Welcome everyone to the zoning board of appeals meeting in Chadam. A special meeting on November 24th, 2025. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing of any smart on any smartphone or tablet
device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Are there anybody qualified for that warning? No. Okay. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025
signing of the chapter 2 of the act 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chadam zoning board of appeals 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 158-9454410 conference ID 494 54269
pound or join the meeting via the Microsoft links uh in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and Simocast but despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide real time access. We will do we will post a record of this
meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. This is not um a meeting where we were going to be where we will be taking any public comments um in any way, shape or form. It's a special meeting where we will uh continue our deliberations and hopefully a vote on
the Penrose meeting I mean um Main Street um application. So with that, first we'll take a roll call vote of all members starting with David Vich. >> Uh David H. Vich and I approve of this meeting format. >> I'm David S. Nixon and I approve.
>> C S simple. I approve of this format. >> Lee HVY. I approve. >> Steven Dbor, I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick, I approve. >> And Randy Podash, I approve as well. We do have our attorney Jay Talaman online and we'll be working with him really in
real time for our uh our our voting and our decision on application for comprehensive permit. Uh actually Sarah did read your >> um it's just application 25-034 comprehensive permit for zero and 1533
Main Street. >> Okay. So with that, um Jay, do you want to sort of lead us through since we're um doing this for the first time? >> Sure. Um can I share that?
Make sure I don't know if that's working for some reason. >> Yeah, it's it's on our screen. Um, we all have it as well. Um, Sarah printed out hard copies for everybody and we've had it since Friday or whenever we
picked it up. So, what you have on the screen is uh um fine. Yes. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that and everyone can can everyone still see it? >> We can see the it's a little truncated,
but um >> and I just want to make sure because I uh Teams is a little different sharing um that when we're making changes in real time, I want to make sure everyone can uh can see it. Okay.
Okay. Well, depending on people's contact lenses and glasses, but >> can increase the size a little. >> Yeah, a lot. Um Jay, if you take anything if you go
under review, if you take off the comment or format bubble, it'll make it larger but still show the track changes. >> Okay. So review. So take off show comments. >> So under um show markup. So you're going
to go uh midway. Yep. Click there. And uh you'll take off the formatting and just leave insertions and deletions. And that should >> Okay. Is that a little bit better for folks? >> No.
>> Okay. >> Um sorry. Just switch it to a simple markup >> and see if that helps. That may not give you the red line version though. >> Yeah, I don't think it does give me red line, but that might be okay.
So, does is that a little bit bigger for folks? >> Yeah, it's it's it's okay. >> All right. So, what I thought we would do is um is
go through this um kind of paragraph by paragraph. A lot of this stuff I think we can talk about very briefly and I think we'll get into the the meteor issues. Uh once we get to findings and conditions and even under the conditions, there's a lot of stuff
that's boilerplate. So, I don't think it'll take us too long, but I'm just my intent is to just kind of go in order and and folks should just stop me if they want to add something. And I think what what I'll try and do and I think
what Sarah will try and do is we'll make changes in real time now and then we'll probably regroup to the extent we vote. then we're voting something that then Randy can can sign or the board can sign and we'll be done if we felt like we had
to get back together for um any cleanup we could do that as well. But my hope is that we can uh knock this out and you know we'll obviously do some further proofing and things like that for typos as as we go through and filling in blanks. But um >> that sounds Yep.
>> Okay. All right. So um just basically so the first session um is procedural history and jurisdictional findings. That's where we say how we got here just procedurally and the jurisdictional findings of which there are three in number. Um it is uh and we discuss those
briefly. You know the the first one just says what the application is and what it isn't um or what it is. Um the and then we're going to repeat that a little bit later. Uh, number two is the property. I have a blank in there because I I can't
really tell from the the view what's on the property. It looks like there's a house, but also a bunch of other outbuildings. So, we can that is kind of what I wanted to fill in there. So, I don't know if anyone has anything to add
about that one about what's on site if maybe Sarah or someone else. >> Sarah Sarah's going to do that. Um I believe there is a single family dwelling, three cottages. >> Okay. >> And out buildings, i.e. sheds.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yep. >> Okay. Three out build. Oh, uh three cottages. You said >> three cottages, correct? >> Okay. All right. So, we got that. Um uh next one is a jurisdictional finding.
