to rip your sidewall or something. >> Yeah. So, you know, like we, you know, us as a design team and you know, and you know, working together with the fire
department, um, we we feel, you know, confident that that this work. But yeah, it's it's it's easy enough to um either call for um mountable curbs there, which could be a call it
>> um you know 45 degree curb or we can call for a flush curb there also. >> Y we can we can expand the radius. Any preference on what you would like to see? >> The concern is you get a flat tire that means that vehicle's down. It can't respond to emergency. That comes a
safety issue. So, so like >> that's kind of what I'm getting to. >> If we were to make the radius larger like something here. >> Okay. All right. >> I'm just pointing it out from from just observation. The other one's come around the corner in front of the generator.
You got ballids. >> And again, um, looks like it's pretty close to one of the ballids there in terms of clearances. And I could I could envision trucks cutting that corner with the mid audited overhang of a truck uh basically creasing that whole thing
exiting the the garage. So >> well that's coming in. This is coming in. Yeah. >> Well, coming in and coming out still it's turning. So you know so the the lead end of whatever is there. >> Yeah. This is the coming out now. Yep. >> Right. So again um from a clearance
perspective it's it's tight >> closer than I I would prefer for comfort. >> Yeah, like I said, we we we can look at these things for sure. We can, you know, um there's definitely great comments. Um I I think we we will look at those
areas, see where there's room to add them a few more things. Um, I think the one thing that I just want to point out is that um, I don't know if the shift is here, but like we've we've worked with the chief together to to get to this layout and
make sure that they were confident, but it's always good to have a new pair of eyes that was not involved with the design to point out things that sometimes are not as apparent to people that are looking at this every day. So, >> so the other thing with respect to turning movements is you you show the the the lower half of the entrance
section of the new facility. Um, and I don't know if maybe Chief Sorrowos has has uh has an opinion this, but do we envision fire apparatus going around the back of the building that would be concerned about turning movements that would account for anything coming back
there if necessary or needed that would prevent that from doing that based on this layout? >> So, that's a pretty good question. Initially they had concerns about this here. >> Um that's why this is the one drive that if I were to go to the side plans this
is the one that is um wait this is not the latest one. My bad. This is the old set that I just opened. Um this is the only one that is 24. And just for reference um this is the old set the first one that was submitted to you that was 22. So when we coordinated
with the sheep, they had concerns about high tide, how tight this was and the turning radius. So we made that 24 and then we come up with the sorry for all the flipping between the screens um with this new layout that is now 24 and they
felt way more confident like you can see how far is from the curbs um in this instance. So yeah, that that was an area of concern that has been worked out with with the fire chief and fire department. >> Okay. Um, you show detention basins in your in your in your
>> Oh, before we get there, I'm sorry. Just want to while we're on the turning radi, I had some questions here. Um, I think the last time we we met, we understood that the um that fire apparatus would be coming the wrong way down the oneway
section at times and potentially conflicting with um vehicular traffic, cars coming in and trying to get around the building. Um we had some concerns about that drive being one way and that would result in that.
It looks like from the turning radi that you provided that the apparatus is really only going the correct way down the down the one way. Is that accurate? >> Yeah. So we did so this was a pretty um
we had to kind of negotiate with too we were kind of in the middle of like you know planning board wants more roomcom wants less because of the proximity to the wetland. So the original plan said that was submitted to you was actually 14 feet.
So we actually we're still calling it one way because per your bylaw I think anything less than I could be wrong but I think anything less than 22. >> Just sorry that's not my question. My question is on the turning radius dira. >> Yeah. >> All the movements that go down that
oneway section are shown as going the correct way down that oneway section I believe. >> Yep. Yep. >> When we met at the beginning of March, um I maybe I'm misremembering. Are other people remembering this? That we were
um we understood that there would be there was the potential for trucks to be coming the opposite direction down that one way. >> Correct. I see Joe nodding. And we were concerned with those conflicts. I'm just asking is is had is is there an
abandonment of this idea that the trucks would come the wrong way down that one way? >> So I think and maybe I took too long to to get to my answer. I think what I'll say >> yeah what what I'll say is these are
emergency vehicles. So in theory they will do whatever they want when they need to do it will be kind of like the short answer. However, it it will not be um the the normal operation for them to
go that way. However, and this is where I was going with my comment, um we've made that wider from 14 >> to 19 to even have more room for the instances in which that might happen.
So do we still have the opportunity to make that 24 to >> at this point go I will have to go back to concom they were already even so their point of view about this on concom was if it is required by the bylaws that
you have to do it go and do it if this is something that is more of an ask and not really coming from the fire department they weren't really too happy so we got to a middle ground of like getting to 19 ft So we made it wider than what it was but not 24 because you are really by pushing
this you need to push your parking spaces and you get really close to your wetland here when you add the grading and the tree clearing that you will have to do. Just to put in perspective right now when you add your grading this is how close you get to your wetland. You
only have like five feet here. So >> yeah, but if you make the if you make the roadway wider past that I mean you've got more than probably 10 15 feet on average. >> You could put a 30 foot roadway against the building there and still >> No, I I think it works. >> Well, it works. So the pinch head is
this corner of the building >> which aligns with the parking. If I push the roadway, I need to push the parking. If I push the parking, I push the gra in which is going to pretty much land on the web. That That's kind of like >> Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just going this is a
>> this is a 40-year project that criteria is going to change over time in terms of needs. And I'm not that I'm dismissing conservation commission here, but um I've seen enough of this over the course of my time in public projects where, you know, if they had done the right thing up front, it would have caused less of
an issue 20 30 years down the road. >> That's fine. just making my observations >> um that I think it's better to do this now because it'll never happen later.
>> Not really sure what Oh, sorry. >> All right. Um can you explain a little more about the benefits of going to 19 ft? I I mean I understand there's more maneuvering room there between the building and the edge of pavement, but it's not tight. If
there's a if there's a truck coming page southbound and a vehicle passenger vehicle going northbound, they still won't be able to get past each other at 19 ft. So, I'm not sure I understand the value of of 19 ft versus 14 ft, just that there's more maneuvering room for
the vehicles that are passing along that section of road. >> Well, I guess the point was to try to give both boards a middle ground, right? One is telling me keep at 14. One is telling me make it 24. So we were, you
know, finding a middle ground of like giving more maneuver range to the truck and um and and and and that's as much as we can get without getting closer to the wetland. If the board feels that 19 doesn't really bring any benefit, I'm
pretty sure Com will be really happy if we were to tell them that we're pulling this back to 14. But I I honestly as a side civil engineer um you could see a lot of municipalities out there. Um I will have to even go and check exactly
what is it for um for your town. It's not 24. I think it's 22 the minimum requirement for a two-way drive. Um however, many municipalities have as little as 20 as 20 feet as a two-way drive. So, in theory, you could have a
truck and a car parked right there and and do that. Are we expecting that to happen? Not really. But that's kind of how we landed on the 19 by the arrow. I believe there's a a person door and I believe there's some ballards outside of that person door and
a different plan. So, it constricts down to >> less than 19. >> That has been removed since >> the person door has >> the door is not there anymore. >> Okay. Okay. I I guess the other thing just as we're
discussing this is is that parking space that seems to be controlling the width of this section of road necessary to be there. Is there another location that that parking space could be? >> If I'm being honest here, like I I think if you ask fire department,
even the town hall right next, I think they would love to actually see more parking than what we're show. just can't because we have too many constraints with the wetland. We we are out of room of where we can put any additional parking. Like if you if you were to follow all of this, adding more parking
will be even getting even closer to the wetland than where the current um development is. Um and then on top of that, as you go to the back, you have pretty significant grade changes and you have um retaining walls here on the back. So I it it it will not be um an
easy ask um to add more parking without significant um layout changes and cost implications. >> So the other, you know, thinking outside the box, the other potential way that you can create more space there is by
pinching the building down by two or three feet um and pulling pulling it. You can't shift it all the way over because then you can't get your uh sidewalk in front of your parking spaces on the other side. But could you lose three feet of width from the
building before it gets to those truck bays? >> So I I answer that one way. >> Okay, go ahead. Yeah, let me take that way. >> So um I not not really not without making a dangerous situation within the building itself for vehicle maneuvering.
Um, typical design standards for for an apparatus bay so that you have enough clearance to operate a door within the bays, get into the truck and clear the aisle is 22 feet bay to bay. >> Um, so if we were to pinch the building down by two or three feet, we'd be having to take that away from the that
bay space >> or the firefighters access to get into the gear room. So we really can't pinch the building down any further on that side of the building to to get any appreciable amount of sight space. I was actually not suggesting taking it out of the bays. I was suggesting taking
it out of the um you know any com. So we we didn't get a sort of architectural floor plan really in the in the permitting set. We got [clears throat] it in the uh bid drawings that we got last week.
Um, and I'm just I'm just looking at this now. I'm thinking, you know, it looks like there's rooms here that could be shrunk a couple of feet without losing functionality. No, >> was it considered at all? >> I would Yeah, we've we've and happy to
have the chief chime in if if you'd like, but this building has been pinched to the to the point where if we start cutting any more, it starts to cause real programmatic challenges to their operations. Okay. Um I think one of the >> Sorry, go ahead. >> One more option here. So, we've got two
sides parking spots that are that are really pinching us down at the corner of the building here. Why can't we get rid of parking lot? Uh what is it? Number two there, the circle, whatever it is there. And then put it number two. Get rid of that first one there. Right, that goes away. Scroll up to the other
parking up the top of the the back side of the facility. add another parking spot to the right there and that alleviates that whole issue. >> You mean in the row of four or in the row of 10? >> The row of 10. I I I want to add that it
again it this is where we we are threading the needle pretty pretty pretty close with different boards and and and what the you know each kind of like board is doing you know their job actually pretty well on making sure that
what they you know their board is set to do they're doing it and like the moment that you do this >> which is kind of like what you were saying um back maybe a foot and the corner of that
lot is the wall. So what's the how much of an impact is that with concentration? >> The this this has to do with to the best of our ability also um at this instance no trying to minimize
>> how much more we kind of get like closer and closer to the center of that public well and how much more impervious area we're adding there together with the location of the wall. Again, you know, this is something that if the board feels strong about it, we could do it.
>> How much of an impact how much of an impact are we talking here with with uh what uh 10 by what call it 15 by 10 uh >> parking space? 15 by eight, whatever it is. >> Eight. Yeah. I mean, >> it's it's about I I want to point out
that you need another probably like right now to be safe, you need about um call it 10 feet almost from the edge of your parking to the end of your wall. So, by the time you do that,
>> why why do you need 10 feet? >> Because this is a pretty big great difference. So, you have a guardrail. So, you need enough separation between the curve and the guardrail because the bumpers of the cars, they overhand. If not, people is going to hit the guardrail all the time. And then you need enough separation between the guardrail and the top of wall because if
not, your guardrail is pretty much conflicting with that top of wall. So like when you add a like a safe, you have a 0.5 curb, then you have another three feet for the guardrail. Again, you want you want to make sure that this guardrail, the post, they don't really conflict with
>> Yeah, I got this. This looks this looks to me like a design exception to make this work. And I'm not trying to cut you off, but I mean there there are ways to work around this rather than sticking to um and I won't call them arbitrary, but you I know your guidelines you're trying to follow here, but I think it could be
it could be worked in here where you could you could mitigate this to make this work here and then you increase the size of your roadway to, you know, even if it's 20 feet or whatever it is, make it two lanes and no one's getting stuck to get by in a birectional fashion for the next 40 years.
>> I I I I understand. I just want you to know that unfortunately between planning board and com the design team the applicant or you know all of us we are putting a really tough situation in which >> No, I got it. I'm not trying not trying
to put you in a hard spot longterm the long-term benefit here >> for the functionality of the facility. >> Yeah. No, I hear you and and and and I'm not saying I disagree with one board or the other. I'm saying that actually both are doing what they're supposed to do.
