Good evening. My name is Art Sprew. I'm chair of the planning board. This is the Town of Cadam Planning Board hybrid meeting. This is July 13, 2026, and it's 5:00 pm. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly
hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smart mo smartphone or tablet device. If anyone is recording the meeting, please you uh including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. I don't see anyone.
Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws
chapter 30A section 20 until June 30th 2027. This meeting under planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the
proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-945-4410 conference ID 6117881 pound or join the meeting online via
Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record of this meeting on
the town's website as soon as possible. All right, I'll begin with a roll call vote. Uh, Katherine Hburn, >> present. >> Uh, Warren Chain, >> present. >> Bob Worshaper, >> present. >> Uh, Frank Sheer, >> present. Abdubis >> present
>> and remotely is Charlene Greenhall >> here >> and Artsboro present. Uh let's begin with the minutes from June 22nd, 2026. Are there any comments or edits to these
minutes? Uh hearing none. >> Yes, >> go ahead. I do have something. Um on the first page under the approval not required plan in the very first line it says Ms. Orady explained that the
subdivision it should be a subdivision just to make it a little clearer. And then down in the motion um before it says voting I and it lists the the members after May 15, 2026.
It should read as it meets the necessary requirements of an ANR. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> Yes, Frank. >> Um, Andre also present. Should we say Christine was here? >> Oh, yes.
Okay. Very good. All right. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of 2020 20 uh June 22nd, 2026? >> I move to approve the minutes as amended. >> And second. >> Okay. So, Frank, this is for Christine's
purposes. Frank made the motion and Bob second. I'll do a roll call vote. Katherine, >> approved. >> Warren, >> approve. Uh >> Bob Warch, >> abstain. Uh Frank Shear >> approve. >> Bob Dwis >> approve. Charlene
>> approve. >> And Arts Brew I approve. >> All right. Uh next we have a request for bond release. This is 200 meeting house. This is Sun Shelf Storage. Uh do I have uh someone uh remotely to
uh present? >> Uh yes. Molly um Molly McGregor is here um for Chadam Sunorch. >> Okay. Tell us um uh you would like to do to do
a release the bond. >> Um yes. Yeah, we we believe what we set out to do and we were asked to do is completed. >> Okay. >> Um I did I did see Christine's letter and she had a couple concerns, so I didn't know if you wanted to
ask questions about that. >> Well, um Christine, why don't you start with that? >> Yeah, I'll give an overview. Um this project was done, I believe, in 2022. Um we went out there last year. The planning board went out there last year and met with Molly and um the contractor to go over some of the things that were
on the site. Um there was some trees that ended up being kept and a couple of other things. um you extended the island um or you requested that the island be extended in that area. So that has been done. Um
so uh there was also a requirement for some showing some of the parking spaces both in in front of the property and then in the back with the um the storage facility. We are currently holding $25,000 bond. Um the applicant has
requested that we release the bond. So it's up to you as to whether you want to release all of it or you want to release it in an increment. Um if you are satisfied with the asbuilt. I wanted to mention one thing too and I I believe we addressed it when you know
in the last iteration of this when we were extending the island and keeping the trees but originally the engineer had foreseen people um in using an ADA parking space in the front of the existing building and going through that
building to access the storage and we caught that that that didn't really make sense that the existing building's not open to the public and then we moved the ADA spots around to the back where it is uh even from the parking lot into the building.
>> Okay. >> Okay. I I I did go out there and take a look. I do have a couple of comments to share with the board. Um the I think the asbuilt plan needs to be revisited by your consultant. Uh the island hasn't been increased. I I I know physically
that the work was done out there. There is an island out there, but it's not represented on the plans. Uh, your engineer shows electrical being overhead and it's underground on the site. >> I I can't tell whether the gas line even
exists because there's no meter in the back. >> And the other thing is um he's identified no parking spaces on on this site. Now, parking spaces are very important for us to identify what was um approved on the plan and what was actually built.
So, there's parking in the front and there's parking in the rail, but um that should be shown on the plan, too. >> Okay. >> Um is there uh other comments by the other board members? >> Um Katherine? >> Yeah, I have a comment. I I agree with
Art. I think the asbuilt plan needs to be revised or updated to act to actually show what's been done. Um otherwise, we can't see it. And um so and I would prefer to have that revised and updated
as built plan showing everything done according to what was requested that you do. Um I would like to see that prior to releasing the bond cuz otherwise we have no accurate record that the work has actually been done. We
actually do need that for our records. Any other comments by board members? Uh Charlene? >> Yes, thank you. Um I agree with um Katherine to a point. Um I think we
definitely need to see a revised and um an accurate asbuilt plan including the parking and the ADA spaces and the island. Um, but because we're holding $25,000, um, I have no problem um, releasing um,
$20,000 and holding the the 5,000 plus the interest until such time as we do get that asbuilt plan and the board can review it. >> I think that's reasonable. Does u the board like to reduce the bond at all?
Yes, Bob. How much how much total work was to be done on the bond? >> Uh well, it was $25,000 previously, >> right? I know. And that was just to make the islands work, make the uh >> No, I think that was the original bond for the whole
>> the whole project. >> For the whole project. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. I I'll agree with I'll agree with that. So the do um Charlene is suggesting >> I agree with with reducing the bond by 20,000.
>> 20,000. So you're suggesting holding 5,000 in the bond >> and the interest. >> Yeah. >> And the interest I actually think that's a little too much to release, but I'll go with >> to release. >> Okay. >> That's only my opinion. I'll go I'll go with Charlene though. I'm telling you.
>> I have a question. I figured >> Charlene, why don't you finish? Yeah. Go ahead. >> Okay. No, I just figured that $5,000 was enough um you know to cover what needs to be done on the asbuilt plan by the surveyor. >> Yeah. >> Um I think it's actually more than enough because all the work's been
completed on the ground. We just need to see actually what's on the ground on the asel. >> Uh Warren >> um go along with that proposal to reduce the bond. But at the same time, given what I understand needs to be on the
asbuilt, which is just to have it reflect what's as built on the ground, >> y >> I'm I would be comfortable to release the bond subject to um their submission of an asbuilt to be reviewed by staff. >> It just shows what's there.
>> Uh but I'm happy with the uh the idea to just reduce it and still hold something as well. >> Okay, >> Frank. >> Well, I would agree with Warren. And I think a simpler approach is uh just to agree to release the bond subject to the receipt of an ad built as as built as
required. >> Okay. So receive the asbuilt and then release the entire bond after that. Right. >> So So you're suggesting I just want to be clear. You're suggesting that we wait >> and receive the asbuilt first and then release the bond. >> I just think it's a simpler approach.
>> Release the whole thing. Yeah. It doesn't have come back to us for a se for a second. I would say I'm I don't think it needs to come back to the board. It could be subject to the planning board staff review that the asbuilt is submitted.
>> I I could review it also Christine. >> Yeah, I >> it shouldn't take long. >> I I agree with that. >> All right, Charlene, do you agree with that approach? >> Okay, >> works for me. All right. So then
why don't we uh have a motion to I guess release release the bond subject to an updated >> We need to word it so that yes >> it's clear that we need to receive the asbuilt >> with all the requirements documented before the bond is released and that
it'll be subject to >> chair and staff review. >> So I don't know exactly how to word that properly as a motion. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, >> I figured you would. >> Well, you have the floor, Charlene. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. So to speak, I move that the planning board release the 25,000 bond plus interest in full subject to the submittal of the um completed ASB built plan. And once that
is the asbuilt plan is received to the satisfaction of the planning board chair and planning board staff that it can then be released. >> Thank you. >> Physically released. >> All right. Do I have a second?
>> I second can second. >> For Christine's purposes. I have a motion by Charlene and a second by Katherine. All right. So we'll do a roll call vote. Um Katherine >> I approve. Warren >> approve. Uh >> Barb >> approve. >> Frank Sher
>> approve. >> Approve. >> And Charlene >> approve. >> And Art Sprew I approve. Thank you. Okay. Next um we have uh Benrose presentation request for comment
from the comprehensive permit and zoning board of appeals. Um I believe there's some um people present. if you could uh introduce yourself and tell us where you are with this. >> Do you want to explain to the board?
>> Hello chair and board. My name is Rio Siketi. I'm a senior developer with Penrose. And if you just bear with us one moment, we're gonna get our pres Oh, there it is. Get our presentation up.