They have to be a limited dividend entity. And what the law says is they'll be a limited dividend entity when they execute um a uh a regulatory agreement under the low-income housing tax credit
program. That is kind of a a simple requirement. They don't have to really do that upfront. um they just have to pledge to do that within those uh agreements which will measure their dividend and there's a process for it. Uh the number four is control of the
site. Um they have a uh land disposition agreement. I'm actually going to spell that out um with the town which governs essentially the color of title meaning that they have an agreement to obtain
the the property for uh on which this is proposed. Um and then uh there's another requirement that they have to have final approval at the end of the process and once they get
that they'll satisfy uh additional requirements. Number six is just the hearing history which Sarah um provided all the dates in there. Number seven is the players from their side. Number eight is the players from our side.
>> Nine is just a >> typo in >> I'm sorry. Say again. >> What m there's a type. Are we going to do typos now or worry about that later? >> I we could do it whenever if they're simple. Let's and we can grab it now. Let's do them now. >> This one is simple, Jay. I believe uh
it's it refers to tig and bond and I believe there's an e on the end of tig. You have ti gh. >> Yes, you are correct. Thank you. >> And also Jay throughout it should be penrose would be two ends. >> Okay. All right. So, we can do a search
and find for that. All right. So, again, we we note that there was peer review um number nine that we uh work with our other boards and commissions and we heard from staff and we heard from the
public. Um, and number 11, the key component of that is the last sentence. The revised plans as described below, and we'll get into that, are the plans of record for the project. And what that means is we are measuring everything.
When we use the term plans, it's the revised ones. And we might provide a little redundancy on on exactly what they have revised here, but it's the revised plans that have the increased setbacks, the reduced heights, um uh the
reduced uh size of the administration building, and a few other things in there. So, it's the revised plans that count, not what they got in there. Uh under number one, we still have some blanks to fill in. we have to uh uh state what those plans are that are
describing the plans as revised and so Sarah and I can work on that in between sessions make sure we have the most recent um dated plans and put that all in there. >> Um number two say and comment there.
>> No, no, that's that that kind of explains a lot of what I was thinking. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Number two, um here is just zoning district west where it is and I do want to add in there because I think it's important as context that it is a busy
thoroughfare in Chadam. Um uh Sarah filled this in here on number three lets us know what's on the site. Number four is accesses via Main Street. You know, a lot of this stuff is carryover. This is the the the way we
create a story through our decision in case there's a challenge either a collateral challenge by someone else or by Penrose themselves. We'd like to have as many facts in these as possible. Um number five is essentially what they're building 48 units and nine separate
buildings plus an administration uh administrative building. Um the layout of the buildings have been changed in order to increase setbacks to the uh neighboring properties. If there's anything else, we can add it there. I know there's been other changes
that are more self-evident, but I did want to call that one out because I think there was a lot of discussion about it. Number six is just the the bedroom breakdown for what they've proposed. Um and uh the notation that there is a
small attached exterior storage bin. I didn't really have another word for bin. It didn't seem it's not a garage. I didn't know what else to call it there. I'm open to suggestions. It seemed appropriate given its general small size.