They're trying to really look at this. So, it's more a matter that like I said before, even with com like the moment that I'm telling them and getting even closer to the wetland for them is like, is this a requirement or is this a good thing to do? And that's where I'm like,
you know, you know, like they could come back saying like, okay, do you really need this to be 24? So, why are you putting that park in there? and not like that's where I'm like we are having a really tough time making sure that both boards are satisfied because the some of the comments are conflicting each other.
>> So I could ask the same thing in conservation commission. Is this a requirement or is this a nice to have? >> Well for them in theory I do want to say that they already have a draft bylaw for wetlands that really regulates the work within the 25 foot buffer. So it's
really soon for them like as soon as maybe this year it's going to be a requirement to not get within 25 ft of the wetland. >> That's fine. Okay. I'm again I'm just I'm I'm exploring as much as I can to to work for the long term. So
>> if it's helpful if it's helpful the east side of the um drive is authorized personnel and the left side is the public. So the design of it was that the right hand side this is authorized personnel for one thing leaving out of there the
sightelines aren't aren't as good. They're like coming out of the out of the um town hall whereas the left the the western side that's the the side the public comes and goes out of so that the public wouldn't necessarily be going
through that. So that that kind of leads to another general comment which is um set of sort of a signage and wayfinding um set of plans that we haven't been able to evaluate. Um
it would be helpful to be able to see that indicated on the on the plans. See what exactly? >> Signage. >> Signage >> stops. Okay. >> Signage is specifically in our purview. And >> yeah,
>> um we we could add a sign here saying outrage vehicles only. Um that could be done and a similar one could be added um you know somewhere along this general area too.
So the public doesn't really >> go past this area like some kind of signage. >> No, the public goes to the back, but they come and go through the west side. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. So like maybe just another sign
>> right here. Right. Like one. >> Yeah. And I think I think um Right. And it's a Are are you saying, Chief, as well that because the sight lines from that eastern driveway are not great that the
intent is not for the public to park um in the eastern side parking spaces either. It's really for them to park to enter and exit on the left side on the west side and use the parking spaces on the side and in the back. >> Correct. So given that that's a change in the
pattern that from what we really have today, it' be helpful to also have signage out at the road. >> Um, Chief, uh, yeah, I think we we we can have that conversation separately. Uh, because I Yeah, I I
>> The exception The exception was that we we wanted town hall people to be able to use the electric >> EV. Yes. Parking. Fine. Yep. That's I think you can cover that in signage, >> right? like we've beat this parking to death, but I have one last idea. Um, there's
north of the proposed building, there are two east west spaces. Um, if you go up now, no. Can you know go to the right >> here? th those two. It could you add two
more of those above those two and then delete the four and just make that three? I realize that would make the landscape area smaller, but it looks like you could get two spaces there. You you would gain two spaces, you would make the two two spaces become
four spaces and the and the four spaces become three spaces. >> Yeah, again that that could be done. Um, I do want to point out this is merely the three feet that we were saying. So, if you have larger trucks parking there,
like if somebody parks on this space kind of like almost in line with the with the curb, as you know, you can't really control where people like real lines on the parking, you are risking like these bumpers like kind of like this will like what you are stating right now is to do
that, right? >> Yeah. Though it wouldn't be that wide. No, it would just be the width of the two spaces. >> No, I I I you know, I know what you're saying. It will be >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> There. So, it will get almost all the way up here.
>> Um so, I want to add that by doing that, you're adding um extra constraints for the for the trucks to turn here because now >> it looks like it looks like the forward spaces could be nudged a little bit to the little bit south. You have a little bit of room there.
Um, yes. I I don't I don't want to look like I'm saying no. And no, there are other conditions like you don't want like this is like a safe that you want from your building. It's like a typical hammerhead that you have from the edge of a parking as people is backing out. So there are
things that could be done. I'm not saying I'm just saying now we get into the okay, what do we give to get something else? And that's where it gets tricky now. >> So I I think that the the team has our feedback here. We're concerned about the
safety of that uh drive aisle. Um authorized personnel access helps. If that's the case, signage is critical. Um, you know, I'm not saying that we should
dismiss this, but um I think it's worth having the the team just take another look at whether or not that one parking space can be lost can not lost, but can be accommodated elsewhere so that we can convince ourselves that this truly is, you know, you've got you've got quite a
brain trust here, guys, to be perfectly honest. So, it's worth um convincing us and convincing ourselves that you're um that you've done what you can and that we we believe that this is the best solution. Um so, we can move on from
this item. I believe uh are there other comments on the site layout? >> Uh just one quick one. So you you show detention um tanks I guess under the >> right and so would will there be any
need for access to those that we need to provide that we need to be concerned about? >> No. So those things um all they will need is what we call inspection ports. So you see these little circles here. >> Yep. Those are openings that you can just pop open like a
>> So, they just need to put a camera down there or whatever else. >> A camera or like a um a um Yeah, like a palm truck. Yep. >> I just didn't know how big the vault was or that someone needed to get in there or something needed to happen for >> No, these are
>> these are actually um pretty shallow. Um the top of the chamber is about 190 >> and the bottom of the chamber so these are only two and a half. Yeah, these are pretty shallow. >> I didn't see that. I do. >> I have one final question. Um, and I'm
mindful of the pile of snow that's still out in front of my house despite these warm temperatures that we've had. Um, have you identified a way that you'll remove snow in the winter time and how that will be handled? >> Yeah. So, so, so
>> I I want to point out that I want to start with if you get big storms like we were getting recently, I guess at that point everybody's over capacity, right? Like nobody knows where to really put it. Um, for the most part, um, we are being inclined on this
project to propose locations within parking spaces to also, um, show us, um, snow. Um many of the concerns that the conservation commission had was about you know pushing snow down the areas where we are really close to the wetland
edges. So there are signs there um kind of saying you know sensitive I'm going to show it on this plan um approximal location of sensitive wetland areas nearby. No dumping sign. So like
this area really close to the wetland wouldn't be able to have a snow. um you can't because this is a son one you can't bring snow from other parts of the project and put it here that's a no no so you are constrained with pretty much
these areas and we have a snow storage plan um within the storm water report that was submitted uh but like you are left with like these locations there locations here on the front and then you could use these spaces here to store the
snow that is collected from the sun one but not from the outside. So to answer your question, if you get a lot of snow during those instances, we will probably be using in previous area to store most of that snow um if there is no ability
to actually take it off the site. >> So I think this is another aspect of the signage uh package that we would like to have per a purview over, we do have purview over and we'd like to see. Um, I think it's going to get pretty complex
to have it signage that's explains about zone one storage and not storage. I I know that uh the chief um has good control over the operating operations and maintenance of the site today, but
uh distant future when >> other people are in charge of this. It's just got to be really clear what you can and can't do. >> Who plows this site? DP DPW or the fire department >> chief?
>> Yeah, it's it's done by the DPW generally. Uh we use our private vehicles at times to assist. >> So just for reference and I'll give the the past big storm we had over this year. Um
how was that addressed? We have I mean it's just pushed to the sides right now. >> The town in the past has brought down front end loaders and loaded it into uh you farmed it someplace else. Y
>> this year was just pushed out into the grass. >> So we do we would typically see on the site the civil site plan the snow storage areas. So if that can be added that would be helpful as well.
>> Yep. >> So I have another site plan question does um that I'll just jump in on which is that um I believe that the tower that is to the north of the uh bu the proposed addition kind of near where the EV handicap
parking spaces is remaining. >> Yes. It's not shown really, you know, it's not shown clearly as such. Um, it's it's not shown as being demolished on the demolition plans. Um,
>> it's just meaning like when you showed us your rendered site plan, it wasn't depicted on the rendered site plan. when you're kind of thumbming through the site, the civil site plan, the utility plan, all that stuff, it looks like a background element
because it's pre-existing. But it but it's important to note that there is this fence that's around it, right? And that fence that's there today is to remain. So that has a visual impact as well. So that should be depicted on the plans that we
look at so we understand um what that is. >> Yeah. So is this what you so yeah we we can find a way to better detect it right now on the demo plan that is CP 101 on the permanent set which is the plan that
has any information pertinent to existing site conditions or features to remain or be demolished. we are calling it to remain um tower and defense and then everything else we're just making sure that we don't show any proposed
work conflicting with that but if if if you want us to like maybe show you know this >> well let me ask colleagues did did folks um when reviewing this site plan did you appreciate the fact that there was a
pre-existing tower in that location that was to remain and did you understand how it fit with the proposed site plan. >> Pick up on that. >> It was depict I I picked it up uh in the last review that it's still there.
>> Is it Is it going to be included in the renderings? Um I'm not sure. I >> It is. And these are the renders that Matt was planning on going over. So Matt, sorry. I'm going to quickly flip to that one just for reference. So, this is one of the revised renders that we
were planning on going over. >> Yeah, I think it's important for the because so much of this site is being rebuilt. I think it's important to pick to depict on the site plan
what previously existing elements are remaining in their the state that they're in. So for instance, there's also the uh the stairs down from the uh front entrance.
>> Yeah, that's gone. >> And the walk that goes down to it, that's it goes down to land at now a uh retaining wall. Um is that to remain? >> No. All of that is to be gone per the
demo plan. So that front door is no longer going to be used. Um those steps are gone. Walks is gone. These walls are gone. They're going to be redone under the proposed work. So all of that is gone. >> So when you look at this site plan,
you can't tell the difference. this the this the proposed site plan. You can't tell the difference between those two elements because they're you'd have to see it in the context of the demo plan, right? So, I think it's important to show in
the proposed site plan what will be there in the future when it is all built out, including that tower. >> I believe this will still be there. The uh the the walkway will be gone. >> Right. No, I understand that. I'm just saying when you look at the site plan, you can't tell the difference,
>> right? >> Yeah, we can we can add kind of like some kind of hash or something around this antenna and make sure that it's called out in every plan to be clear like this is the one aspect that is remaining. Um, and we can make sure that it pops up in every in every plan for
sure. Just one further question about that front walk and the um and the front door. Um it is the front door to remain. So it it's hard to tell. Is that being kind of
bricked over? >> It will be remain as an exit to the building and um just will not be a front door anymore. The glass will be frosted. Um, and it won't look like an entrance
anymore, but it it will be a viable exit. >> So, it's an exit with that takes you out onto lawn. >> Yes. Just >> is it a means of egress? >> Yes.
Is that compliant with >> I mean not not illegal, but that that's the idea is that you know you should have another way to get out without having to go out in a window and the door exists. There's no point in >> it is it is it is it is not part of the
building egress system. >> Correct. >> It's an additional accessory egress. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> That's what I was getting at. Thank you. So that that uh mezzanine space that's in the in that area doesn't need a
direct means of egress to the outside. >> No, that's all just accessory storage uh once this project is complete. >> Okay. All right. Should we move on to architecturals and renderings? >> Yeah, Matt. So, I'll
>> actually I do I'm sorry. I have one more question on the on the site plan. So, and I'm I'm uh wearing my uh Sarah Smith hat. There was some she had some concerns about the turning radi uh for
uh wheelchair access at the parking spaces the accessible parking spaces at the front entrance and so we're the I guess the question is have these plans been um reviewed by code consultant
specifically a accessibility consultant? What what was the concern again? >> The wheelchair radius for to get from the parking space um parking spaces to come down the sidewalk
kind of headed south >> rotating where the where the sidewalk turns there. Yeah, exact. Uh no, more more page south. actually actually south. Yeah, just that
corner and coming on [clears throat] that. >> Yeah, that's where her concern was. >> Well, Matt, you can answer it has been reviewed, but like I just want to point out this is 11 foot walk here. >> Yeah. No, it's more the five foot. It's
the five- foot pinch there and the and the kind of you've got that warning strip which presumably is a is a ramp right up to >> no the ramp there all of this is flush. There is no ramp and that wiring strip
um it's compliant with accessibility. So like people that needs accessibility should be able to go over those pretty easily. So it should not oppose like any kind of movement the strip um there. >> Okay. >> There is no ramps there.