So, I want to remind everybody this is um just a presentation by Penrose. This is not a public hearing and this is because you received a request for comment from the ZBA for a meeting on Thursday night. And so, this is to answer a couple of questions with regard
to the letter that you will be sending to the ZBA. Um, and I also want to tell you all that, um, the ZBA did receive updated plans this afternoon. Um, uh, with they were responses to comments
from the peerreview. So, >> right, we we haven't had a chance to review those new u submissions today. So, that we'll have to do a followup to the ZBA about that after uh, we take a look at them. >> Sure. I understand. >> M, >> Mr. Sure,
>> Mr. Chairman. I'm not able to see the presentation. >> Um, so we have to connect. >> Is there a way to put it so that we can Can they take over the what we see? >> I can see it now, but it's really tiny.
Is that something you can can help us with? No. Is that something I can do? Um Mark is not here tonight either and we don't have Annie anymore. So Briana is coming out to >> usually they can share the presentation
and it should take over the whole meeting you know but I don't know how to do that. So I'm of no help. >> Yeah. >> But no it's fine. I mean I at least I can see it tiny. >> Just a minute. We may have some
solutions here. She does three dots. Pin. >> Okay. So, what um I've been told is if on your screen, Charlene, you hit the three little dots at the bottom where you
normally unplug your uh uh um open up your mic or whatever, you could do pin and you should be able to pin it up onto your screen and it'll come out bigger. There's nothing else that that can be done on this end. Yeah, I'm not finding that. I found
more, but there's It doesn't say pin, so that's all right. >> Okay, Charlene, I don't want to Excuse me, Mr. Chair. This is Andrew Singer um with the applicant. Charlene, if you go up and click on the actual screen where the Penrose was, then it says pin for me
and it popped up for me. to actually click on the screen where you see the whole board right now and you think and then there's three dots. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. So, while she's trying to work on
that, why don't you uh walk us through some of the updates? >> Sure. So, um the change from when you last um had seen our um materials which was I think prior to the first ZBA
hearing. Uh the change we're presenting today is the inclusion of an abuing property 87 meeting house road. Uh which is approximately 6 acres. Um so that's been added to the development. Um and so
this revised plan that we'll be revised plans that we'll be showing to you today um is really was an came about through an effort to respond to concerns that came from the ZBA uh members from the
public during our um comp permit application process. And we think it um we were able to address most of the concerns while also being able to deliver uh what we believe is an improved project. Uh the project is less
constrained. Uh there's better access to the meeting house. Uh there's better circulation through the site. Um there's less uh we reduce the height waiver requests. Um we reduce the setback
requests. Um, we added more parking, which was a recommendation that came from the ZBA's, um, peer review engineer. Um, and we softened we there's less street presence on meeting house.
So um from our perspective uh this revised plan does what um >> what we should all want the public process to do to do. It um preserves the core goal which was creating affordable housing um while also being responsive
to concerns that came up through the public hearing process. U and we think we've done so in a constructive way. So to walk through the major changes from the So right here, what you're looking at I'm sorry. What you're looking at right here is the
original um site plan. >> Okay. >> So you can see it doesn't include uh the neighboring property to the right, which is 87 meeting house. Um, but um, this,
let me see if I can scroll over to show you the new site plan. Here's a new site plan. So, you can see we've added a little over half an acre. Um, we still have the eight apartment buildings. We still have
the same number of apartment units, although there was a slight change to the bedroom count. Uh we we actually removed three bedrooms. Um but there still the same number of units. We we changed a threebedroom and some two
bedrooms to one bedrooms. And so from here um I'm going to ask our landscape architect Mark to walk you through uh the changes in more detail. Good afternoon. My name is Mark Warfl. I'm a landscape architect with Crowley
Cautrol Landscape Architecture. Um I want to talk through real quick um some of the changes that we've made to improve the site plan with the addition of 87 meeting house. Um the the addition of the abuing property
gave us some flexibility in layout to um reorganize um mostly the eastern side of the development. So we were able to uh remove the buildings that were facing Meeting House. So, as you're looking
into the property from meeting house, um the buildings are set back much further. Um we were able to expand the green space. Um in include a centralized play area uh
with the maintenance uh building as well as playground, gathering space, and bike storage. Uh we were really excited to be able to preserve more trees. So um identified in
the I don't know if I can indicate with the mouse here. Here we go. Um in the central green area, this this indicates some existing trees that were able to preserve as well as um more trees along the entire buffer of the project.
Um we feel that this is uh the amenity spaces are are more convenient and centrally located including the connection to the rail trail which starts uh from this location and comes
down at an uh 5% slope to a connection to the rail trail. talk through some of the differences here. So, in orange um overlaid on top of the current plan, the the orange is the previous plan and it also includes
um the driveway improvements to 87 that that were previously proposed. And so when we're looking at the total site disturbance um including both uh the project site and 87 meeting house uh were totaled at
about 2.9 acres of disturbance. And when we move to the new layout um we actually match that exactly while accomplishing um some real benefits for the project. So, we've
increased the buffer along Meeting House Road um and reduced clearing in the buffers. Um as I said, we've preserved more trees, especially at the edges. Um
and so we we feel this is a real improvement. Um, some of the highlights that that this redesign or this uh adjustment has accomplished has is reduced density of the project, better buffers, more open
space, and better connections. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Joe Henderson uh to talk a little bit about the engineering. >> Hi, good afternoon. Joe Henderson. I'm an engineer with Horsesley Whitten Group. uh were the civil uh engineers on
the project and I'm going to advance. So here um you can see this is the updated grading plan. Um just for reference we've gone through and updated all the site grading utilities and um you know any details that also needed. We also
have a new profile I think in the set. So we've brought them all um all the drawings up to the same level of detail as with the previous submission. Um we did learn from our previous submission. We had comments from Tai and Bond. So we
tried to incorporate his those into this particular design. Um we also met with the DPW um director and we also incorporated his uh input as far as uh the utilities really into this design. Um we are currently working through um
peer review on this with Tai and Bond. We've made some pretty recent as Christine mentioned updates. We're we're trying to get them the information so they can, you know, review that and be prepared for potentially um commenting for Thursday's meeting. Um but in
general, the physical dimensions of the the parking, the roadways, the sidewalks hasn't changed from the previous design. They're all the same uh dimensions. Um we did, as you see, we moved the driveway further north on the on Meeting
House Road. So, we did look at the um orientation in relation to the church entrance and the Abutter driveway at 95 meeting house to confirm that we met the proper uh recommended distances between driveways. That was um something
coordinated with our um our traffic engineer, Vanessa Associates. So, we did go through that. We're meeting a minimum 70 ft um separation. Um we are proposing a public ride ofway as part of the uh the entrance drive and that is because
the town has a site readiness grant um available to help um build the entrance drive. There's a a big ravine there. So there's quite a bit of fill that's being um you know needed to to fill up to to get the proper grades into the site from
Meeting House Road. So, we do have a uh like I said, a right of way there. There's 67 total spaces as I think was previously mentioned. Um we did send a vehicle circulation plan to the fire department to make sure that they were
satisfied with with that and we received no they had no issues with um the largest ladder truck maneuvering through the site. Um our storm water management system is using the same approach as previous. We have we do have three um three tree
trenches for water quality treatment preceded by water quality units proprietary units and those treat uh the 1 in storm water you know first flush of storm water the the larger storms then proceed on and are discharged into the
existing uh infiltration basin I guess depression. So uh same approach as previous in that regard. Um there is a buyer retention at the front of the site here similar to before that also has uh the water quality unit ahead
of it. Um the existing road is going to be utilized or proposed to be utilized as maintenance to these uh practices. We've actually are going to add a little turnaround here for better access there
um per per some of the comments from the peer reviewer. Um we have um also and lastly I'll mention here is the a new proposed curb cut for 95 meeting house road with a new driveway uh connection
separate from the existing one that's there now. Uh so just to hit on a few of the um improvements uh some of these have already been touched on. We added 6 acres. Our density has gone from 11.7 to
10.2. two, the uh improved circulation with the better access to the centrallylo playground um in the common, you know, common green area for the residents. We added a second trash enclosure uh which um will
contain um you know trash and recycling within each and that's double of what was there previously. Um, we uh eliminated the conflict with the abuing driveway that was kind of within very close proximity to that the
one building on the north side. Um, we and also the parking ratio 67 spaces. Now that satisfies the traffic peer review engineer's comment they asked us to use uh the IT 85th
percentile ratio which was 1.59. So now the site is at 1.6 and I think with that I'm going to pass it on to Paul Adaman with Union Studio who's online. Hi everyone, this is Paul Atman. I'm a
principal at Union Studio Architecture and Community Design. Um, and I think one of the salient uh benefits of this new revised site plan is the ability for the reduced visual impact of the
buildings along meeting house road. Previously, we had two or three buildings that had their backs face meeting house so that the entry drive came in between the buildings into the neighborhood. But with a little bit of a
detriment having the three buildings with their backs to meeting house with the additional acreage and repositioning of the drive lane. Now all of the the the three buildings the front face and the front door are facing meeting house
which is much more uh friendly and pleasing as uh viewed from meeting house into the neighborhood. Uh the building number one which had housed the management suite was in the back far
corner and now it's been relocated to be closer to the entry and more visible to the residents and the public. And with that, we were able to move the maintenance shop that was attached to building number one to its own
freestanding accessory structure that is now located at the middle of the development. Uh along with the playground and the preserved uh grow of trees, it also serves as uh covered bike
storage, something that we did not have previously. And uh being along the rail trail, it's a real benefit for the residents to park their bikes under covered uh protection and uh use it more much more conveniently.