could be storage compartment, storage structure, whatever, but I I don't think it matters a whole lot. >> No, that's fine. I don't think it's material right now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, uh, the design of the pro proposed building, I should be is intended to
evoke local architecture and some modifications have been made based upon input from the board. The applicant was cooperative and the resulting modification improved the function and appearance of the project. Um again that's my words listening to
you all about where you ended up on this at le or at least a majority of you ended up um and with the input of the board the applicant uh has reduced the size of the admin uh administrative building. Uh number eight talks about uh the green
space about some landscaping. We're going to talk quite a bit about landscaping below in some of the findings and the conditions. Notes their um uh agreement to maintain as many of the existing mature trees as possible that they're
amendable to installing an irrigation system which we're going to return to and and impose some conditions on to ensure the durability of the landscaping. Um as revised they've got the 73 parking spaces. Thank you Sarah. I couldn't
remember the revised number of parking spaces there. Um the applicant has proposed essentially 48 and then 25. I know that we didn't quite uh round out our discussion on that and we're going to revisit that in the findings and the
conditions to make see if we want to go with that scheme or with something else on that. I know that there was some discussion or at least my notes indicate that there was some discussion from the last session and it was slightly unresolved. um the crosswalk issue. Um I'm going to
say here in close proximity to the east of the project, I believe. >> Um yeah, Mr. Nixon has a comment on that, too. So, um >> Sure. >> So, >> yeah, Jay, to me, uh the word crosswalk doesn't define really what we were
talking about. It was a lighted crosswalk with red warning flashers as because if we just leave it as a crosswork that's just painting some lines on the street. >> Yeah. >> And it is missing the idea of of what we were talking about. Okay.
>> And I had a note on that too, Jay. Just want to um I have a note that Mr. Nixon can see the same thing essentially. Um but I also said see the police department uh picture. So that may be incorporated by reference because he the
chief laid it out for us what he believes it should look like and I think that's exactly what Mr. Nixon um is suggesting and I and I agree with that. It's actually just been done on Cocoa Cove which is near another one um up on
137. So they're pretty close in proximity. So um I think that's encouraging and it does have a button and a flasher and a sign all of that. >> All right. I added the word signalize there and I'm going to say as depicted
in um is it a sketch by the police department or submittal? I'll just say submitt. >> Uh the police um only showed really a sign because he would like additional signage installed, but that would be off of the applicant's property. Um
just notifying that there is a a signalized crosswalk ahead. He had suggested that in his um comment to the board. >> Okay. >> But >> why don't I I leave it as signalized here and then we can pick it up again if we have specific things uh features that
we want in the findings and in the conditions. We can add more depth to it, but I've added um the word signalized here for now. >> Yeah, that's fine. See, that's why this gets it's not your fault. It gets a little confusing because we go through
like I thought mentioned to you before, you know, the project description and then we get nervous that we're not as detailed in this part, but then we all have to just sort of hang on and realize we're going to get more detailed in the next part. Does that sound right?
>> Yeah, it does. And and again, don't forget we define the plans as the latest uh architectural plans and site plans. So we know that the last set of plans had some of the dimensional criteria that were improvements. So at the very
least it's all going to revert back to that to those plans, not the original plan. So that's what the decision is based on, right? But we're going to provide some redundancy in some of the findings and conditions to make sure everyone knows exactly what
the improvements are in the plan either provided by Penrose voluntarily or as imposed by conditions of the board. >> Thank you. Okay. So, number 11 is um tracks
essentially what the proposal was uh in the LDA as well as in the application materials. It's a little tricky because under their particular subsidized programs and the way these things work, they have offered to provide the um 32
units at 60% of area median income uh with the remaining units at 110% of area median income. And but if for some reason there's a foreclosure and those will all be perpetual uh restrictions,
but accepting in the event of foreclosure, it would revert back to only 25% of the units being affordable to households earning no more than 80% of AMI. foreclosure is incredibly rare
in in rental projects, but given the limitations of their subsidizing program, that's what we arrived with after discussing with them at the LDA stage, the law and the limitations of their subsidized program. So, and that's all right in their application as well,
all of those materials in and the LDA. So, this is nothing new. It's just kind of laying out there, laying it out there in in a single paragraph. Okay. >> 12 is just water and sewer. And then we get to findings and some of this is
>> Randy. Sorry. Oh, Jenny, sorry. Quick question. Is local preference um embedded in that too? Number 11 >> is local. >> It's it I I think they've always agreed to provide local preference and I have a condition in there that describes the
local preference. >> So, we can't require local preference. We can require that they assist us in trying to obtain local preference because local preference is never an automatic. We have to apply to the state
to get local preference and that's what Penrose has volunteered to help us do that and they are certainly amendable to local preference. But we are going to have to after the permit submitted essentially a petition or request from EOHLC to obtain approval to do local
preference. It's gotten a lot more difficult because of fair housing laws. >> Okay. I just want to make sure it's captured if it's >> Yes. No, we captured and yeah, we'll we'll discuss it um below in it. I pick it up in the conditions. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep. So the findings, some of this is boilerplate stuff and some of it is very specific stuff that is geared towards what you all work so hard to uh negotiate with Penrose and what Penrose put some effort into as well, but some
of it is is pretty basic. So the first one is that they were cooperative and flexible. If anyone feels that they weren't, then you know we we can change it. This was I they made changes. So I I thought this was uh appropriate. >> Mr. Nixon has a comment. >> Sure.