>> Okay. >> Matt, do you want to just comment about accessibility code review? >> Yeah. So we don't we don't we don't have a third party code reviewer for this project. We we do our code reviews in house. We have a licensed building official on staff. Um, these have been
reviewed and peer-reviewed uh in our in our office and we don't have any concerns with turning radiuses along this this accessible route. Okay, Julie, should I take comment comments from the public at this point um before
we move on to the architecture, the elevations, etc. or should we keep going? >> Yeah, I think that's a good idea. And then you also have Andrea Tavaris here from Lantech um and she did the civil and storm water peer review if you want to talk to her.
>> Um so I have one other question at I'm not sure where this fits in but it's um with respect to the I commented about the paving in front of the doors being versus concrete and um one of the details show something else but we can talk about this later if it's something else we'll bring it up later or now
doesn't matter. >> No go ahead bring it up. Um, so on your detail sheet, um, for your heavy pavement, you show, uh, welded wire mesh in asphalt. Um, I
don't particularly agree with that. I don't think it's a good idea. Not sure what the benefit is in terms of, uh, trying to get that to be a a more structural um, batuminous concrete. Uh, there are probably other methods that are that are
better suited to do that. um with uh corrosion, adhesion, and a bunch of other things that go along with that holding up over time. Um and then additionally on top of that, um I know there's there's four feet on top of the detention tanks that are listed below
that. Um but I assume the detention tanks are rated to support the weight above that plus the weight of the truck, etc. Uh that's going to hold up over time without failing. Um, so if someone could uh speak to that, that'll be helpful.
>> You're muted. >> Thank you, Matt. Um, so we have two different details here. Um, I I it could be confusing. Um, so the one that calls for the um welled wire match is just for the heavy duty concrete pavement. Those
are the ones um directly adjacent to the building. It's what we call like that concrete little ramp entrance into your apron. That's the only area that we call for that um heavy duty situation. Um then you have um so that's concrete and then you have a different detail for
asphalt pavement. Asphalt pavement doesn't really have any kind of wire mesh or anything like that. It's just typical pavement with your track co. >> No, I understand that. But you it it says batuminous concrete top. Buminous.
>> Betuminous is asphalt. So that's a typo. >> So you've got So it's concrete. >> Yeah, that's that's a typo. >> Fine. My you've addressed my concern. >> Yep. Sorry. I I missed that by two minutes there. Good catch.
>> Okay, I'm good. Except I'd like concrete there, but All right. If we can um maybe hear from the uh peer reviewer
um just kind of a quick summary of the uh items raised on the peer review and the ways in which they were addressed that would be super helpful. And then I'll go to public comment. >> Sure. Hi, I'm Andrea Tvaris from Lantech
Consultants. Um we were hired to be the civil engineer peer reviewer um for this project. Um so Julie has provided us with every um plan set and all of the submitts to date including um the most
recent one which um I had time to look over the um response letter. I haven't had time to look over the the drawings themselves with the changes made, but um we had very minor comments um on the
plan set and the um the storm water report. Um you know, we we talked about tonight, the turning radiuses. Um that was something that hadn't been provided to us previously, but um they were provided to us with this latest plan set
submitt. Um so that was one of our comments. We had other comments pertaining to um soil testing within the storm water systems themselves. Um since the soil testing was concentrated for um
the septic design. Um so we made the suggestion to um do soil testing prior to construction and to re report those findings to us. um we have a pretty good handle on the soil type that's out there, but we just
want to confirm um depth to groundwater and or refusal just to um you know make sure that those two subsurface storm water chamber systems are designed adequately.
Um we had other minor comments just some typos on the plans and the application themselves. Um, [snorts] you know, pertaining to the engineering design itself, um, you know, we did think it was a pretty comprehensive plan set and
storm water calculations and and report that was provided. Um, so we we really did not have any other major um comments uh to bring before the board. Great. Thank you, >> Addie. Do you want Andrea to stick
around? >> Um, no. I think I think you can go, Andrea. Thank you for your time. Sorry it took me so long to get to you. >> That's okay. If if I if I may just before you leave, Andrea, I I just want to make sure that you saw the geotechnical boring logs that were that
were done as part of this project >> because there were two borings that were in the area of the um tension basins. Um that might help you on that. In particular, boring one, which was over the larger installation um to the to the
east. Um, we didn't we didn't hit refusal until 21 feet below grade and we did not encounter uh wet so wet or damp soils within that. Okay. >> Um, and then the other one on the west
side of the building. >> Matt, are these shown somewhere on the plan set? they they are on the on report and and Matt before Andrew leaves I think their comment Andrew if I'm remembering this correctly was about I think somebody looked at some of the
borings that were there they were just saying that it would be good to do some additional testing before construction starts just to like confirm those just like a stormwater testing not necessarily to be done now just right before construction. So like what we did was we did add a call out on the plans
and and we call those out and we call it out um right here. So I don't think it's something that necessarily to be wor so performatory test page to confirm water elevation primary construction. So this
is more like a extra confirmation of what we saw in the geotech borings. So that's I believe that's how where you guys were coming from, Andrea. That's the way we read it and we added that note. >> Yes, exactly. And that's just to be um in conformance with the storm water
management standards um and just to um Exactly. to to confirm groundwater separation and and to make sure that the design is adequate. >> Yeah, for sure. Thank you. Okay.
>> Well, I have one more thing for Andrea. Uh well, it's not really for Andrea, but it's part of the uh report that she gave. She talks about that. Um you know, the the difference between 66
Westward Street and 80 Westward Street. And it's I know it's all on the same parcel, but while we're going through all this, you know, I I I don't know if this is a dumb question or not, but you know, should we maybe think about
putting the fire station on a different parcel than the the town than the rest of the town land? Sounds like a select question. >> Yeah, our our comments were just um you know related to I think the 66 versus 80
were um confused a couple of times in the application itself and on the storm water report um you know 66 is the town um and 80 is the fire station. So that those were where our comments were coming from. We didn't actually um we weren't making any type of
recommendations for any type of um parcel um reallocation or um new numbers or any type of differentiation um between the the actual numbers. Um but certainly I'll defer to the board
for any other recommendations. Well, well, actually the thing was was I thought you brought up a good point in pointing that out that, you know, we've got technically the kind of the same address for like if you go to uh if you go to
some of the maps, I think even our access GIS and plug in 80 Westford Street, you get no parcel. So, you know, and if somebody's trying to find the fire station on our own GIS,
they would get no parcel. >> So, I I and on top of that, we could we it it it is an opportunity to put it within one single, you know, the the district that doesn't require two acres. you know, you can have it be exactly what it needs to be. And, you know, I I
don't think we're I'm I'm hopeful it wouldn't be a ton of extra money, you know, thousands maybe, but you know, to to have it on its own parcel. Yeah, I think that's a more of a legal and
um select board question. Chris, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ask it, but um maybe I don't know. Uh Julie, do you have any idea how
I mean obviously if there's an there's a well that's going to end up elsewhere quite far away that could complicate that effort, right? >> Yeah. I think like let's see how this all pans out and then maybe that's
something for the future. So with the existing project, are we up against any hard deadlines to get this done because of regulatory requirements for the fire department or whatever else for the town? >> So the the Matt and somebody else can elaborate. I think the biggest thing we
had right now, our goal um we knew we were, you know, pretty tight from the beginning was to get the reviews that were required um by planning board, conservation commission, board of health done before the addenda
process is completed. So we could make sure that all these comments are incorporated into the final conform set that it's the official one um that you get the bets on pretty much. Um and like um it was no talked about earlier on on
this meeting. Um there could be up to two more maybe a little bit more agendas um with the last one being and somebody speak about this. I don't think there are set dates. Um but we're probably looking about I don't know maybe two to
three weeks um more of time to accommodate any small tweaks um through agendas. Um so it it comes back within the the bids that we get from the biders. That that's the at least from the side table perspective um um the
biggest thing that um we're trying to accommodate. That's why we tried to move pretty quick last week when we received comments from Lantech and Com to address those right away. So when we submitted on Friday to the agenda, those were already incorporated into that agenda.
So the less open items that we have and the less big changes we make as the time moves on the better because we don't want biders to come back saying, "Hey, you made a huge change now." But that's kind of where we stand. I know that was a big concerns like the cost and
everything you know being accounted for um when the bits come back. As for the uh mass GIS, I believe that's populated largely from our assessor. And since this is not a text building, I think that's largely why how
that got missed out. But the the uh police station, fire station, and town hall, I believe, are all on the same are all on what's considered one parcel. Oh, >> the uh police station's on a different parcel. >> Okay. pretty sure
that's what when I saw when I looked, but I I could have been wrong. Um, okay. So, I'd like to move on to take some public comment on site plan, not architecture. Um, is there anybody
in the in the uh in the meeting who would like to Oh, hi Sarah. [laughter] >> Hello. [gasps]
>> Anybody in the meeting who would like to raise their hand and ask any questions or comments on the site plan? >> Yes, thank you. This is Chip doing. I can't raise my can't seem to figure out how to raise my hand, but I'm speaking up in any way. In any event,
if you if you can take the time now, I can give you some of my comments. >> Uh, sure. I'm acting surprised because um I would have thought you would have needed to be given the ability to come off mute. Julie, do we have >> I didn't I did not restrict that
tonight. The Zoom has new settings, so I was able to restrict certain things, but I didn't have to restrict everything. So, >> Got it. Okay. >> But I would recommend for people to use the raise hand feature if they can. >> Okay.
>> Uh but go ahead, Chip. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I have a few short comments to share and we'll be happy to answer any questions at the end. My comments focus primarily on the site plan. At first glance, it seems that
there simply isn't enough room on this site to adequately fit the program. The storage building is located on a steep part of the site, resulting in costly retaining walls. Chip, >> I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I need
your address. Sorry. >> Sure. 36 South Street. Okay. >> Thank you. Continue, please. Yeah, the storage building is located on the steep part of the site resulting in costly retaining walls and stairways.
Also, because of its industrial aesthetic, it really doesn't belong on a scenic road at an entry point into town. It seems that a considerable expense in landscaping has been added in an effort
to screen the building. Shouldn't there be a better place for it? Regarding the septic system, the limited space on the site leaves few options for the location of the leeching field. The
resulting mound is unsightly and difficult to screen and is also on a scenic road. Vehicle circulation. The site circulation seems a bit confusing to me. Are there two entrances
for the public or only one? Parking spaces have been scattered about the site which can add to the confusion of finding an available space. The clearance for the overhead door openings for fire trucks on the inside
corners of the building is very tight and is likely to require additional maneuvering. regard to the uh public water supply which you covered covered fairly extensively in the presentation. The program and the number of people
expected to use the station for meetings and gatherings is likely to require a public water supply which can take several months to approve. Has the location, the design and cost of this been taken into account?
Where will all the people attending the meetings park their cars? We have lived in town for over 52 years and have always supported the fire department. We lost our house to a fire in 1985 in spite of the heroic efforts
of the firefighters. I want to support the proposed fire station, but the compromises brought on by the lack of available space on the site is concerning. The difficulties the police station experienced while trying to expand on a
tight site should be a lesson. Nearly all of my concerns are the result of what I believe is too much program for too little sight. That's it. Thank you for Thank you for listening.
>> Thank you, Chip. Uh, do we have any other members of the public who would like to contribute, ask a question on the site plan? >> You have Ben Herder. Addie.