The uh largest height waiver across the buildings was reduced by over a foot. So with the repositioning of some of the buildings in the new grade, we're able to reduce that request uh from the zoning ordinance as a waiver.
Uh, next please. The new accessory structure just seen here with its architectural style to be a nice shed with that covered uh porch for the bike storage. Very simple, just storage and
maintenance for uh the management company that Penrose uh manages and all of their developments of this size. Next. And finally, this is just a a chart
showing what what we previously proposed and we're asking waiverss for for in terms of building height. Uh on that second right, well, the second column from the far right was the previous waivers and now the last column is what
we're requesting. So you can see the difference. Um, this was updated at for the May zoning board of appeals hearing and I think I'm be passing it back to
Rio. >> Okay. Thanks, Paul. >> You're welcome. >> All right. Um, I'll show some uh renderings uh which we recently produced and then we're more than happy to respond to any questions you have. Um
just just to sum everything up, uh the revised plans uh reflect our responses to concerns from the ZBA about density, um how constricted the site felt, uh not um not having as much open space as
people hoped for and um we were able to address all of these. Um units are the same except the bedroom count went down by three bedrooms. the buildings uh count is the same. Well, actually, if you consider we're removing a single family home in this one, so there's
there's there's net one building um in the revised plans uh and improved circulations. Well, um so we're we're really happy and excited about the way this turned out and the opportunity we had to add this other parcel to the
property. So, this is of course from meeting house. This is I guess looking north. Pulling up to the entrance. There's the new bus stop that we've added or bus enclosure.
And here's coming down uh looking from the south, the bus, the new um interior uh circulation for pedestrians. and one last rendering. Okay. Um, more than happy to answer any
questions. >> Okay. Um, Katherine, do you would like to begin if you have any comments or questions for the applicant? >> Yeah. Um, I do have Whoops. I do have a couple questions. So, what you showed us, we've got several sets of plans. We
understand there's been another set that was just submitted that we haven't seen yet. So what you were walking us through tonight, is that what we've seen or what we haven't seen yet? It's what we've seen. Yeah. So So we were look So we
still need to review the other ones that you just submitted. >> Yes. Okay. So I do have a couple other questions. >> Well, I could The changes were mainly um uh addressing calculation questions. There weren't really There's no substantial >> no substantial design
>> no no >> changes. Okay. >> A lot of it was just to address the peerreview comments with the supplemental um package of plans with it. >> Okay. I do have a few questions. Um if you could show the site plan again. I'm wondering can you point out where
the two trash um areas are? I couldn't clearly identify them on the site plan. There and there. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, and then I also
you showed us that chart rather quickly of the changes in the height waiverss that you're requesting. Could we just go through that again so that I and the board can get a clear idea of what each the height of each building and maybe if
you can walk us through the site plan and just let us know what the height is of each building and the waiver that you're currently needing to request. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> So,
this is the current waiver requests. >> Okay. Um and they correspond to these buildings down here. >> Okay. >> So, starting with here, um building seven, >> moving up, you can see uh we have a majority of the height waiver requests
are facing the side where there's no single family home. Okay? Uh no neighbors. >> Okay? >> And uh we were able to and also here facing the the twine field. Um while also this this was a
goal of ours. Um we wanted to keep the buildings facing the single family homes um within the zoning restriction. And so we're happy we were able to do that with these three buildings here. So the most of the height waiver is right here in
this corner which I guess is the farthest away from any um impacts for for neighbors. And in some cases the height waiver request has increased like for building number six. Previously it was zero just a half an inch and now
it's 4 feet. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> Um one thing we we wanted to do um was to keep the building heights under 35 ft for all buildings. >> Okay. But you have reduced some of the
other ones. And then can I ask you, you said you've reduced the number of bedrooms. So um but I'm going to assume you have not reduced the number of affordable units by so doing. >> No. >> No. Okay. So how does that impact by
reducing the number of bedrooms you've kind of changed the mix of threebedroom, onebedroom like that? How does that in how does that affect the person density number of people who you
anticipate occupying these buildings? >> Sure. >> Does it bring it down or up? >> Uh well well it would it would bring it down. >> Yeah, it should bring it down. >> That's right. Um and but that wasn't why we did it obviously.
>> Can you tell me why you did it? Uh we did it to help make um the building smaller and and limit the amount of the height restriction. >> Okay. >> So we shaved off some areas of the building. The only way to do that, we
didn't want to make the units smaller. The only really way to do that was to >> cut off some of the onebedrooms. >> Okay. Okay. Great. And how about the um plan dimensions of each like the footprint of each building? Have those
changed from your original um the actual uh size of each footprint? >> This is Paul Antiman, the architect. >> They have they have varied a little bit to Rio's point to reduce the number of
bedrooms. some of the footprints shrank a little >> but then we also um building one shrank because the maintenance shop was moved to its standalone accessory structure and some of the um the sheds I think
grew just a little bit just in terms of uh zoning board of appeals request for larger the little bit larger storage. >> Okay, great. Yeah, I believe this was smaller and it was appended to building one on earlier. >> Okay.
>> And then can I just ask you on the plan in the central area? Um what is that now? Is that nor uh that is east the most east? That kind of gray thing with the design in the middle. What is that? What is
that design in the middle? It's hard for me to read and understand. The gray. Yes. >> That there. That's the playground. >> The playground. >> And what does the black on the gray represent? Just certain play equipment or something that will be there. Okay,
great. I didn't know that. So, um I think I'll let others address the parking. I do want to comment that I do think you've made some improvements here. um particularly with the reducing some of the negative impacts that we
were looking at um in terms of density and also in terms of the visual impact on meeting house road um and some of the obviously one of the major concerns was the was coming from a butters to the north which now is eliminated because
you've purchased that property and I and I do appreciate that you've put some of the higher buildings on the other side where the impact is less. So, I do think you've mitigated some of the um less than desirable effects that we were
concerned about. >> Warren, you have uh any comments or questions? >> Well, I can echo that I think there's been some significant enhancements, improvements to the design here. Um um I still have questions and
reservations about the number of parking spaces. This is a fairly remote part of town and um there's really no um bailout for extra parking when guests come when deliveries are made when uh service
providers are coming uh to park their vehicles and um you know that's a problem. I don't know what you can do about it. Um, but I have concerns still that compared to other sites um that would be less remote that might
have uh overflow opportunities that don't exist here. Um so perhaps even more parking ought to be included than um than quote normal. Um but that's a concern that I don't have an answer to.
question. Um, from the entrance on Meeting House Road, school bus lets out, people get on or whatever, shopping or whatever. How do they get from there down to Route 28? >> I mean, on the bus?
>> No. No, not on the bus. It from what I see here, it looks like they just walk along the road. >> No, no, there's no sidewalk here. That's um we we we looked at different sidewalks here and alternative sidewalk here. We evaluated some options. Um and
we had our traffic engineer look into it. Um and what we found was the the best most effective solution for getting pedestrians um down to 28 was to utilize the
existing public infrastructure right here. The issues with the sidewalk with putting a sidewalk here in meeting house is there's a significant drop in grade that pretty much goes right up to the road from this corner with the rail
trail almost up to where our access way is which is the reason our access way is here and not anywhere around here because of the difficulties with the grade. Um there is also significant amount of utilities in here. uh electric
poles um sewer uh town sewer as well. Um so what we've what we found um or what the traffic engineer um concluded was um that
the this was the most safe option. Um and it was also the only really practical option. Um, oh, I forgot to mention this. The the other option we had of looking across the street. The issues there was, you know, it would require an easement. It's not our property, but the traffic engineered
serious concerns about a crosswalk uh basically midb block that's not in an intersection. Um, he said that that that's a safety concern to just have a crosswalk without, you know, in place where there's no stop sign.