>> Yeah. My problem with this the word in here, Jay, is that the cooperative aspect and flexible business was true on minor concerns, but the substantial ones that I was talking about last week, there was
no cooperation or flexibility. It just no. So somehow this the way it's written now it's kind of like oh everything was great and everybody was cooperative and everybody was flexible which simply wasn't true.
So I don't know how we or how important maybe it isn't important at all. I don't know. >> No, I think it David, you know, again I think it's up to the board. So I just added some language here that just said was cooperative and flexible on many significant matters as discussed herein
and and I I think that that that qualifier may help a little bit. I agree with you that there are a couple things where they said that they couldn't move um and one of them being density issues. So I think that that that's certainly a fair comment. So I just added a little
bit uh of language there on many significant matters. Obviously we do have increased setbacks, reduced height, smaller administrative building. Y >> what have we said some concerns of the board?
>> I mean you know so change many to some >> the board finds that the applicant was cooperative and flexible and willing to make and willingly made project changes to address some concerns of the board. >> Okay, that's fine.
>> I mean yeah it's true. Yeah. No, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> So, just added that. So, I've added a few language said on many significant matters as discussed here and in willingly made project changes to address some concerns of the board, town officials, and members of the public.
>> Yeah. And that's fine with me. >> I think that's fine with me. >> Okay. No, that's good. I'm glad we're Yeah, please speak up. That's why we're doing this. >> Yep. >> So, um number two is a given. We don't have 10% affordable housing. um uh that
there is some we find that we do have a continuing need for affordable housing. I don't think that's um in in dispute here among the board members. If it is, we should chime in and that this project will provide such housing, especially in that the pro project will provide more than the
minimum 25% affordable units. I think all those things are true. If someone wants to add to this, then fine. you know, obviously they're also priding providing this second level of affordability uh at 110% of AMI units. So, there's
some benefit there. >> Okay. Um, >> I say number four is kind of I add it because I think that I don't think if people feel differently there this does meet some smart growth principles not
all of them but it is generally I'm I'm going to add generally consistent. >> Why don't you just put some smart growth principles then if it meets some? >> I mean >> that fair >> because >> it's it's it's perfectly fine. Again, no one is is going to be basing an appeal
on on this per se. This is more insulation in case there's a third party um comment that we're it doesn't meet any it clearly meets some smart growth principles. I have no issue with that.
>> Good. >> There's a word missing here on the next one. Uh, number five, I just added that. Um, >> sore. >> Yep. Um, number six, I don't think that our traffic consultant found that it
adversely impacted the level of service. Level of service meaning congestion. That is a term that traffic analysts use on Main Street and that the ingress and egress for the project is designed in accordance with accepted standards. I don't recall a dispute on that at all or
a comment from the board. There there wasn't one. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. Um and number seven is really kind of uh setting up the condition regarding the the crosswalk. Um
you essentially saying that we need another crosswalk in in the closer in closer it should be closer proximity to the project is advisable. Okay, >> Jay, did you want to add in signalize to
any of these? >> Well, we I think we should probably pick it up um >> conditions. >> I'm going to say all right, I'll say with signalization here in close proximity to the project is advisable. So, I added that there.