>> All right, Ben. Um, >> hi. Uh, Ben Herder, 517 Bedford Road. Um, I share some of those concerns that were just brought up. Um, and I have another question as it relates to the
site plan. Um, you know, in general, what I'm mostly interested in learning about is what is the streetscape perspective? You know, how how do the public view this from the street and, you know,
outside of the site? Be good to understand how this impacts the context u along Westford Street. Um, in particular, um, I'd love to hear a little bit more about the site lighting plans. Uh, you might be getting into
that with the architecture, but if we're talking about site lighting, uh, it would be good for everyone to understand what the specifications are for this lighting, what the quantity is, what the locations are, so on and so forth. But I'll leave it at that. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Ben. Anybody else? I don't see any. >> Okay. Any other follow-ups from the board? >> No. Thank you. >> I just I I I I would like to just see the I don't know if we're going to
scroll through all those renderings. Um, but >> yeah, so that was what I was going to get to next, Eric. Uh, was architecture related items. Um, so, uh, we'll hand it back over to the project team to take us through the renderings.
>> All right. Patiently, but we made it. Good evening, everybody. My name is Matt Salad with Techon Architects. Uh so the view you're looking at here, this is the uh view from uh Westford Street
right along the intersection where it forks off to Rockland Road. Um you can see in the left the uh accessory out building uh on the left of your screen. Um that's a pre-engineered metal building. The intent there is uh to
provide accessory storage uh of additional apparatus vehicles and a lot of the materials that the fire department uses in response to a number of calls um that are currently stored in the back of the site in a in a series of um tents that are sort of scattered
about um around the radio tower uh at present. Um so being a pre-engineered metal building um they only come in a in a few different flavors. um so to speak. So that is a it's a horizontally ribbed uh insulated metal panel um with a metal
roof. Um few uh gutters and downspouts um and then the the uh sight stair that that pointed out that goes along the back. Um we are providing uh a row of trees and shrubs and things like that to provide
some screening to the roadway. What you're looking at in the rendering is sort of a day one installation that'll certainly fill in uh over time. Um off to the right um we have more screening around the transformer and the generator area.
>> Um >> m I'm sorry can I interrupt for a second just as a clarification that the the um the in planting that's shown here is different than what's shown on the on the site plan. Is the site plan the most current iteration of the landscape or is
this >> the site plan is the most current? Yeah, I think I think the one thing that's different is this has the the the trees are sort of st uh staggered in the rendering and then there's that mulched area off to the right. Those um the the the trees are more of a line in the site
plan and then that little mulched area doesn't doesn't occur. >> And the red trees are not on the site plan. that the trees that are shown in red in front of the out building are not on the same plan. >> They are >> there are there no uh there are trees that are near the road that are I think
they're the acer rubs and I don't know what the red ones are. >> Yeah, the landscape plan that we have from the bid drawings does not show trees. Um >> you should you should not look at the bid drawings for your review. Only for
architectural stuff the big drawings >> you should use. Does [laughter] the is the plan on the screen reflective of the bedrons? >> So >> I'm looking at the permitting plan set that also doesn't show trees in that
area. >> So the permitting plan set that was submitted. Um the last one is this one. This is the one in response to land tech comments. This is the one dated um oh date is not correct on that one. is the one dated
3:26 2026. That's the one we sent last Friday um around 10:30 a.m. This is the latest set. Um that's what I was trying to say like the bid documents that Matt sent are the original bid documents, not the agenda
documents that went out on Friday. Right. No, I and I and I understand that things have been, you know, that things are in process and the renderings might not have caught up, but I just want to make sure that as people are looking at the renderings that they may not reflect the current iteration of the either the
site plan or the architecture with some of the specific locations of the features. Madam, I'm sorry to interrupt you interrupting. No, it's good to, you know, coordinate all these because there's there's been a lot of moving pieces. Uh,
>> just to be clear, as it relates to submissions that get to us timely, they really need to be in by Thursday, the before our um meetings.
Our town planner, >> yeah, >> is not does not work on Fridays. So, we got this plan set this morning. >> I agree. Um, and yeah, like we will normally we we got the comments I think
like Tuesday or something. So, we weren't really expecting being honest um the board to have the time to review this in time. We just thought that at least we could say, "Hey, we have submitted it." But you are right. We were not really under the impression that the board or Lantech was going to have enough time to look at this for
sure. Okay. So just on the same point here below grade in that location according to the utility plan you have a significant amount of um infrastructure.
>> Yes. Yeah. And in fact, one of the purposes, one of the intent, part of the intent of that outbuilding is it serves as the fire pump to bring a fire suppression system that does not currently exist into the main fire station building. It's one of the
advantages of having that steep grade that exists there currently is underneath the slab of that building are 40,000 gallons of fire sistns um that live within that structure as well as the fire pump that delivers fire
suppression water to the rest of the fire station building itself. >> Yeah, but I'm referring to the pump sewer chamber, the septic tank. Do the trees conflict? I guess is the question.
>> They will be fully coordinated with those. Again, these are things that are, you know, being worked out for for the most part. We have um work that around on the on this plan. Um like I said, the permitting set,
these locations that you see here, we've been working to avoid. That's why you see like them like this gap between this tree and this is because this is where you have your septic right here and then here's where you have all their utilities. So that's
kind of like you can see so like it it's right in the middle. Um a lot of these planting are um not like really long roots. Um so yes we are working and making sure coordinating that all of that is fully coordinated on that end.
>> Okay. Well, I think we need we'd like to see that coordinated to be sure that we will actually end up with those trees >> because it doesn't look like it's going to work based on just slipping back and forth between the two plans. Yeah, we can we can give you you know
like if you want us to provide a landscape plan with the utilities on so it's clear and easy to depect that it's not conflicting, we can do that for sure. >> Thank you. Um, one other question while we're on this elev Oh, sorry. Does anybody else from the board have questions while
we're on this elevation? >> Did you already talk about signage? I apologize. I missed a lot of this. >> Yes, we did. We talked about the need for a a detailed signage plan that everything from what to do with excess
snow to authorized vehicles only, etc. >> Okay. >> I guess the only question I have at this elevation again for the accessory building, the note that I saw on the bid set said standing seam metal roof for that structure. Um
>> that's correct. It doesn't look like it's depicted in that rendering, but I'm just again um not to put too fine a point on it, but um I personally would like to see like a a spec or a cut sheet for both the roofing
material and the siding material to understand how accurate this rendering is to what is actually going to be built. um given the proximity of that structure to the road and it and um the fact that it's
kind of more of a I've uh utilitarian structure um in such a visible location. >> Okay. Yeah, we could do that. >> Thank you.
>> Mhm. Um, one of the other things you'll see in this view, um, just to the right over the existing building, um, row of windows up high, there is a monitor roof that is visible from the that's that's over the center of the building, bringing some natural daylight into some
of the deeper spaces up on the second floor. Uh, if you want to go to the next rendering. >> Wait, before you go there, I have one more question. Um, I know I'm not supposed to be looking at the bid drawings, guys, but I'm seeing VRF condensing units hanging from or uh in
the mechanical plans MP210 >> that look like they're in the vicinity of where those windows are that we're seeing to the right of the the garage base. Um, maybe they're shielded by the um transformer in this case. Uh just
wondering if if that if those are >> those are exist >> mounted pad mounted. >> Those are existing conditions. >> Well, there it's it's shown on the plan. >> Yeah, those are Yeah, those are those are existing to remain. They're they're
there on the building now. >> Okay. So, um to the extent you can see them on this plan, it would or on this rendering, I think you should show them. If you can't see them from this rendering and from this view, then that's fine. Don't think that you can, but if you can, we will show them
>> the radio tower. Antenna tower, sorry. >> Yeah. And the antenna >> showing here. >> And then they might be more visible coming from the other side, too, like coming from town. So, I would check both both views, both
angles. Um, you're coming from higher up on the other side. Can you can you go back to you said there were some sort of monitor on the that let light is that could you just describe again where that where we would see that on the the out building? >> It's not on the out building. It's on
the main building. You can just see it just off to the right just poking above the uh existing building roof. >> Um there's also a series of mechanical units up on the up on the roof of the of the new building. Those are modeled. If you could see them, you would in these renderings. They're not visible from the
ground plane. Same thing with the solar the roof mounted solar array. That's all sitting at level or below parapit wall. So, you wouldn't see that from the from the ground view either. >> And those mechanical that mechanical equipment is modeled based on the actual specs. >> Yep.
>> So, it wasn't surprised to me that there wasn't more mechanical equipment on these roofs. Um, is this an all-electric building? >> Pretty almost all electric.
The only the only gas fired appliance uh as part of this project is a backup boiler to serve the radiant heated slab for the new apparatus bay. A >> backup boiler to serve the radiant heated slab. What's the primary
>> electric? So there's a radiant electric in the in the slab. >> That's correct. >> Is it that the glycol loop is heated by uh a heat pump boiler or is it
>> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. And why do you need a backup for that? because heat pumps don't work well below 20° and when these fire trucks are coming back from an emergency response uh when it's really cold out like we've had in these winters, all the hose and
pipe that come on that truck is frozen solid and they need to be able to have a very short recovery time in order to get that vehicle back up and operational for the next call. So if it's 10° below zero out or 0 degrees and that heat pump
isn't isn't efficacious enough then that fire truck is going to return to the station and be down for a considerable amount of time. So by providing the gas fired uh backup for that system it allows that recovery time to be significantly reduced and and ultimately
prizes for a better performing building for the delivery of fire service. This was a lengthy discussion uh with the building committee uh town sustainability and the select board >> also has a significant effect on the
size of the generator. >> Correct. Yeah, we were able to reduce the generator by 100KW by doing that as well. >> But that implies it's not a backup. It's actually going to be used. It's not like it's a it seems more like a primary source than a backup source. It becomes
the primary source when the weather is cold enough that the heat pump will not be efficacious. >> And radiant heat works better for thawing these things out than >> it does. >> It it it does a number of things. It it
it does a better job of keeping the heat under the truck where they where they need it. It does a good job of quickly drying out the apparatus bay floor, which is a safety issue when that's when that's wet. Um, so it helps dry that out as well. Um, and it's it's a more
efficient method of heating the apparatus bays themselves. >> I I I look, I I don't want to get it. I'm not an engineer, but that just doesn't make a ton of sense to me. that slab has a spe, you know, has a heat capacity of whatever the thickness of
that slab of concrete is. When the truck pulls out to go to the the call, um, I mean, that that slab should be a constant temperature, whether it's heated with electricity or gas. And when the truck comes back with frozen hoses, I don't I don't see the slab temperature
decreasing substantially rapidly. Um, but I I'm that I I don't know. I mean I it seems um well anyway I'll stop there. Um so
do we does an existing building have have this feature? >> Does not. Do we have any sense of what it costs to operate that versus what we're It just
seems like we're heating the outside. Um are the garage bays inside or outside? I mean, this is not our purview obviously, but it was just surprising to me when I didn't see much. I I expected to see more condensers on the roof, etc. Um so it was just a
surprise to me. Uh but understood that you've had extensive discussions about it. >> Yeah. This is radiant heated slab is is is a pretty standard installation for most fire stations >> even post specialized code.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. >> We put one in for the Lex Lexington's fire headquarters uh about five years ago. specialized code >> that wasn't, but that was the first one that was that would used an a heat pump system to to heat the glycol loop
actually in the world. Um, >> have they kicked the the gas fired backup boiler on? >> Uh, they don't have one for that. Uh, [sighs] I can't recall. I think they do have one for that. And yes, it does run.