Well, you've elegantly um elaborated on what my concerns are. Um, I think it's um a safety issue that there's no way to get from the entrance to the site and from the bus stop um to the rail trail
or to Route 28 without walking into the development and then wandering down the path through the woods to get to a part that is really not right at the intersection of uh Route 137, Meeting House Road. Anyway, to me it's a it's a
safety issue. I don't have an answer to it. I understand the issues with this where to put a sidewalk and putting in a sidewalk and having a crosswalk, you know, midb block, so to speak. Um I recognize the concerns, but I um I've just got to believe that people are
going to be walking out of the development and they're going to want to cross that road and they're going to walk down the street to get to the rail trail if they're going to be uh and or if they're going to ride their bikes on the rail trail. They're not always going to go down that uh um uh the path
through the woods if they want to head east. Um just not going to happen. But that's a safety issue for which I don't have a suggestion for you because I recognize the challenges you've got. Uh a question too, given that you're saying the most practical way for uh
pedestrians or bikers to get down from the development to um to the rail trail is on the path that's there. Um, that's going to be in a wooded area, I take it. Um, hopefully that is going to be wide enough, 8 ft at least, with a way to get
off the road of the the bike path on each side so that uh you can get out of harm's way when people are going up and down u on that bike path. Um given that you're suggesting that's going to be a
uh heavily used or the only uh safe way to walk down to uh the the bike path, it perhaps some lighting would be appropriate. Um and uh andor, you know, a rest stop. Uh so if you're um going
uphill, they're going to be some people that are going to want to stop and get out of the way. Electric bikes are an issue in general. And if you've got electric bikers zinging up and down there, then that's creates again a safety issue. And especially uh at
night, it's going to be downright dark in there. Um in the winter time, I don't know what the plan or suggestion is for who is going to plow that. um but having ice all over that with people using it as the principal way to get down to uh
the rail trail um and and to Route 28 would seem to me there needs to be some um understanding that maintenance of this site is going to require um you know shoveling that u shoveling that
bike path um as well as the other uh sidewalks that are on the site. Um, as I say, I think you've elap elegantly described what my concerns are. You so you understand what they are and you've come up with an answer, but I don't
think they adequately address what I think are the safety concerns. >> But those are my comments. >> Sure. Um, one thing you said I suggested it would be uh s substantial use. Um if I did I didn't that's not what I meant
to say. Uh in fact we don't think that there's be substantial use in terms of a lot of people hopping onto the rail trail all at once. It just be like there is there's there's multiple devel uh multif family
developments in town or single family developments with connections to the rail trail. It would probably be very similar >> um access and use to that. I don't think we should be treated any differently um than those. They they're not responsible for public infrastructure terms of like
snow plowing the streets. We don't think it's really reasonable or fair for affordable housing project to do that. However, that being said, it is an issue if that's one of the primary ways to get if a pedestrian wants to get down there. we in the winter with snow. We connected
with the DPW and they said it can take usually this area sort of lasts to get plowed. It can take a couple days. Um so what we uh what would happen is the property manager would coordinate with um bus routes and car rental car car
sharing services to use our um bus stop that we've added the bus enclosure at the entrance. And that would be a way for folks to get to their job or get downtown if if they're not able to because of um snow build up on the rail
trail and they happen to be somebody that walks to work. >> We're going to add something. >> It's just that my observation was that if you wish to walk from that development out, the only way to do it is down the bike path unless you're just going to walk
along the road. No, we wouldn't want anybody walking along the road. >> Well, you have to walk down the road to get to the entrance where the bike where the bus stop is. And then once you're down there, there's nowhere to go except walking along the road. >> Well, you you wouldn't do that. You would either hop on a bus or ride
sharing or you would take the internal um access and sidewalk system to the rail trail. >> I think that's my point. And therefore that becomes the only ma way to walk in and out of there. So therefore it
becomes important that it be lighted at night that it be >> it is safe uh seasonally and therefore maintained uh as an important element of the maintenance of the entire development. That's all my only comment. So >> got it.
>> Okay. Um Bob worsher you've any comments, questions? >> Yeah. Can we you said there is 1.6 Six parking spaces per per unit or per bedroom? >> Per unit. >> Yeah, >> per unit.
>> How many of these are um like two bedrooms and three bedrooms of that? >> So we have 22 twobedrooms and four threebedrooms. >> Okay. So most of them are onebedroom,
>> 16 onebedrooms. I'm I'm talking about the actual units. We don't have assigned parking here >> for efficiency purposes. >> That's part of the issue. So, um, when I rent a place from you, am I given a 1.6
allocation of parking? I mean, how how are you going to uh control somebody who has two cars and or three cars? >> Sure. Um so when they apply they would know the vehicles they have and and with
the spaces we have we should definitely have significant availability. Um and for so they would get parking passes that go in their car. Um so say they move in with one car or two cars. Um if they
went out and purchased a bunch of cars, we would not give them a a parking pass. would be in the lease, the certain number of vehicles that they have. Um, for most of these projects, the unassigned parking makes the um, parking more efficient because not everybody's
in the project all at once. People have jobs at different hours, different times of day. Um, and having assigned parking just ends up having a lot of empty spaces uh for so I I think I would also like to
point out um regarding the parking because I I'm really big on reducing parking not increasing parking just generally because a lot of our projects we end up overbuilding parking um where we ended up to get the one 1.6 six parking spaces that came from the um
town's uh peer reviewer the engineer and that number was based on it the institute of transportation engineers they put out this data and basically rules of thumb on on parking um and they
use a metric they say uh this is the 85th percentile so the number of spaces here is more spaces than 85% of other multifamilies. So, this is on the higher end of parking. And just um to just
compare this to to other local projects, um our project in Eastam Village in Naza Green, um we have 1.5 spaces per unit and we have a lot of unused parking there. Uh Swift's Landing in Wearham, uh we have 1.2
spaces per unit. um in Chadam on Main Street. This hasn't been built yet, but that's 1.38. Oh, I'm sorry, 1.31. So, this is this is more parking than any of our other projects on the Cape
and 85% of multifamily in the country. >> Yeah. But this is one where there is absolutely no other place to spill over. all those others you mentioned. You could park on the street, you could park down, you know, other places the next
next there's absolutely no chance of being able to park in this one other than in this one. So I I don't think those others are necessarily comparable. So, how many of them are going to have EV chargers?
>> There's a certain amount required by code. I'm not sure I know the exact number. >> Um, usually >> haven't gotten that far yet to be honest to lay them out. Um, as far as EV, >> great. >> It will include EV. Usually we add a
couple spaces above and beyond uh even what the code requires um because they end up being used. >> Okay. And and those will be able to charge e EV EV bikes and others or just the separate for EV bikes?
>> I don't know about the EV just vehicles, I believe. The the chargers. >> Oh, charger. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> They're usually dual. Usually one charger has two uh one unit has two chargers attached to it and you put it between the spaces serves to both.
>> Okay. So the a butter on the um on the right hand side there um and now is the only a butter to this whole property or essentially
>> Yes. Uh this one is of unknown title. It's not built uh just wooded. You have the twine field um the rail trail over here. This is the only residential neighbor. >> Okay. Is there any
fencing or anything going on over there to for to shield that property? >> Only what's shown here um >> which are trees >> which are trees. Yeah, we've added trees and um we're in negotiations with her
right now about mitigants and we have a mutual non-disclosure um so I can't get into the details. >> Okay. Right. >> Uh Frank, uh any comments, questions? Um >> yes, I I agree with the uh uh people
that have said that it's a better plan. It's definitely improved. Uh earlier on on the question of the uh private or public uh entrance way, you you made reference to a a a grant or something
which was driving the decision that the town take over the property. Could you explain that a bit? >> Sure. So, prior to the town, Sorry about my voice. >> Bear with me one second. So, uh, prior to issuing the RFP, the
town, um, sought and received a grant, um, to design and build an access to this property because one of the issues with building housing on this property, and that's what the town targeted this property for, um, was being able to
get to basically the the only buildable area of the site which is up here because of the steep slope and grade change along here along the road. Um the conditions of the grant are so that uh it can only be used on town uh
owned property. So the agreement with the town is that they that this gets subdivided off as part of the 40B plan. Um the town maintains ownership. So, this is public right away and and I'm not being precise
here. I don't think we have a plan available right now that would show that. Um, but it's pretty much uh here down. Um, but our agreement with the town is that we maintain it. So, the
town owns it, but we're responsible for um as if it was a private driveway. So, it's a way to utilize basically the state resources to get housing built on the site. >> All right. So, assuming that's the case
that we need to go with that. Um, what what was deciding the dividing line between the public and the private, could could the public stop at the parking place? And the reason I'm I I I
ask is there there's a a policy or we don't we don't want cars backing into public ways. >> That That's right. >> Uh so how far up does it go and how far up
does it have to go? The division say why don't I share this plan probably shows it a little better right here. Um, so the rightway goes up to about here. It encompasses >> where's the dividing line between pro
public and private? >> So it's along the edge of the parking. Is this what you mean? It comes up along here, comes down and cuts around. >> So you're suggesting the town take ownership of that entire piece. >> I think what Rio is saying is they'll
own the the the land, but they will that the Penrose is responsible for that. all the maintenance. We've actually drawn up uh drainage easements at the request of the DPW so that it shows that Penrose has access to get in and maintain all
this um infrastructure that's treating >> Excuse me. I'm I'm just trying to understand why we have to have the dividing line go all the way up to the top for the purpose of the grant because you you you were tying the two together.