Um, number eight sets up a condition because I think we all I think the boards or the consensus of the board, not unanimous, was that um, uh, uh, redesign of the administrative building to fit local architecture would be
something that we would want to do within the conditions. And that kind of tracks what the board has already discussed, >> right? And we can get more specific if if there needs to be any more specificity. Should it be here or should it be in conditions? >> I I I think we can do it in the
conditions, Randy. >> Okay, we'll wait then. >> And if we have to if in looking at the conditions we have to come back to this one and and have it mirror it more strongly, we can do that. >> Okay. >> All right. So number nine is the parking. And this was because my notes indicated that while there was some
consensus for one per plus the remaining I think 20 something uh spaces being uh for kind of first come first serve but I don't I don't recall and my notes indicate that there was not a final consensus on how we wanted to allocate
uh the spaces. So, I I had indicated that I was going to talk to Tracy um from um the housing authority and she thought that one space allocated for the 48 units um is a very good idea and I
think that's good advice because it's right here in Chadam and it's not just some generalized what's the best thing for parking, you know, in the universe or in Massachusetts or whatever. you know, this is right down the street and she thinks that would be a very good idea to allocate. So, I I would like to
see that. Um, what do you think, Mr. Beach? The only um the only question I have in in this process or within this process is um you know I mean Penrose is going to have eyes on this in in as project goes
forward and it's working and if they determine that it's not really working as well as that what what how how does that get remedied? Uh is it easily remedied difficultly remedied? That's what I want. She indicated that that's one of those things that's easily
remedied. That's how I even thought about her as somebody to talk to because she was she cautioned against being too um too stuck on some things that could be changed. >> Yeah. So I I mean as long as as you know if if they try this and they find out
it's it's somehow not working the best that they think it could. Uh as long as there's flexibility to provide some remedy that's >> Yeah. Mr. Nixon, anything on that? Paul, >> I'm a little unclear on what what you ended up saying. Are you saying that uh
if it doesn't seem to work out with a a spot assigned to each tenant that then who negotiates or resolves that issue? >> It it seems ahead Jay please. So what we could do to the extent that there's any
concern about it is we could impose uh within the conditions below and that that we're um going to require review after like what we would normally do is something like 6 months after full
occupancy. We would review um they would provide like a report on uh parking um to see if there's any additional changes with respect to the allocation of spots. >> That that way we could check in with
them on that uh after the fact at a at a administrative board meeting on that. >> Would you agree? >> And when we get when we get to the conditions we could add that language. >> All right. Well, maybe I should wait until we get to the conditions. I'm I'm
just curious as to how whether a lease is entered into with a tenant that provides for a specific parking space, how that gets resolved without the space uh in the future. But
>> fair fair point. Um um we'll let's I I just um added the subject to further review is noted below and then um we can uh address that when we get to conditions and brainstorm a little bit on that. But
>> I think in that most leases are going to be temporal and for a period of time then there may there will be an opportunity probably for some flexibility. >> Okay. And I'm I'm perfectly flexible on that. Whatever whatever uh you know everybody wants to do is is fine with
me. I just >> And it may be also Randy that Penrose's experience with it is that it's not working well and then they could come and ask us for a change to the condition that we have on this. >> Yeah, sure.
>> So, I mean it's it's going to be feel it's going to be um it's going to be most personal to Penrose. They're going to be the ones if there's agit amongst the residents over the adequacy of parking, they're probably going to want to be responsive to it as well.
>> Okay. Anybody else on the parking? No. Yes, Jenny. >> Well, I mean, are we taking opinions or I I liked the um >> Okay. >> the assignment. >> Oh, we're taking opinions >> of one Yeah. >> parking per unit. So, 48 >> um was it 48?