No, that was all electric. I'm sorry. that was fully electric for that system. >> Well, I I've got to say this actually it actually makes perfect sense to me because I you know I have a heat pump and I know it's way way less efficient in cold weather. But um my I guess my
question is um I lost my question. >> It'll come back to you Chris. For me, it's just a matter of dollars. Like having a redundant heating system. Well, I guess it's not totally redundant because you're still using a glycol hydronic heating system
with the heat pump. It's just got a boiler. So, really, your initial upfront cost difference is just adding the boiler, gas piping. Um, is this on a natural gas system or propane? >> Natural gas. >> Okay. So, relatively inexpensive given
the givens. Okay. Um, Eric, you've had your hand raised for a bit and I think it's on this topic. So, >> no, I I was what I wanted to do is I I wanted to um suggest that it's better thought of as a boost rather than a a backup. Um, and it is, you know, what we
had decided as a committee was the best option given the operational concerns and constraints of the of the fire department, but still being within specialized codes, so on and so forth. So, it did get a lot of review. Eric, does it trigger the requirement for additional offsets because now we
have a fossil fossil fuel burning appliance? >> It did and that's how we ended up with 30 kilowatts of um solar panels. >> Do we have a sense of what the system kind of combined costs up front relative
to the alternative? Are you are you pricing an alternate? >> You have to be careful. So um Matt can speak a little bit better to this but at the time of the conceptual design which was you know the starting budget so to speak at the um October November time
frame that I believe was a just a full natural gas system at you know was a very early stage conceptual design. So it is a a tick up from that. Um but then we did go through and look at a different a set of couple different options for how to do that and um you
know electrification and using heat pumps was a big part of it as it's already been stated that uh um radiant floor heating is is you know a good selection in large open spaces and fire stations in particular. And it was really just that boost option that we
needed to address and you know that's how we ended up in that system. >> Right. But that also then drove to the having to do the 30 kilowatts of solar, right? Because >> um that's what I sort of meant by the
full cost. Um >> yeah, the full cost. Yeah. Yep. >> So I I apologize. I lost my sound here for a bit. Um, but I did I did remember my question and that is is there an automatic switch over at a certain temperature?
And I apologize if it's already been answered. >> I believe the answer is yes, as well as automatic switch over when you're on uh generator power. >> Sounds good. The directive of the building committee to the fire department was that they
would not operate the gas fired backup boiler until such time that temperature was below um below a cold enough temperature in which the heat pump would no longer be performing its job. So this is really in those rare instances like we've had this
winter where we have that long cold stretch. Um so this is not a everyday thing or when it's convenient to be used, it's when it's a necessity. So Matt, sorry just one more question. U so we're going to invest in this 30KW solar array. Um are we going to benefit
from that on the years and majority of times when we're not I mean in other words is there batteries that we're charging? Are we can we leverage net metering here? Is there any benefit to the town other than um just the offset
to have the boiler? >> The town will own them. >> The town owns them and with and there are um net metering. So I don't have all the details on the tar on the current tariffs. Um but yeah, we would get the benefits of that. No batteries though.
>> Okay. No, that answers my question. Thank you. >> And this is this is not part of a PPA agreement. This is townowned part of the bid package. So you reap 100% of the benefits of the power generation >> including solar energy credits.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Um should we move to the next elevation? [laughter] >> Sounds great. Um, all right. Thanks, Dixosway. So, this is a little bit zoomed into the front entry
of the fire station. This is where the addition meets the existing building at the public entry. Um, so, uh, we have pre-engineered metal canopy, uh, at at the front with some dimensional lettering, uh, identifying this is the Carile Fire Station. Um we have a light
fixture just below that which is sort of that classic red globe that identifies a typical fire station. Um uh windows and entrance systems on this are all uh fiberglass entrance systems. Um and then the majority of the the entry
facade uh and around the rest of the building is is a combination of of ground face and split face CMU. Um we have a a earth tone that you can see meeting the building. Um it's sort of in line or compliment complimentary to the
pre-cast uh band um that that goes around the existing fire station itself. Um we were pretty intentional not to use brick on this one that it's a it's fairly nice brick that the existing building is is is built with. Um and trying to match that or be complimentary
to it would would wouldn't really work well. So um we went with uh the ground face and splitface block. Uh initially this was rendered when we went to the select board last fall as insulated metal panel
and ground face block. Um when we ran the uh cost estimate during design development and and realized that we were tracking higher above budget and went through the value engineering uh exercise. Um we working with our cost estimator by
changing to um ground face and split face block were able to reduce um almost a quarter million dollars um or more just out of the facade of this building. So So it made good fiscal sense to to to
switch over to this. It's a more robust um you have a little bit more longevity out of this material. Um, and it's actually pretty similar to to a lot of the exterior finishes that you have at the school. Just on the other side of the town center, there's a lot of ground face and split face block um in
insulated metal panel on on that building as well. Um just above and just out of frame that you could have seen from the the previous rendering um there's a cast stone medallion just over the right windows identifi um with the fire
department town seal cast into that um just that to help identify the entry a little bit more as well. Um, if you want to head to the next rendering. >> Sorry. Wait. >> Sure. >> Um,
I think your curbs there are flush. >> Is that right? Meaning you're you don't have a 6 in curb step up to the >> That That's not the area that is flush. It's flush as you go around where this car is parked. >> Um, okay.
Yeah, it's the area right next to the to the accessible spaces. So that's why you don't need any ramps. >> All right. So let's go to the next one then because I think it's also shown as not flush in the next one. Yeah. >> Yeah. Might have you can't see any accessible entrance here from from the
parking spaces. And then this is really where you see that pinch of the um and maybe it's just that the rendering isn't accurate, but it doesn't look like a five a clear five foot sidewalk there where you've got your
wheelchair um radiuses. Maybe it's because the foundation wall base is kind of projecting into that sidewalk. Yeah, this >> Yeah, I think that's just a it's probably just a condition of the
rendering. Um, you know, it's a rendering, not an elevation. So, it's, you know, it's never perfectly accurate, but uh I see what you're talking about. They >> And where where is the planting that you had in the last elevation? Where where should that be showing up in this in
this rendering? >> You had a planting strip somewhere. Um, >> that right there. >> That's That's no longer there, I believe. >> Yeah. So, that wasn't correct. >> This is more accurate what you're
looking at. >> This is also you're not seeing those VRFs hanging from the uh right side of the building there. You got to add those in. >> The the existing ones on the existing building >> because they will be there in the future, right? Yeah.
>> So, I have I guess this is a good time as any. I have some concerns about the material selection um now that you're bringing in insulated metal panel at the shed and um a standing seam metal roof.
That seems a very different architectural language from what you're showing here. So, now we've kind of got three buildings. Um, and I appreciate and and and you know, I really appreciate the concern of trying to be budget conscious. I'm have to do that all the
time at work. So, um, I know that I know that's not um something that you take lightly, but I do feel like we we've we've got the existing building, we've got the addition, and then we've got a shed out building, and they're not talking to each other
enough. So I mean I there's some attempt to bring in whatever that strip is. I don't know if that's a split face strip or a different color brick the stripe or on the below the parapit of the existing building. So like that's like the only thing that's continuous. So even if
there's a way to bring in a little bit of metal panel in just that sort of you're kind of articulating a tower at the entrance there where you have the canopy. Maybe there's some metal panel instead of the gray split face, or maybe there's brick somewhere, but it's just
it feels very disjointed to me. Um, and I, you know, I do appreciate that this is a this is a public building and it it's utilitarian, but I feel like it's not quite there. Um, in terms of the design, I'm also
concerned that the the main entrance is pointed to the side where people can't see from the road. So, it it seems like it's pointing a little bit in the wrong direction. It seems like it should point towards the road, but um
I'll let other I'll let other board members speak if they want to. I um feel like I have been obnoxious enough tonight. Um I I agree with Sarah. I I do feel like
it's like the story of three structures here. Um even though there's two. Um and I I again not trying to be difficult. I'm just I'm trying to think about the next 50 years and like you know this is visually prominent. Um, I'm I'm
sympathetic to the fact that we've got budgetary concerns, but I I don't know and I don't have enough specific subject matter expertise to know like if that if that the areas in gray on this elevation, for example, were metal panel
um instead of masonry um and then somehow were more congruent with the language of the accessory building. Maybe there's something in there. Um, but um
it it does it does I think that's why we spent so much time earlier tonight talking about the landscape plan because um I think a lot of us have concerns about the appearance from the street and obviously um a more
sophisticated and and robust landscape plan is going to ameliate some of our concerns with regard to these um architectural details. details. Um, so, uh, I guess I would just say I'd love I'd love to see and they're probably the
the least expensive in terms of plantings and what the the positive impact plantings can have on the overall project from an aesthetic standpoint. Um, so um my my two cents on that.
Yeah, if I if I can add um actually I guess this is going to start with a question which is um with the existing building do you have to bring that up to code do you have to I mean do you have to intercept thermal bridges and things like that? No.
>> No, because we're we're we're really doing a light touch on the interior. So, we're for the most part um to the right of the furthest apparatus bay door that you see there really the extent of renovation within that is just behind that wall just on that side of the
building underneath it. >> Yeah. >> So, so we're that portion of the building will be under what's classified as a level two alteration. >> Uh so, we don't need to bring the entire building up to code. there is a pricing alternate to do a rip and replace to the existing roof where we would be adding
some additional insulation for that. Um, but we're we're pretty limited in what we can do with that because if we we we can't bring the whole roof assembly up to code without causing some serious structural issues with the with the roof under there um and a number of other things. So, it becomes a snowball
effect. So, existing building is a light touch. >> And is the addition separated from the existing building as though it's an outdoor um separation. >> No, but there is a building joint. So, there is there is a a two-inch thick building joint between the two. So, they
they do move independently. Um but they will be combined. There there will be doorways in the interior connecting both both buildings. >> Okay. So I guess my question then goes to um
you know how to minimize right like as far as the the um architectural approach and the material selections. I feel like the colors in particular
create a such a sharp contrast to the existing brick building that it almost makes it look bigger than it is. And perhaps there's an opportunity to incorporate darker colors such as those
that were used in the renderings presented at town meeting um with the design funding request to kind of minimize the visual impact of this ex this addition on that would that
other ways makes this look like um two separate buildings. with a an a sort of uh an addition that really pops out. Um >> you know, I know I I work a lot in an
urban context and and in those contexts creating this sort of organic look of different buildings evolving over time is a good thing. I just don't know that it necessarily is in a in this setting. So I I would suggest as a sort of
baseline just looking at a somewhat darker palette >> um as a way of kind of taking that first step at minimizing the visual impact of this addition. Um
and along those lines, the the fact that there was a genuinely attractive building that was presented at town meeting um kind of led to surprise when this came as the as
the plan that was presented. And I'm wondering if there's um a way to provide an option in town meeting for an approach that has more
architecture to it with a kind of adult associated cost so that the town can make an informed decision about do we want to spend more money on a building that's um a gateway to the center of town,
historic center of town, or do we um are we are we good saving that money because we got a lot of burdens ahead of us um with DPW, etc. Has that has that approach been considered at all?
So, I would say playing with colors and things like that and maybe a couple of isolated areas like the front entry, adding back a little bit of insulated metal panel to that I think is is is reasonable and can be accommodated within the time frame that we're that we have. Um, if we were to wholesale change
the envelope to an insulated metal panel system from masonry, it's a completely different envelope system. It's not just changing the material. It's the entire backup system and the foundation that has to change completely with that. That would not be a practical change uh to make it this time as an alternate. That
would be cancelling the bid. It would be a few months of of rework in order to accommodate all that. Um >> I think there may be something in the middle of that continuum. Yeah, I I I agree. Like like I said, I
think if if we if we can if we modify some of the materials around the entry where we're where like like like Eric was was noting uh to some of the insulated metal panel and then darkened up some of the tones, played with played with a little bit of the you know the material pallet within the materials
that we have now, I think we can probably achieve what you're what you're looking for. >> Well, I think that achieves what I'm looking for as it relates to the first question, but not the second question. which is giving the town an option.