Um, so that's really my my question and I we do have a problem with a with a public way and people backing into it. So I was trying to come up with a solution. I was trying to help you. >> Yeah. >> Sure. Yeah. >> I think I I think the answer to that
question is um it's trying to capture as much as we can because uh we want to capture as much state resources for that road as possible. >> Oh. So, so the grant isn't decided. It's based on what the cost is going to be. >> Well, there's there's right now the
grant in hand uh for the design. Once that's finished, then you apply for the construction of it. >> I understand. Okay. Thank you. I I understand now. >> So, we tried to make sure we capture enough work where it makes sense for the state for a funding perspective, but
also helps the project as as much as possible. >> All right. I I wanted to go back to the >> parking spaces. Oh, >> no. No. I I just asking questions to understand. >> Got it. >> Um in in in terms of of of the sidewalk, following up on Warren's point, if if
people are dropped off children at that school bus, they're they're they're going to take the shorter road, the shorter route. Um and they're they they're going to walk down the road. That that's what's
going to happen. Um, they're not going to go up the hill into the and then down through the securities path and then over the bike path. Um, I think it's not practical to think that's going to actually happen. You're going to walk down the road. So,
to me, it's a it's a safety issue uh involving children. Um, and of course, um, I I have other issues about turning bike
paths into sidewalks, which I think is not a good thing to do. Um, and I don't think that that bike path is going to be plowed. I mean, last winter we had two major storms and I drive by the bike
path on my way to things and they and the bike paths were shut for two weeks at a time. It wasn't just a day or two. It wasn't just a three-day delay as was set out in your council's letter. It was a major.
So if if if the decision is to go with your approach, you're going to have to have an undertaking to to keep the bike path open just like you're presumably going to keep your path open
because that's the whole point, right? To have a path go going all the way to So I I just throw that out. It has to be part of the of the maintenance to keep the the snow off the path. Um but you know, I I do think that this is
um you're just waiting for an accident to happen here. And um I I think uh I'm not an engineer. I don't have an answer to it. Uh but I have someone sitting next to me who who may. So I'm I'm just
passing on this one now. Oh, thank you. >> Um Bob, you have uh any comments, questions? >> Of course I do. >> No. Okay. >> All right. Um I'm against using the bike path and the bike entrance from there down because of how Let me ask a
question. How many young people under the age of 16 do you believe that will inhabit this place? Wild guess. >> 25. >> Okay. >> Under 18. guess between 15 and 25 hopefully.
>> So, a lot of those will be younger. Let's say they're 14. Maybe they're 13. Like, like Frank said, they're not going to go down the bike trail. If they have a bike, they might use it. Yes. So, they're going to
come down and and want to walk down the edge of the road. And the reasons are that on one side of the road there's an ice cream shop. >> Yes. >> On the other side of the road there is a
grocery store, a post office, and uh some various other things that people are going to be drawn to. Snacks. So, they're going to go, "Mom, we're going to go down to the store and we're going to get some snacks." Okay. Now, I believe on 28 there is a crossing right
there. Yep. >> Um I should have gone, but I know that there's no sidewalk on either side from where that entrance is down to 28. So, they could go to the bike trail to
sneak into the ice cream shop, but that's still a ways. And it's still putting young children on a bikes on a bicycle trail that with the electric bikes and some people don't use their bell and if you use a bell on the kids
they're going to turn around and freeze. We've already had one lady lose her eyes because she didn't hear the bike coming behind her, the electric bike, and she lost one of her eyes. So there are accidents on that area. So where you have that orange line, I would assume
that might have been a bike trail. >> So that's where we're we're building a new sidewalk. It's not on this property that we're per permitting. >> Okay. >> But um we agreed with the town to um for
folks to connect where the crosswalk is. >> They come down, hit the rail trail, walk what is it? 150 yards. 50 yards, take the crosswalk, and then we're building uh the sidewalk along there to connect to existing infrastructure.
>> Then I would suggest that you either move the bike trail from where it is there, not leaving that one there. That's that's perfect to move it across the street and go up the side there. And yes, it is a steep one. Or keep going up
across the face of the church and go in that way. How many How many kids do you want to see? And you know it and I know it and everybody here knows it. And I bet if you had a poll, it would be at least 85% of the kids are going to walk down the
side of that road. Okay. It's just a matter of what what's going to happen. So, is there any are there any applications for grants to save the kids from walking on the edge of the road? Have you looked into
that? So Rio, here's that picture. I think that was part of the traffic engineers report. This is this is what you're talking about. I believe this is the >> Let me get over. So this is this way. There we go. So here's the right. This
is these are the options that were outlined in their report. The one being a sidewalk walk along the west side of Meeting House. And that's where we said, you know, to put a 4 foot shoulder and then a five foot sidewalk and then grade this out.
>> They were that's that's >> Can I interrupt you for a moment? Sure. You know that the sidewalk there does not have to be at the same height as the as the roadway. It could dip down and go along the side and then come back up. >> Yeah. I think you would still have the
the idea was that you would be clearing, you know, 30 feet. >> Well, well, there is a road there right now. And you probably would be filling part of it in. >> That's fine. That would be fine. >> And the other part is the the the trying to keep ADA accessibility and that kind of
>> All it takes is some dirt. >> And then this is within the town's rightway. So that would be kind of a >> Well, who who owns who owns that road right now? The the old driveway. >> This is on the project property. >> Okay. So, I would rather see the kids go
down that road than to go to the bike trail. And I think that they would go they would walk down walk down at an elevation, sloped elevation, and go down there and then come back up right in front of the uh the bike trail. They don't they don't have to be on the road.
They can be down in in that area. And I know you want to use drainage to use drainage there. So, bump it over a little bit, lift it up a little bit, and you can still have your drainage there. I've got plenty of dirt. I'd be more than willing to sell.
>> I mean, you end up coming to a end right here and then if you look if you go out there, you'll see there's really there's um with the rapid the beacon here. There's all sorts of infrastructure along the road that becomes
>> Yeah, I know. I put I've made I've paved that area a few times. So, I would rather see him spend some money or look for some grants or something to to put that as an alternative alternate route than to put the sidewalks in where the church side
needs needs a uh uh wall on. And the other one needs to be leveled out. So take the dirt that you were going to make the 4ft wide, put it down in in the along the edge and make it walk down through the through the bushes and stuff and trees and then come up right on the
uh right on the bike trail and cross there be a great solution. >> Okay, we'll look into that. Um I just I just want to add that um regarding the safety issues. >> I I know I think there's just
disagreement here. We think that what we're showing is the safest way and Vaness the traffic engineer concluded that was the safest. So, um, but that being said, we didn't look at what you just brought up. So, we can look into
that. You all set, Bob? Uh, Charlene, do you have any comments, questions? You're still on. Hi, Harry. I think >> I'm still I'm here. Um just that I um some of the waivers like
the building height and there's going to be uh waivers necessary from the subdivision control law. Those need to be spelled out um for the zoning board of appeals so that all the necessary waivers are granted. um in the I'm going
to go to the I think people have discussed pretty much um any concerns that I may have had. Um I actually don't have a necessarily a huge problem with the parking um and the number of spaces.
Um you know I think using the the uh the standard that's out there I think is a good one. Um, with regard to the draft letter that uh was in our packet um from
the planning board to the ZBA, just um I noted it last time, but I'll note it again is that the ZBA is the authority for divisions of land, whether it's an approval not required plan or a subdivision, it does not need to be
filed with the planning board. Um, so I think that needs to be addressed. um in in the letter that is sent to the ZBA. Um beyond that, I have nothing. >> Okay. I have a few things I wanted to go
over. Um >> Oh, one thing are >> Sure. >> We saw the um the last planning board hearing. I know you had a lot of concerns about the engineering, but I just want to clarify, we didn't progress a lot of the engineering when we did the redesign because we wanted to just show
the ZBA and the public and see what reactions were before really releasing Horesley went to do, you know, full engineering design. >> Um, that that's good to hear. >> Go ahead, J. >> I'm sorry. I did have one other thing. Let me unra my hand.
um just doing my due diligence and and reminding myself about what the 40B process is and what needs to be submitted. Um in all honesty, I think they've gone above and beyond what they really need to provide to um the town at
this point. the that that's one of the things about a 40B, like it or not, is that the the their preliminary plans or conceptual plans. It isn't until the time that they actually file for their building permits that they need to have
those thoroughly engineered plans completed. So I think you know like it or not I think that they have actually gone above and beyond where a lot of 40b plans get to at this point. So I just
wanted to raise that and thank them for doing as much as they have at this point um to get the plans uh you know where they are but they have gone above and beyond in my opinion um based on what I
know about the 40B process. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, a few things. I'm I'm glad to hear about the engineering side of it. Um, I I think good practice says uh put a 12-in pipe underneath pavement and and the cons the uh peerreview consultant
was looking for 18 in of cover. I I would concur with that that to go to the extent that you have with smaller pipe with you know some of it less than a foot of cover is not not too advisable out in the courtyards it really doesn't make any difference you know you can put
whatever you want there but I I think it's just good engineering practice to you know um >> Sure can I explain maybe a little bit of what um so I I I believe what the comments were related to was this bu the piping around the building so we have
a network of pipe and small plastic drainage structures that collect the roof runoff. >> Yeah. >> So those that system is shallower than the typical but >> and and those that's fine. >> Yeah. But I believe all the rest of it is all meets the cover requirements.
>> Okay. So you're still looking at the the peerreview consultant was looking for an 18 inches of a cover. >> Yeah. So within the the roads, right? Within where you're >> within within any any pavement area. Those are going to be con pre-cast concrete >> y >> structures. The ones that are
>> It's really hard to see at this, you know, um level, but the ones around the buildings will be smaller plastic. >> That's understandable. Yes. >> Um let's let's just go back to this um access. I understand what you're doing
with making it a way because you're trying to use up the money for the grant. Apply that money. have the town apply to that money for the grant for a sidewalk along 137 and a portion of the entrance uh way and
avoid having a such an extensive public way going onto your property. Uh it's it's a sight drive when you have park cars that are parked there and are going to back into it. That is not a good practice. And really if that came
before our planning board, we would never accept that. They would say you would have to have some way of separating that. So I think you should find a different way of going about doing this. I I think something like uh u some suggestions that some of the
other board members have on that. We're good. I'm glad to hear that you're doing a piece from the on the east side from the crosswalk uh uh from the bikeway crosswalk all the way down to 28. I saw that in your agreement there. So, I'm
glad to see that that's there. I'm glad to see that you're doing an access for the property to the north that I think that's um what is that 95 um yeah 95 Mini House Road. Uh because that's another obligation you have. We didn't see any of that in some of the previous
information that we saw. So, I'm I'm glad you're sort of taking care of some of these details. Um I I think that um fi finding a way to get around this whole thing of a public way is the best way to do it. I mean, we would never
expect to see a public way as being part of an access to a piece of property. I mean, this is just a regular access drive. It's part of the private property. I understand that that's what you're doing because of a grant, but maybe there's a workaround you can do on that because I I just don't see that
there's a need to go down that pathway. Uh just some thoughts for you to think about along with other things that some of the other board members have. Um I think the only other thing that I had in the back of my head is you didn't have any information on your bio retention
basin on plantings. The civil said that it's on the landscape plans. The landscape said it's on silver plans. So if you can put if you can actually come up with what that is, you know, just just so we understand. I mean that's an important feature of course with the storm water management piece. And when I
looked at the um the rip wrap sections, recheck your calculations on that. I think that that rip wrap should be about twice the length and width based on running through the formulas. Now, I understand you went through a program and all of that, but if you check it,
you'll find that it should be a little bit based on the flow and the velocities that you have in there. It should be a little bit bigger. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, we did check it. I heard your comment and you're we did upsize it to 12 in. So, that'll be reflected in the any new drawings.
>> That's That's good. >> Yep. >> That's good. Um Katherine, you have a few others. >> Yeah. Um, I just wanted to make a couple of I hope these are the final points. Um, talking about the concerns of safety
that have been brought up by Frank and Bob Dubis and Warren. I actually live very close to there and I can tell you that road 137 is not safe. It is not safe to walk along the side of the road.
I feel unsafe going out to pick up my mail from the mailbox, which is actually right in front of that house. Right there, just across from your entryway, is my post box. And I feel very unsafe just walking out on the road to pick up
mail. Um, you see how me uh 137 turns right there? >> It's hard to see the cars coming from um what direction is that? From the west. No, from the south. >> From the south. >> It's hard to see the cars coming from
the south. It's also hard to see the cars coming from the north because of that slight curve in 137. So, I just want to emphasize that I think the concerns about safety are very real and people being what they are. I mean, if
we just take a step back, I think you have made some improvements in the physical aspect of your design and you've mitigated some of the negative impacts that we were concerned about. But take a step back. We're also looking at an immediate significant
large increase in population of that area all of a sudden. And that has an impact. And there right now, even with no sidewalks, there are people who um use bikes or those little motorized
scooters or who walk along the way or who jog in the morning and um they're mostly adults, but I can I just want to confirm it's just a few people, but it is not safe. You can't really see the cars coming. And in terms of parking, so
I'm just saying people being what they are, they're going to do what they want to do. What your design is is you want them to go around on the rail trail, but people will do what they want. And I think it's a legitimate concern that they're just going to walk out and want
to walk on the street. And we might want to address that. Also, in terms of parking, if there's not enough parking, again, people might start parking on the church parking lot or there's some extra parking places near that house. And we
we want to just look at those concerns in terms of impact on the neighborhood. So, just in terms of population and safety. So I and I I don't have a solution to offer you, but I just think some of the ideas that Bob Dubis brought
up or if there's any way of of actually working with the town to build a sidewalk uh along Route 137, I think it's almost a must. >> Hey, it's interesting Katherine said that about the the scooters. Um,
>> yeah. >> I I was just driving uh up yesterday on along Queen Anand Road coming up to 137 and lo and behold, there's someone on an electric scooter. >> They're on the right side of the road. Their back is to us, dark clothing. You
couldn't tell that that person was there. It was an easy wipeout. And I think that that's a cautionary note that kids are going to do what they want to do. I think you need to really seriously think about the safety of the children that are going to be in here. And if you're going to have upwards of 25 of
them, that's a lot to deal with. And I think refocusing that, figuring out some way that the town can support that component of it as part of their grant rather than you um you know uh do
dealing with this and um work a deal out associated with that. uh it's it's a better solution because you know that's what the kids are going to do. So if you uh if you account for it and if you plan for it and if you build it uh then at
least you're going to put some safety measures in there that uh you know we can't do anything more than advise and recommend. That's about it. It's up to you working this out with the ZBA. But that's it's a strong recommendation and I'm hearing from our board members.
>> Yeah. >> Uh anything else? Um, >> can we >> um Bob, >> the bus stop is on the on 137. The bus is going to stop on 137, not pull into the >> Yeah, that's what um that's I forget the
name of the bus service, but that's what they do in your town. They stop. >> That's fine. They have flashers. They have people have to stop, right? Uber driver who's using that same pickup doesn't have the the same capabilities to stop on the road. So, they're going
they're going to pull into your >> They're going to pull in. Yeah. Yeah. >> They're going to pull in then they go all the way around or are they how Yeah. >> Yeah. They would pull in pull into an empty parking spot or pick their driver up in front of the management office. >> Okay.
uh passenger. >> Um well, I want to thank you. This has been helpful. Uh you've shared some really good updates and information. Um I think we'll refine some of our previous draft comments and get those out to the ZBA and we'll take a look at
this new package in here. If there's any adjustments that we'll do that, we'll follow it up with a separate letter. >> Great. Um do you uh chair do you expect the letter to um be issued to the ZBA before the hearing on Thursday? >> That's our plan. Yes, that's our plan.
>> Okay. >> But based not on the >> No, the draft has to be worked on and I'm Yeah, I like to talk about that with some of the board members here before we leave tonight. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. We appreciate it.
you. >> I would like to say that I am in favor of this project. Just so you know, I just uh a couple of things that that I think that would uh this is this is not here for for a week or two. This is here
hopefully for for a long long time. and and the different families that do live there uh as time goes by will will appreciate uh a nice way to get down to the ice cream store.
>> Yes. I I just want to confirm Bob's point. Do not underestimate the significance of that ice cream shop. >> It's the best ice cream in the world. It really is. >> I'm in favor of Smitties and Felmouth. >> Yeah, >> that's my favorite.
Thank you again. >> Okay. Um with that perhaps that there's some um revisions that we'll deal with our draft letter. Um I can see some of the things uh either we'll delete or refine.