And I'm not saying that the alternative is a full metal panel system. There may be another way of looking at this. Um but there was a particular visual presented that was striking quite frankly.
Yeah. the the proposal shown at town meeting I thought made the existing building look better and I I don't think that's still the case unfortunately. Um but maybe focusing on the parts of the building that you see most you know clearest from the street
um like the entry piece here might might be a good place to start. Can I also go ask and I apologize if I missed this please ignore the question but um did the we also didn't see that um auxiliary that outbuilding at town meeting what
was the need that precipitated that was that taken out of the existing was it taken out of the addition or was it a need that was discovered after you got through conceptual design? >> It it was it was it was uh it was part of both. It was part of the project
originally. it just wasn't part of the rendering that was presented at town meeting. So, it was always part of the plan. Um there was there was a need for specific attached to the main structure um apparatus storage space to expand,
but then there's nonfrontline vehicles that don't necessarily need to be those frontline response vehicles as well as a lot of equipment. So, if you take a drive around the the site today, you'll see a series of tents. Those things need to be stored somewhere and that's
certainly a much better place to store them than in open air tents than they're that they're currently in. A lot of these things are pumps and weather sensitive materials and things like that that simply can't be utilized in the winter >> and there's no space for them at the back of the site. >> No, because the wetlands pinched down
there. We we we're out of room on the back. This is we're sort of we're sort of, you know, fortifying the edges of a of a peninsula with this uh with this project. We're simply out of space, unfortunately. >> But that that that out building was
there at town meeting. It just wasn't shown. >> It Yeah. >> Yep. >> And that that's heated and cooled that space. >> It's warmed, not cooled. So, it's like 55 55 degrees
is is what it'll be maintained at in the winter. It's not it's not keeping it warm enough for for you and I, but it's enough to keep diesel from jelling and if they're parking an ambulance in there, medications from freezing. >> And is that a radiance lab as well or is that just through
>> just a couple of electric uh uh unit heaters? >> Yep. >> Right. Because you have the fire pump in there too, right? >> Yep. Should we keep going around? >> Sure. Yeah. There's just uh two more
renderings. One just rotates around uh to the back a little bit. It's where you see the the radio tower in the back. Um you know, more more of the more of the same here. uh just a continuation of the block. And
>> see, it's interesting because this perspective on it when really all you're seeing is that color, it's not quite as visually jarring as it is in contrast to the brick. >> I don't have any further comments on
this one. You want to go to the last one, hostway? And this is sort of the view from um again from Westford Street. This is sort of between Town Hall and uh and the fire station. So, uh just to the right is the
new apparatus bays and then um steps back a couple of inches uh to the connector piece between the existing and the new. Uh, and again the the was noted previously that there's a there's a egress door out of the right side of the
apparatus bait in this rendering that's that's no longer there. That was just recently removed because it was um not a safe not a safe exit out of the building. So that's back on the other side. I think the the base plan here is also
not quite right in terms of the site layout. Um, you know, you've got a landscaped uh basically between you and that retaining wall, I think there is a landscaped island. Um, also the curving for the parking.
>> Yes. Yes, that's correct. And the >> curving for the parking and Yeah. So, um >> I like that we have clover in the grass, though. That's uh accurate. [laughter] >> I love the uh the the spalling and staining on that concrete um retaining
wall as well. It's really stunning. Are the um is it part of the scope to keep the existing apparatus doors as white or are those getting replaced as part of this work? >> The existing ones are to remain.
>> Okay. The only the only one that the only one that leaves is on this ele on this existing elevation. If you were to look at it now, there are four overhead doors. The furthest to the left one is being infilled and replaced with a double door. >> Yeah.
Yeah, the um the the white color is prominent visually. >> Yeah, I was thinking earlier, Dwight, if if that would be better black, you know, if and unified the new and the old um in a more kind of subtle and effective way
if that those weren't white. But >> are you saying that the existing doors now are black? >> I'm just saying if all five of those bay doors were black um if it would call less attention to them
>> or or another or another color besides besides white. >> Yeah. Maybe the color of the shed, like maybe there's a same like a a dark gray or something to make that structure have something to do with this with this part of the building.
>> Yeah. >> Um are the front steps going to remain up the existing front steps? >> Just the ones that come out of the door, not the one that comes down to the roadway. We did talk about that earlier, Sarah,
and the response was that it is a um non-code egress from that second from that mezzanine storage space. um one one um so I would this is the view
that we showed at town meeting that was so much better but I'm going to just kind of move on from that I'm wondering if on that retaining wall does it make any sense to do like a form liner or something so that it's looks like something other than a concrete
just a simple I mean I've se I've used a lot of um like a board form liner >> that makes the concrete wall looks like it have look like it was actually formed from boards
>> um which is more of a mid-century approach to cast and place concrete. It might soften that a little bit. >> Sure. I I guess my only my last comment on this elevation is just the lack of signage [snorts]
identification. Like it it it just feels naked to me. Um and I know that our formal entry is on the opposite side. Um but this is actually I think unless I'm mistaken much more prominent. Um, >> yeah.
>> And the fact that it just has no I mean, I know we'll have signage on in the form of like signs on posts, but the fact that the building in and of itself has no identification from this approach seems
it just seems weird to me. Um, >> yeah, I think that's that's fairly intentional. um because we don't want to draw folks attention driving this way to say, "Hey, come in this entrance because it's not the public entry." And so if we had a big sign on the front that said Carlile Fire Department on this side of
the building, you'd end up getting more vehicular traffic on this side that wouldn't be wanted or >> I get it, but it it looks very um again like very utilitarian. I think I mean I know I don't know. I'll speak for
myself. I have a I hold the fire department in very high esteem and I feel like they deserve some kind of like identification that's different than just a utility building. Um, and so I I just I I I hear the concern and that
thought did cross my mind and yet I still feel like um we're a pretty informal town here in Carile and I I think the fact that whether there's writing on that that building or not, people are going to pull in that driveway. Um
>> yeah. Uh so I I I think that we need to rely on the signage on posts um [snorts] to direct uh non staff, you know, where where they need to drive and park. And you know, we'll get it slowly after a
few years as residents, but um it just it it between the white doors and the lack of signage, it just seems like that could I I can't tell if that's an auto body or, you know, um a fire station or, you know, DPW garage. So, um I think
that's that would be an important thing for me. >> That's a great point, Eric. Um, I also think this if you I think the the angle of this rendering is a little misleading. You're coming downhill a little bit when you're coming from town hall, when you're
coming from the center of town. And I have Google Earth open and I'm looking at the street view. And um I mean you would get this view from a parking space obviously, but I think it might be a little bit more um illustrative to show the actual view from a person, you know,
in a car driving down 225 or walking down 225 on the sidewalk there. Um because I think you're going to see more of that building in the back. Um, I think I think it's a little and I'm not suggesting that's intentionally deception, but I I'd like to see it like
sort of from a street view because I I think we're going to see more of the building and more of the like you can see the vents. You can see the vents through the roof. You can we're going to see the tower. I think we're going to see a lot more of that building than is currently showing.
>> And probably the mechanical equipment on the rooftop as well. That's >> generally uh I've I've I've never not been disappointed in how big that is. Excuse my French. >> Um and and then the solar as well. I feel
like that that's probably going to h be um angle mounted, right? You don't see a whole lot of flat solar. >> It it is. It is, but it's also behind a a short parapit. So yeah, it would be it would be tucked back. You wouldn't see
it from the from the street. >> It's a short. >> For your reference, our current building has an RTU on it, >> which you can't see. >> Um, understood. Um, I would imagine though
that Well, I'd like to I'd like to be convinced that we're not going to see them um by having that view be a little bit more I mean, I feel like this is sort of the grasshopper view
as opposed to the street view from the perspective of somebody that's a normal height. >> And then if we can see them, great. But better to not be surprised, right? If it's just moving moving a moving a point of view in a model, shouldn't be that. Um,
>> no, it's not a problem. >> And and [clears throat] how tall is that parapit? I'm looking at sections in the bid set that are don't seem super tall. But I am
admittedly navigating this for the first time on the parapets. And Matt, is that parapit uh documented as an ad alternate to get tied to the roof if the roof is taken as an ad alternate
>> for the existing building? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So, is this showing the existing building with the parapit? >> No, the existing building isn't there. There's a there's an extra Yeah. So, if you if you were to zoom in, there's sort
of an extra reveal in that roof edge coping. So, that's what that's showing. Um, couple like two more inches of of flashing there >> to accommodate the extra insulation on the roof, >> correct? >> Okay. But then on the act the addition,
how tall is that parapet? >> It depends where we are on the roof. Is that >> I'm looking at this part of the roof. that we're going to see from this angle. >> Yeah. We uh uh I would have to get back to I don't
have that off the top of my head right Okay. Well, um, when you revise the rendering perspective, if you can also just provide that information, that would be helpful. >> Certainly, >> I am sympathetic. I am often arguing that you're not going to see this stuff from the ground. Um, but
I don't necessarily believe it right now. [laughter] Um, how tall is the monitor off the roof plane? Um, see on the low side my scale here
uh six feet >> and and the extent of that is shown correctly in this rendering. That's right. Um, and the parapit to the right that we're looking at above the windows is 3 feet.
I don't know exactly how tall off the top of my head those ballast mounted angled solar arrays are, but I think they're less than 3 feet. If I recall correctly, they're like a foot and a half or so. >> But that roof does slope towards that
three-foot parapit. So, >> it slopes down towards the three-foot parapit. No, understood. My point just being that there will be there are higher section the roof itself is higher in the middle which is usually >> it's higher. It's higher all the way to
the left. Um in which case it's 2 feet. >> I think we just need to see the um solar array depicted as well. I'm assuming the answer to this is no, but there's there's uh currently two large blue spruces, I think, uh near the
um generator corner. No way to >> those are Yeah, those aren't those won't be salvaged, unfortunately. They have to get they have to get removed in order for us to do our in um shoreline that goes out to the uh to the
septic. Um I don't Yeah. >> So it's the way the electric service is coming in. >> Yeah. Exactly. in the I'm sorry, this is probably indicate on the plans, but the existing
sistern that's under the parking spaces that we're looking at right now in the foreground, does that remain? >> It does. >> Okay. So, the the existing private well will be maintained in order to provide water service to that. So, that's that's
the only use of the existing well. It'll be used to fill that system up, which then feeds the fire truck. So this is this is the water supply for the fire apparatus. >> And then there's a new well either public or private to feed the
water for the structure. >> Correct. [snorts] Okay. Um, are we ready to open this up to public comment? I just have one question about schedule. Um, I'm not sure it's the right place to
add or not, but um, are there any law procurement items for this project that will affect schedule? >> You got a lot of specialized equipment, you know, whether it's specialized material, anything else. Is anything along that timeline going to affect the schedule?