Um, I would I would say that uh this access way um we threw out a couple of alternatives on that. I understand what was going on and why, but maybe we can offer them some ideas and suggestions
for the ZBA to uh to consider. Um I think the uh the parking is probably it appears to be less of a concern to several of us board members. I guess I that item could probably be uh
eliminated. Uh uh 1.6 is probably a good uh Representative Bob. >> Mr. Chairman, I didn't realize that they that when they configured this that they configure it by a statistics y >> I would assume y >> and that this is over the statistics way
and and uh if if that's protocol >> y >> then for this for this to happen I I would I would imagine that if it's protocol and Charlene even agrees on that that it's protocol that that is sufficient. So, um, we are we are
overkill when we when we approve an apartment or apartment buildings that we want two parking places. >> Yep. >> Uh, and and so I agree with that, but in a project of this scope, it probably
what they're pres proposing is adequate. >> Well, they they went from 1.3 on the main street project to 1.6. So, that's that is a significant improvement. So I I can I can understand it, Charlene.
>> No, no, I agree. Um I I think it will be sufficient for this use. >> It presumes >> I'll work on toning down my comments about the storm drainage. >> It presumes that there's public transportation available that would
allow people not to have two cars. >> Yeah. >> And I didn't I don't see where that is. Yeah, >> there there to get the public transport you're going to have to walk down that bike path into onto to 28 to get the to >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> The if I might I know in other 40bs that I've, you know, been staffed the planning board staffed to in in my previous life, they the applicant actually worked with the regional transit authority to now include this as
a bus stop. So this can be added probably without great difficulty to an existing route so that they won't have to walk down to route 28. In some cases they may have to but if they can incorporate this
into uh a an existing route or an alter, you know, an an alternate way to get there, then I think that they should do that. And I think I suggested that actually the first time we reviewed this is a
strong recommendation that the the applicant work with the regional transit authority to make that happen. >> Yeah. It just there's nowhere for the for a bus that's taking a detour to come up here to serve that to to to make a
U-turn and go back. So, they're going to have to completely change the the traffic patterns, which I I'm just pointing out that has to be part of this whole process or there is going to not be enough parking there. >> Y
I agree with you, Bob. I agree with you. And I think that they can make it work >> to have, you know, a bus come down. It may need to come down Route 137, >> right? you know, they may have to, excuse me, think outside of the box on
the regional transit authority side to accommodate this. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, like I said, I'm going to I'm going to back off some of the my previous draft comments. I think that a lot of them have been addressed by the consultants and um I'm going to be
fairly satisfied with that. I'll try to weave in some of our suggestions about the access and the sidewalks and and um we'll put that in this this current draft. We still have another apple to bite with this next set that um
we'll get you uh copies of these so you can take a look at them and we'll send some follow-up comments associated with this. I don't think this is the last time that they're going to be before the ZBA, so we'll have another chance to to comment on it. Uh yeah, Bob's suggestion about the
sidewalk not having to be the same level and >> um it might be it might make sense to put that into the letter. >> Oh no, I was thinking of that as one of >> and also that they've agreed to look at it. >> Yeah, I I think that these are not going
to be put in in detail, but there's going to be ideas about what to do and why it's a safety related issue for kids. So consider this or this as as alternatives to that. So I I think that we just put it in there, but I don't think we'll have to go into detail. If
we need to do that, we can follow it up after we get through this set of plans. We can do a little bit more homework on details there. There I think they're going to be before the uh ZBA for several other meetings. So I think we'll have another chance to uh refined it if
we need to. So, just keep in mind I'm not I don't remember exactly what their deadline is for completing their review. >> Um I don't know if they're at the end of the CBA only has so much time. So, do you want to send everybody a letter tomorrow, >> a draft letter to look at and everybody
just if you have any major comments that we've gotten once we've changed it? >> I I'd be happy to do that working with Christine. We'll just send out another draft if anybody has uh any other thoughts about some of the language. We we plan on putting putting this to them.
It's going to be by Thursday this week. So, uh if we can get a back draft together by tomorrow, send it out. Any input? We'll revise it again and then use that as the draft that will go um Thursday to the ZBA.
>> It just caught my eye as I'm going through this packet. The trail rules for the bike trail, rail trail >> trail closes at at dark. >> At dark. Yeah. >> So all of a sudden now you only have the
road. >> Yeah. >> That's that's that that's an interesting point and and maybe that should be pointed out that the trail closes at dark. >> Yeah. >> They included in the package those rules that are not >> open to dawn to dusk. It's not even
dark. Yeah, you're right. >> All right. I think there's a what? A 15 mile per hour speed limit. >> Yeah. Well, that >> that's not >> Oh, I'm telling you, they're not 15 miles an hour on those EVs. >> Right. So, so to me, that that doesn't add
anything to putting those there. >> But if I have to get up to go to work and I get up at in the dark to go >> Well, the kids are getting up at that time too in the dark. >> They can't they can't use that. They can't use a trap. >> That would that'd be an interesting point. Yeah.
>> My biggest thing is in the winter time, obviously, if it snows. >> Yeah. >> Because they don't plow it, >> right? >> So, now where are the kids going to go? You you and I both know. And when when they go to push back 137, uh they don't push it all the way back. So, the kids
naturally are going to walk in the road. >> In the road. Yeah. >> Yeah. If if I was 13 years old and I got off the bus and I'm not and I got money in my pocket, I'm not going all the way up there and coming back around. I I know my I know what I would have
>> done. If the grant is for access, the access pedestrian access is just just important. So, if they apply it rather than to the actual driveway access, but to the sidewalk access, >> that's that's possible to conrue it that way. That would be great. you know,
we'll throw that out there. I mean, let them think about different avenues to go about doing this because that's a safer way to do it and, you know, forget about, you know, uh, having the town do this this main elevated base that
they're doing in embankment. Yeah. Yeah. I I I think that's I think that's our role here is to suggest different ideas for them to consider. It looked like they were fairly open to uh looking into some of them and that might be a better outcome. So,
anything else, Charlene, before we move on? >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Oh, except I have to leave. >> When? >> Right now. I apologize. >> I >> I apologize. I apologize. >> Can Can we do one thing? Can we go
through reorganization before you leave? As long as nobody makes me chairman, because I'm going to be traveling a lot this next six months, I'll I'll be able to to join as best I can remotely, but I'm going cross country.
So, um I will be participating remotely as best as I can, but there's no way I can chair. So, I'm happy to stay on his vice, but don't make me chair. >> So, you just have to uh change the agenda here. Just say >> yes. So, I' I'd like to recommend that
we move uh the re reorganization up to uh discussion. Now, at this point, >> don't we have to close what we just did? >> No, they we didn't have a public hearing on the other >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Do we need to vote to change the agenda? >> Do a formal vote.
>> Okay. >> Do we or just if nobody objects? >> Yeah, >> I think you can just take it out of order. >> All right. So, we're taking it out of order. >> All right. >> Good. So, do I have any recommendations for um chair? Yeah, >> vice chair. And I
>> have a recommendation for chair guy named Art. >> I think we should leave it the way it is. >> Nominate. >> I I would recommend Charlene. >> Okay. Uh let's go with Katherine here. What's your What's your motion? >> To nominate Artsprew to continue as
chair and Charlene Greenhol to continue as vice chair. >> Frank to be the clerk. Yep. >> Um, >> and Frank to be clerk. >> Would you like to continue as clerk? >> All right. >> Okay. >> Great. >> So, just so you know, Bob and I were reappointed and we were both sworn in,
so we're legitimate right now. >> Um, uh, I I appreciate the support from the board. I I will continue to enroll. I'd like to finish things that we started. I think we can get a big bite of that this year. So, I'd like to do
that. So, um I if you know if the board does vote for this, then I accept. >> I move we keep it the way it is. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I second that. >> All right. So, then let's take a a roll call vote. Um Katherine, >> I approve. >> Warren, >> I approve. >> Bob, >> approve.
>> Frank, >> I >> and Bob approve. >> And Charlene. >> Can I stayain? No, I approve. >> And Artsboro, I approve. Okay. >> Hey, Charlene. Bye. Have a good time. See you. >> We'll see you. >> Thank you. Bye. Thank you.
>> Oh, there there is one other thing we can do that without uh with the reorganization. The select board needs a recommendation from the planning board for their representative to the community preservation committee. Uh I have been it for the last six years. I'd
be happy to continue that if the board um unless some of the other board members would like to go >> for punishment. Um, I wouldn't mind doing that. Uh, but >> then by all means, >> but I don't want to take your place if you want to. I mean, so,
>> um, the, uh, the CPC did request that I continue. Uh, but I don't have any problem in giving that up if that's something that you would like to do. >> Um, I I would enjoy it. I I I think. >> Yeah. >> Then I'll be happy to coach you though
on on this. So, I I can be your advisor on it. >> Good. >> And let you know where we are. >> Um, so I'll make that motion that Frank be our representative to the CPC. >> All right. So, Bob Dubis second on that. So, we'll do a roll call vote.