>> There are long lead items, but they are not anticipated to affect the schedule. And if they are, that would be the responsibility of the general contractor or their subs to rectify. So identified currently right now, what we're seeing is the longest lead items, longest time
are the generator, which we're seeing coming in around 40 to 50 weeks or so. Um, which is fine. And then um and then the the the switch the switch gear um and some of those
associated components are are are similar, you know, tracking up to up to 50 weeks or so. So >> 15month uh uh schedule for this, those typically are the first shop drawings that we see and coordinate with. Um, and
so given the 15-month schedule when it needs to be delivered and energized in order to commission the BMS system and all the HVAC equipment for this, um, that gives the contractor 6 to 8 weeks after execution of the contract to have a sign off shop drawing, which is
reasonable. >> Thank you. Sorry, one more question. I keep saying that. Um, what's the um who's developing the safety plan? And and and I'm assuming there is one. I I'm I know Chief Saros, I'm sure, has this front of
mind, but obviously all this work is getting done while we're trying to maintain um you know, fire fire safety for the town, emergency response. Um, so I'm just thinking about the site is obviously has lots of constraints. Uh, there's going to be lots of contractors
and trucks and storage of materials. Um, um, I know that Rockland Road is right there. Um, which is also a narrow road and, you know, um, can't be obviously blocked or encumbered by vehicles, uh,
pertaining to the construction project. So, um, just wanted to make sure I'm sure this is covered 100 times already with other committees, but I feel like it's important to just state it for the record that, um, there's a construction plan and a safety plan in place that,
uh, Chief Sorrowos has signed off on, um, to ensure he can safely and effectively continue to operate the fire department um, while this project is going on given the spatial constraints we have. >> So, yeah. So there is there is a draft
phasing plan associated with the construction documents. Um ultimately construction phasing and the safety plan are going to be means and methods by the contractor. They will be required to be submitted to the fire department and approved by the chief. Um any deviations
to that plan will have to be coordinated well in advance and it's specific that the contractor maintains fire department operations um irregardless of any of their activities. So, so anything that's going to impact the fire department will have to be coordinated in advance if there's
going to be uh any shutdowns that the generator is not going to be able to handle for actual power shutdowns and things like that because that will happen periodically throughout the project. If it's longer than the fire department is willing to entertain, then they will have to bring in another
temporary power source um in order to do that work. Um, we have talked about how we're going to be de devising or or dividing up, you know, existing utilities and things like that to make it so that the the site is well shared, but but ultimately the chief's needs
during the course of construction are going to take the priority. Um, and the contractor will have to make sure that any deviations outside of that are approved by the chief before proceeding. And so in the event that there is um I'm assuming that that has been
expressed as part of the bid documents um >> yes >> because if if the if the contractor ultimately says well the project's taking me 25% longer to complete because um we couldn't move as fast as we anticipated because we can't accomplish
as much on a daily basis. who bears the pro who bears the the cost of that schedule extension. >> It there's certainly always a risk if you're occupying a site that a
contractor is working within where substantial delays could result in a claim. So I'm I'm not going to sugarcoat it and say that the chief can you know because ultimately at the end of the day right the chief can say well you can never utilize this portion of the site because I always need to have access
even though that they have work they need to do there and if and if that does have a significant impact on the schedule there is risk of a claim for that certainly. Um, but I think careful coordination, um, some, you know, some
specifics within the contract documents that highlight that fact to to the contractor, those all sort of set up the relationship that this is going to be a collaboration. Um, and and that's really how it's going to be. Most all of the contractors that are pre-qualified for
this regularly do work like this complicated fussy work that during full or partial occupancy as part of a renovation so they can all handle it and and are expecting it. >> Okay. So that was part of the
description of or part of the definition of qualified contractor is someone that has experience working in this way. I don't remember the exact wording of how it was in the pre-qualification documents. I I don't know if Neil, if you're still on, if you could speak to
that, but um >> uh we put we put it into the pre-quall that uh previous experience on occupied fire station projects would be advantageous and should be identified in their responses.
Uh many of the contractors did, not all of them did, but all of the general contractors met the minimum requirements that were required for the project and were pre-qualified to bid. >> Okay.
>> So, conversely, are there any um performance clauses or incentive clauses to get this done earlier? >> There are not any to get it done early, but there are liquidated damages for delivering it late. Okay. >> Along the lines of the safety and
construction management plan, you've got a significant amount of ledge you got to be removing here. Um, looks like as much as 8 ft um behind the tower. Uh I think in our last meeting somebody
said that that would be hammered. Is there a do we understand how long that's going to take and what kind of impact that's going to have on the users of the fire station?
Um, I I wouldn't be able to speak to how long it's going to take, but I do know that both town hall and the fire department have experience working within their site while rockhammering was going on because there was a substantial amount of it required to install the tower a few years ago when
they put that in. >> It's like this is many times but okay. Um, all right. Anybody else have questions on the site plan? Um, I mean on the architecturals and elevations uh from the board before I go to the public. Did
I already go to the public? >> I don't think I did. >> We go back to the first um rendering. So have two other comments, quick comments. Um the it seems to be a
white box that's to the left of the sorry to the right of the right apparatus door. Is is that the generator enclosure? >> That's correct. >> Y is there a way that that color could be different? The white just is prominent or maybe there maybe with more
landscaping. Just something to consider. Um, and then to the earlier point about exposed concrete, I does the out building have at its lower level, is that exposed concrete below the siding on the shed?
>> It is. I wonder if there's a way that that siding could extend down so it looks like it's a more of a, you know, more of a consistent siding material as opposed to whatever it is 6 or 8 ft of exposed concrete.
>> It's a prefab building though, so those walls are the siding on the walls is is associated with the pre-fabricated components. I don't know if you can match that. >> I guess just expressing the concern that
of a a concrete wall that high will be prominent, especially if those trees are are not accurately shown. >> Word formed concrete. No, I'm with you. Um I'm with you, Dwight. Um,
we don't want to end up with that kind of popping out as a as something we missed in this view. Um, I know you said those spruces can't be saved. Uh, but there are a couple of somethings,
maybe crab apples. Are those able to be preserved? >> Unfortunately, no. >> And that's all because of site utilities and things like that that are happening. utilities, the the retaining wall. Yeah, there's a lot of there's a lot of work going on in that corner.
>> Okay. >> Believe me, I I fought hard myself to get those because I thought it was I thought there were better solutions than taking those trees out because they're so prominent. They really define that corner. But we looked at it every which
way that we possibly could and unfortunately there wasn't a solution that allowed them to remain. >> Yep. I understand the pain. Okay. Um, with that, um, I will open it up to public comment.
Um, looks like we've got Christina's hand raised. Go ahead, Christina, you got the only one. >> Hi, thanks Christina Crolopoulos, Hemlock Hill Road, co-chair of the Environmental Sustainability Committee. Um, with all this talk about landscaping, I just wanted to put a
little gentle reminder out there, um, that for any area that is not under the jurisdiction of KNSCOM, there is a municipal landscaping policy and so 70% of the trees and plantings need to be
um, straight species native. So, just just a general reminder. Thanks, Thank you, Christina. Is is uh are you concerned that what's shown on the landscape plan is not consistent with that uh policy? >> I actually have not seen what the
landscaping plan is and um I'm not sure from the rendering um what's what they're planning on using. So, I just wanted to iterate that that policy does exist. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um, I believe it's also in our rags. I don't know that the it's necessarily the straight species um requirement, but it's also in our rags. So, if you could
confirm somehow on the plans that what you're showing >> Oh, sorry. Can you speak to that, please? Um yeah. So the landscape plan here. Um so like what we've made sure is to confirm that all the proposed species
are native species. Um I also know there was a requirement of like you can't just like there needs to be an specific percentage of mixture of like the different species that you used. it can't just be like one. Um so I know those items we're taking into
consideration. Um that's why you see like you know whatever we are proposing a role like we have a combination of different um type of planting. It's just not like one continuous type of planting. Um I don't know if that answered the question, but that's um um generally speaking, we did go over the
Rex and confirm um to the best of our ability the the regulations from a landscape perspective and we feel that we are within you know those boundaries but if somebody feels that there is something that needs to be changed we are open to common suggestions.
Well, I think if nothing else, noting which ones are native, which ones are not, and confirming that you meet the percentage requirements of the municipal policy. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm pretty confident we
do, but I'll I'll double check again just to to make sure. >> Yeah. I guess what I'm saying is if you can note that on the plan, um >> we can add Yeah. the percentage and the um I believe all of them are native but
we can add like a note just to say you know native. Yeah, we can definitely do that. >> Thank you. >> Other members of the public >> this is Ben Herder again 517 Bedford Road. Uh just a couple more comments. Um
I guess in line with my comment earlier about the streetscape perspective and neighborhood context um just through looking at the renderings this evening um and what I've seen um shared publicly um you know as a as a public facing
municipal building where the existing entrance is on the front of the building currently. Um it appears that the proposal has turned that building kind of backwards where the entrance is now towards the rear. Um and in this
perspective that we're looking at right here, you know, you can see how the fourth apparatus bay has been removed and it's being infilled with if not just all solid masonry, maybe solid masonry with a door. Um the front entrance way
is being abandoned other than the stair. Um, so in effect the front of the building is now the rear. And so I guess my question is, you know, since this is the case, how is the landscape, the
lighting, you know, the site lighting, uh, and sight informing wayfinding around this building so that it's understandable to the public? Thank you. >> Thank you, Ben. Um, and I appreciate the site lighting comment in particular
because I forgot to bring that up. Um, it I I think you know in the updated So, I'm looking at the actually I'm not I'm now looking at the right plan set. Um, yeah, I don't see a phototric plan in
the plan set. And um we would also need to see the actual lighting um selections and locations etc. along with
the um along with the signage plan that we discussed earlier. Yeah, we can gonna be confusing to the public. Um, anyway, sorry, someone was speaking. >> No. Yeah, I said we can provide that. >> Okay.
>> Uh, I keep seeing you flip past a phototric plan. Was that part of the initial permitting package? >> Sorry, I was muted. I was going to say that yeah, it was part of the initial permanent package and um in theory because it hasn't really changed a lot
the actual location of these lights, we didn't provide this again, but we could do that. Um so we had like a phototric plant with um foot candles that you get um you know throughout your your parking lot and building. It's a combination of side lights on light poles with some um
wall-mounted lights on the building. Um there's also a um like like a fixer image here with the information on what those are. Um so we will make sure to incorporate those again. Um so it's it's it's
it has like the revised background. >> Okay. Interestingly enough, it just it took a long time for it to actually the layers to resolve in my view and and the the schedule like didn't show up until literally just now. Um,
and I think in general it's just helpful not providing things peacemeal so that we don't we have to sort of figure out what's current and what's not. like uh it's helpful to have a a full um
set of the things we're being asked to review um when there's a when there's a revision put together. Um so I think it would be helpful if you could um in your next next submission
include these details as well. Well done. So just to confirm is the board preference to have a compile set with site civil stuff renders architectural drawings and
everything all combined that are pertinent um to the comments that we are receiving now. >> I think so. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Well, >> one one last Sorry, one last question on
the just since we have this playing up right now. We're looking at lighting. Um I can't see um if there is um color temperature indicated on those um different luminers. That would be I know that was a comment that someone brought up. I think it was um a letter from the
historic commission. Um so that's something Yeah, I don't see anything on there. So, I I think it'd be nice for us to just be able to confirm that those are um compliant with um various uh interests in town.
>> That's not a problem. Thank you. >> I think Julie's got her hand up. Julie, you don't >> I just wanted to request that you add the wetland resource area to this site so we can see how the lighting levels might impact natural resources.