Katherine, >> I approve. >> Warren, >> approve. >> Uh, Bob, >> approve. Frank, >> I'll abstain. >> Yeah, approve. >> And, uh, Arts Brew, I approve. >> Thank you, Frank. >> I I do that for
All right. So, we have uh one last thing and uh the um where's my agenda? >> Storm water. >> Yeah. >> Your baby. >> Yes. So, just so you let you know what
we did. Uh Frank was very kind to go through uh and made some language refinement that was uh very helpful. I thought I think we took uh Charlene I mean Christine and I went through and
did like 99% of them. We just made some slight modifications to it. They were all great suggestions. Some duplication was eliminated. So, um I would suggest that we send this to uh the DBW director and director of natural resources and
have them comment on it and after that we can go through and do a formal public hearing. Uh we would still have plenty of time to make any edits between now and then. Yeah. The the only additional comment I I tried not to make any
substantive changes by the way because I'm I don't feel competent to do that. But the um usually your definitions would be defined terms. In other words, you would capitalize them with initial caps and when they appeared in the
document, >> right? >> They would be initial cap. So you would see ah that's a defined term and you would go back and and see >> um and I would suggest we do that as well. >> That's a little suggestion. I like it. Um and then secondly, if any of these
provisions in the uh uh current draft are not in fact used in the regulation, but for some reason we like them, I I would move them to a glossery at at Okay, because it's not a definition, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> So, I I will send that to you after I mark it all up just to make sure that I've covered everything and then we'll Right. I always want a second third pair set of eyes on it >> and and then um we will in the meantime we will send whatever clean version of
that to both the DPW and director of natural resources and see if they have any comments on it. I'm not sure what they will or won't have any um or if they have any consultants that have chimed in on it. I know um couple of they're working on a lot of these pieces
as part of the MS4 permit that they have. So that might be in tune with many of the things that we have and they might have some suggestions based on the information that they're working with their consultants on for the MS4 permit. So they may be ask asking us to deal
with some technical related things that we may not be aware of and that would be great if they have any input into that because of some criteria that they've been asked to do as part of the MS4 permit. It is it really the Massachusetts storm
management policy is dated back to 1997 and no updates. >> Yeah, they've they've done some amendments to it but it's the basis is 1997. Yeah, it hasn't changed. >> Yeah, what they have done is they've changed some of the refinements like in
the criteria. For example, the total suspended solids criteria has been bumped up and they added and they're adding right now for phosphorus removal. Essentially, if you infiltrate your first one in, you deal with all of that
anyway. So, it's it's really important that that is a component of of what an a a civil engineer submits as part of the work. And they were referring to it here tonight. They were taking care of the first one inch. They were infiltrating
that. They were treating that. That's really the key piece and then the rest of it is trying to manage it from the standpoint of well, we don't want any flooding or anything like that. So, so that criteria is hasn't really changed except for they did tweak up the the
amount of it. It's I think it started totaled solid started at a lower level but now it's at uh 80% and phosphorus was just a recent one that was added at 95% removal but it doesn't really put any burden on applicants or designers.
This what they've been doing right now is just they have to submit calculations to support it. That's all. and it doesn't take into account the more uh more frequency and severity of of the storms that they're dealing with. >> That's our choice. All right. We've
established here a 25-year storm that's been on the books for decades. Uh that's a common level for site and for subdivision designs. Um some uh communities um will be overzealous and
ask for a hunter storm event. And I'll tell you something that is honorous. Uh uh usually what I would look at as an engineer is what is your relief if you do have a higher storm event. So you would ask the applicant, okay, you're
managing a 25-y year. What happens when it's a 100redyear and how do you manage that and relieve that on your site? Because it's going to go someplace whether you like it or not. and maybe they're going to direct it someplace that it's not going to, you know, go off on somebody else's property or something
like that. And we can do that as part of our regular site plan review requests uh that applicants come in on >> as long as you're on our committee. >> Well, I'm been uh very vocal about trying to get some technical support on
that. Uh, I was asked that question by the select board when I was being reintered for for the role. I was asked if there's anybody that could provide help to us on this. And I said, it would be great if we had a civil engineer to help us on on especially on the
stormwater piece. And I said, you don't have to have a staff member on it. That could be a consulting firm that would be on retainer that would be paid for by applicants who come before us and that could be on a case-byase basis. Small sites, no big
deal. But if something is larger and more ownorous like this one here, this would be an excellent one to have a peer review and have that be part of what we would request um the applicant to pay for. I I think uh that's something that
I can push a little bit further with with the select board as well as town manager. Uh but it was interesting that question was asked and I and I offered a solution that wasn't going to cost the town anything. >> Yeah. >> I it's just to me um we're planning
we're we're allowing for a plan that was fine 25 years ago when the storms were X. Now they're 1.5x and we're still allowing them at the old standard. And I just if we're going to all this trouble
of updating our storm water management, we should be managing our storm waters, which is this is not reality to me. And >> I'm just wondering why we're we're um we're not being a little more uh
concerned about >> Yeah. Well, I I I will tell you that the jump is significant and it's you won't see it too often any place that they're asking for more than a 25-y year storm event. That is the common practice out
there for any industry. >> Well, I it there's two ways to do it. One is to keep it at 25 and re recalculate what that what amount of water that is, which is probably the better way to do it. There there is a
second type of criteria which is an elevated rainfall rate. What we can do is we can cite that the advocate would need to use that criteria rather than the other older criteria. >> Okay. >> I can dig that that is up and that can
be included in here and that is about uh a good 15 or 20% higher >> and that's what we did that's what I did with the with the weather conditions. Okay. >> It's like, why are you calculating heat loss with weather that was 25 years ago?
So, yeah, we're still at the 25. That's fine, but at least we're being we're using numbers that are more accurate to what the new 25 is. >> And and maybe the thing to do is is that they have to submit information about what the impacts are with a 100year
storm event. Because all these consultants, all they do is once they put this in their hydrocad program, they can spit out five different storm events. It's all automatic for them. So they're not really doing anything more. But what it would do is identify that if
there is something of a higher level and they should be, you know, trying to manage it a little different way because you can do site designs in a half a dozen different ways. and uh if if they come up with a way to actually deal with
the higher level that's great. Some of them actually do submit things that are addressing the honeyear storm events. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> so we can put that in as a as a an a subsequent piece in addition to the criteria is you got to meet this but you
have to file information about what the impacts would be if a honey storm does occur. >> Two things. One is that and the other is we're using the new standard. >> The new standard for the actual rainfall rate. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I like that. I'll work with you about digging that up.
>> Okay. >> And I'll I'll see what over the next year what the board uh uh I mean what the uh select board and town manager would be willing to do with get of uh looking into a peer reviewer for the for the planning board. >> Can I make a comment? I just really want
to support you in that. I know we've discussed it before >> long time, many times with you and many years. Yeah. Um just in the same way that we have town council to help us with legal issues. >> Um it would be better. >> It's a good fortune that we have you on
the board. Um but it's not required that we have a civil engineer on the planning board and I do think that it is the case that for many of our projects we do need to cons have a professional consult on those issues. So I would certainly
support that effort to >> okay >> um convince select board and town manager that this would be a good >> you know I have to do this you keep nudging you know I've been nudging now I'll do a little bit more nudging. Um I don't have any other things on the
agenda. No, I think we're we're done. >> Yes. >> Um I have a couple of um just wordsmith things on the draft which I can just leave with you. >> Please do. >> Um would also like to say I really noted that somebody spent a lot of time on this because uh virtually everything I
saw was really pretty damn good. Even my words smithing is you could forget it and it wouldn't change anything dramatically. But I would dramatically endorse, you know, Frank's comment that a defined term has got to be capitalized in the document.
>> I've seen it that way, too. So that's that's an automatic. Yeah, that's an easy two or three times in reading the draft and I said, I think that's a defined term, but I you know, and but then I'd have to go back and say, "Yeah, it is a defined term." But I said, "But it isn't a defined term because it's not capitalized." So why is it?
>> You know, it's an easy thing to do with a with a find and replace. Yeah. So anyway, >> all right. >> Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. Um, that was Bob Dubis with
the motion and that was Bob Worcher with the second. All right. Roll call vote. Katherine >> I approve. >> Warren >> approve. >> Bob >> approve. Frank >> approve. >> Bob >> approve. And Arts, I approve. And the time is uh 6:52.
Hello.