Okay, >> that's a great suggestion >> on the fixture selections. Are these consistent with fixtures used elsewhere in town, particularly on the polemounted? I I don't know if you know the answer to
that, Matt, but that would be an answer um a question for the electrical team. I don't think there are here, but we can confirm that and get you the answer for sure. >> I think another another detail that would be nice to have on one of the site
plans is the uh wellhead protection circle uh zone for the proposed public water supply. um and how that relates to both the existing private well, the existing public water supply for town hall um and
therefore help us to determine the feasibility of um that um in conjunction with what excuse me with what Julie just mentioned and seeing all those things in conjunction with where the current wetland boundary
delineation is. Um um I think it's really important that we it's my opinion that it's important that um we ultimately get a public water supply for this building. Um, and I want
to make sure as part of my vote that we can um determine the feasibility of that based on all the other competing overlays and and radi. Yeah, we can do that. Um, like we
mentioned like um big chance that we're going to move the current location as shown. Um and yes once we have that location um on the plans we will we will show the the required buffer or you know son one for for that public well a post
location for sure. Yeah, we can >> and also service access to the wellhead. Um, as that service access is uh potentially if if it does or doesn't have to traverse, you know, a wetland area or something like that. I think that's relevant to
the feasibility of of the any whatever the location ends up being for that. >> Yeah, we're not expected to go through the well, but there's definitely going to be some kind of like reclearing to propose that, you know, to have that clear path to the well. Yeah, we will show. I I hope not, but I just I just
want I want it on paper. Yep, please. Thank you. on the lighting plan here. Um, it looks like you've got polemounted arms where the poles are close to the
close to the bottom of your >> Yeah. So this is the again this is the older set and some of these things is like the electrical will kind of like model this. They don't really put a lot of thought into higher or
or bottom end of the wall. So like what we normally do is that once we actually present those in our plans which they should be located in our site plan already um we actually bring them to the top of the wall because when they are meld in this they're not really
accounting in that case um for that wall but yes we will that's what I was say that we will make sure that we we issue the new photometric with the new background to make sure that this is fully accurate. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. Um, do we have It sounds like
we've got quite a list for the group. Um, I sure hope somebody's been taking notes. Um, do we have any further questions or comments at this time?
>> I I do have one question. Um, what is the board preference? Should we um go ahead and work on the comments that we got today like verbally? Uh I know I've been taking notes on my hand too. um an
issue you said or is the board preference that we wait to give you enough time to actually react to these plans since they were just submitted on Friday and then will we just issue like one finalized set um that like you said
everything is combined in one set and hopefully has all the comments addressed. I I just want to know what's your preference so we can adhere to to that. Well, there I think there's to some extent um
some of the items that we have been discussing as you make these as you sort of make adjustments, it might it it might have ripple effects, right? Or it might be that um
it affects something that we didn't anticipate. What does the board think in terms of having kind of a next meeting where there's interim kind of sketches like a a one-off sheet
that addresses particular questions and concerns that could then uh be incorporated into a later set? or should we um set some kind of um target date for
providing comments and and and let the team take it from there? Anybody have a thought on this? Greg, it looks like I see your hand. Um but go ahead.
I was going to add when when we were talking about a full set of drawings. I was just questioning um you know what the burden is on the design team and how we get to the finish line. There there are some comments that were made here today like uh the
wayinding on the site that the design team could incorporate into the set and get into the next uh the next addendum. uh then there are other comments that need kind of an iterative process of the design uh development. So, I think we
have to uh and and I've got to sleep on it myself, but I think we have to um ask the design team to use some careful judgment and get into the drawings for presentation to the planning board the
things that uh you have to opine on and then the other things uh cut them loose to execute and issue in the next addendum. the things that are sort of black and white and and non non-controversial or you know have no you know just do it right um you know so
for example confirming clearances uh like I said the wayfinding signs um that sort of thing so I think there's a little bit of a mix that I'd like to talk through um in the committee tomorrow um just to share share that
thinking with you I know the plane board has you know you know, it's its own interest. But, um, that's what I was thinking. There's going to be a combination and we'll need the design team to use judgment. My personal recommendation is that there
are aesthetic things that um are well suited to a consolidated and updated presentation package. Um, that I agree with Addie. if you if you issue a single sheet with one update addressing a note that came out tonight doesn't
necessarily tell the whole story. Um, so and and I I agree with you, Greg, like some things might be able to be addressed that way, but I think my personal preference would be to to get the the bulk of the of the things that we talked about tonight addressed in a
single >> new desktop trading platform is changing the um >> and um you know, things like personally I'm not bothered in this at this level by the the lack of a flush curb for the
accessibility from the parking spaces because we know that that can't not get done, right? Like that that that is um obviously hugely important but also heavily regulated. So that's not really an option. Um whereas there's many other
things tonight we talked about um that I think really are best communicated through updated renderings um and drawing details. So I guess I would prioritize those things that could be most easily and readily done in the time
frame that's ne necessary for I think we're all trying to reverse engineer this voting process. Um and and um you know starting with the biggest the biggest concerns and the biggest deals first I guess. Um
Sarah, do you have any thoughts on this? >> No, I think I think what you and Eric said both make sense. Um Yeah, I think I think a um a consolidated site drawing with all the information that we that was just
requested plus um revised elevations that address some of the design comments will be really helpful. And then there's all the technical stuff that has to happen per the peer review and per all the things that you know are are required to happen
in the drawing set. So I I I think G you're right. There's there's kind of like two different two different routes. Um so in terms of timing, I know sounds like you you've already put this up to bed.
Um are you will you be ready for our next meeting? So I think we need to to figure out timing on planning board review. Um >> another meeting is it was it two weeks? >> Two weeks. [clears throat] I think there is one more.
>> Yeah. >> Um and and and that's kind of where my question was coming from because like I I'm going to speak from from the side perspective. I don't want to speak for the weight on the renders and architecturals elevations and those things. That's outside of my preview.
I'll let Mac on Matt speak on those. Um I think all the comments we have received from a sizable perspective are really good and from a big picture they're not really um the type of comment that will put a wrench on my design like it's not like a
storm water comment or something not really working. It's about signage making the site better. those type of things that um are for me kind of like easier to update at this level. It's not going to create like a ripple effect of like oh if I remove this subsurface assistant now I
need to update all this other stuff. That being said, like I I feel confident that we can turn this quickly around and that's what I was asking like but if if you want to see a full set um I just need to make sure that I'm coordinating with Matt on their end. They may have to
wait for our plans to be updated in certain things for them then then go and update the renters. And that's kind of where I was coming from with that question. But if the board preferences to put everything together might take a little bit more of time just to be able to get all of that accommodated. Um, but
Matt, you can speak on your end. But I I think um um if the if the hearing is two weeks from now, I will pretty much ask the board what's the latest you want to see those plans in front of you. So then
we can make sure that we we we work towards that deadline. If you tell me, hey, you know, get it the Tuesday before or the Wednesday before, like give us three, four business days, like we we can work on our end to to accommodate
that ask. I will assume for the most part, if there's any item pending, we we can make sure to flag it, but like I said, I feel confident that that we can turn this quickly um to accommodate whatever lead time you need to be able to look at this before the next hearing.
And that's what I was coming from like if there are any additional comments that as you actually take time you have the time to go on this on your own um if you can send it to us that will be great. It's just a matter of like working also on a on a deadline on on
when's the latest that we can receive those comments. We may be able to turn those around in time for for you to look at this before the next hearing. So, I I don't expect that the board will have well, and folks correct me if I'm
wrong, but we've had a lot of time together tonight. It's been a pretty thorough discussion. I'm not sure that there would be specific comments coming from the board on this plan set that would be substantially supplemental to or in addition to what
we've already talked about. Um, that said, maybe what we can do is ask the board to um send Julie an email by the end of the week with
anything else that [laughter] that uh that jumps out and that is concerning. And um what what I think I' I'd really like to be able to address in our next meeting
and and really see in our next meeting personally is um signage and wayfinding and site lighting uh more um robustly presented and
Um, >> and and a and an attempt to think about how we um address materiality and color and uh attempt to create a more cohesive
architectural um approach. Is there anything else specifically that folks want to see in the next meeting? And I think we we'd want to see them no later. And Julie, correct me if I'm wrong, but um I don't know if it takes you and Noel some time to review and
make sure we've got because we don't want an incomplete submission if there's things you haven't been able to to to do. Um I think we'd want them no later than the morning of the Thursday before. So no later than the morning of the 9th of April.
Is that is that right, Julie? Or would the eth be better to end of day on the eth? >> I mean, like realistically at this time, we're just forwarding you what we get. >> Yeah. >> Um, so the ninth would be like the drop dead. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> We we will shoot for that. And then Julie, um, I I I think we should be able to address all these comments. and Julie, if there is any items that we feel that we may be struggling to meet, I'll I'll make sure to to coordinate and
let you know ahead of time. Um, I I don't think that will be the case, but again, there are so moving pieces here and so many entities that have a say here that I don't want to say like 100%, but I'll make sure that we coordinate that internally. Um but we will definitely shoot for that um end of day
Wednesday the 8th no later than morning of the Thursday the 9th to get it like that compile set all in one place that the board can look at on the next hearing. >> Yes. So, tomorrow, Noel and I can go through our notes from tonight also and
send you a follow-up email with all the things that the board listed today if that's helpful to you to supplement your own notes. >> Definitely. Definitely helpful. I've noticed that you are way better than me taking notes. Sometimes you send me stuff. I'm like I I Yeah. So, definitely helpful.
Okay. >> Are we ready to continue this or close the hearing first and then continue it? >> Don't close the hearing. >> Don't close. Sorry. Don't close the hearing. Sorry, it's late. I've been traveling all day. Um, are we ready to
continue the hearing? Um, Julie, do we have a time yet on April 13th? >> So, yeah. So, you have your hearing for the zoning bylaw amendment scheduled for 7 and then it just depends on if you want how much time you want for that. You could do 7:30 for this or 8:00 for
this. Um, the rest of your night is kind of open. So, >> okay. Um, why don't we do 7:30? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> April 13th. >> Do I have a motion to continue to April
13th at 7:30 p.m.? >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Uh, roll call vote starting with Eric. >> Adam's eye. I guess I >> You're on mute, Joe.
>> It's a good thing. I think I >> Byebye. >> All right. We will see you in a couple weeks. >> All right. Thank you very much. Have a great night. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. Thanks everyone. the button. >> Bye. Thanks.
>> I do [clears throat] have a couple invoices for when you're if you're ready. If you're >> Did do you already do the ANR plans? >> Yes, >> sorry. >> And I was just going to request that we put minutes off till next week.
>> Yes. Yes, we will. Um Okay. Um invoices. >> Yeah. So, I just have a couple and I sent them in your in an email to you guys. Um but so there's one from um the mosquito and this is the legal ad for this fire station hearing. Um this will come out of your legal ad your
legal ads budget line. Um and then the other one is from CI technologies. This is their annual updates to our tax map parcels, right? Like when there's ANRS, right? Like we send them a batch every year and they update our tax maps. Um and so this is
paid for from ARPA funds. So, does that mean we're going to have to find a way to pay for this when we don't have ARPA funds anymore? >> No, we've already planned for that, Addie. We can have a chat offline, but but yeah. >> Okay, >> that's a yes and a no. Like, I have a plan.
>> We have a plan. >> Excellent. >> Sure. >> Any questions on these? No. Do we have a motion to approve and authorize the town planner to pay and sign the invoices? So, moved.
Second >> uh roll call combo vote please. >> Adam's eye. >> I Davis I >> Brady I >> f. Great. Okay. And we will let's do the minutes uh on
April 13th. And do we have anything else? I apologize. I was late tonight. I was flying home. Um thank you Addie for organizing all of this. That was incredibly helpful. And thank you all for your comments. This was a there's a lot to go through. Um
any other no motion to adjourn until April 3. Oh, and don't forget that for people that are running for planning board, the town caucus is tomorrow night. So, um we need you need to go.
>> Who's running? >> I don't know. Dwight's it's Dwight's seat is up. Chris's seat is up and my seat is up. So, all three of them. Although said only two of them. [laughter] >> Okay. >> But you didn't answer the question.
>> I did not answer the question. >> The question is still unanswered. >> We'll see. >> You need support there. >> Um I think you all three should at least show up at the caucus, [laughter] please.
Um, no, we should we should uh show up and at the very least nominate each other. So, [laughter] um, yeah. So, that's 7 o'clock. Actually, Chris and Dwight, we can talk offline if we need to about coordinating for that. So, um, okay. Uh, with that,
do we have a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Uh, okay. Ready? I will see you. >> Good night. >> Good night, guys. Thank you. Julie Noel. >> Thank you.