>> We'll wait. We can wait till we get into conditions and then see what everybody wants to do with that. >> Um, okay Jay. >> Okay. So 10 I think um I think this should be a well
um I think that we all ended up or not maybe not all of us but I think the consensus of the board is that an irrigation system to serve the landscaping on the site was a good idea. Everyone's been concerned um about the
impacts to the local aquifer and everything else and the interest in not overwatering, but I think the consensus as I recall it is that we felt that having an irrigation system was appropriate. U Mr.
Attorney Singer did um forward to me and we could pick it up um at conditions what their proposal for it was if I could. Sure. And and also not to forget that the water that the trees are watered with goes right back into the
ground. Um and they're not allowed to use the water from the the units. So I think we need a well. I think it just it's obvious to me, >> right? >> Yeah. Because otherwise you're going to have big trucks coming in and out of there with, you know, giant bags of
water. And that's really not something that we're trying to do here. I don't think either. Why don't we why don't we deal with that when we deal with conditions? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Right. So, the and just to kind of set it up, the email I received from attorney Singer was um that they would
uh request that the condition allow watering without without restrictions during the first two to three growing seasons to allow establishment and then follow all town restrictions thereafter. So that that was their that was their uh
proposal and we can pick that up when we talk about the conditions. M >> Mr. Nixon and Mr. Vich are nodding yes. Um we'll let Paul comment on that once again. I'll wait till we get to conditions. But >> I like it. I like that last statement you made. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right.
>> Okay. >> Um number 11 is that you know we want them to maintain as many of the existing mature trees as possible. um and that the board finds that the landscaping plan should be modified to include uh more larger caliber trees.
And some of that I took when we get to the conditions, you'll see I borrowed heavily um from the the um proposed conditions that um Virginia that Jenny uh put out there on that. So, we can talk about that in a little bit.
>> Okay. 12 sets up uh something with respect to the siding and we'll get to that. Again, the direction that I've received from the board was to refer again >> to all the some of the hard work that Jenny put together and kind of thinking
this through. So, we'll see her conditions kind of mirrored uh below. And I think in my conversations with Randy, I think we'll probably be tweaking it or maybe tweaking it a little bit further. But I what I did was follow the board's direction on that
one. >> Yep. We'll we'll tweak that when we get to it. Yep. >> Yep. Number 13 follows what the board commented on during the initial deliberation was. And I forget who it was. If it was Paul or
um uh Steve, I think that said it might have been someone else that the the storage bin should be enlarged so that we could have a bicycle >> stored in it. And what I added was two bicycles just because I thought
>> I've got some information on that. I um it was a good try, but um I I go I received some information um from a a reliable source that that wasn't going to be possible to fit two bikes. Um so
we need to stay with one. Would the board like to specify one adultsized bicycle? >> Yes. >> And Randy, >> can we um I I just a suggestion instead
of bin, call it an enclosure. >> Sure. Yeah. >> I think that's a little more descriptive. Okay. And we'll we'll track that language throughout. >> Yeah. Um
I I would I would just leave it at two bicycles. I mean, whether it's an adult or a midsize or a child's bike or what to me, um you're trying to zero it in on what's an adult bike, you know, if you're 15,
is that an adult bike or is a medium bike or something? Let's leave it at two bikes. If they fit, great. >> Brad, if you can put one bike in, usually you can put two in. >> Well, >> um >> this this may
>> So, I changed it right now just so we can frame the discussion and then you all can decide how you want to go. So, I stated that the storage enclosures for the units should be enlarged to ensure that at least one adult-siz bicycle may
be stored therein. that that's the language that I just modified it to. So, I don't know how the board feels about it. And again, full disclosure, no one on the board ever said two bikes. >> No, you did. You did.
>> I did. And it's probably because of my biased bias as someone who owns like six bikes and you know, so >> I also have six bikes too and I have a shed to put them in. So, >> what's the reason, Randy, that it can't be two bikes? that it wasn't going to be
able to be large enough um to fit them. Um that was just what I what I gleaned from a a brief conversation. So we might be asking for the impossible but >> I I don't know if this is appropriate
place or comment but you know I had this one of these thoughts where I woke up and said whoa wait bicycle storage in these stoages which are appended to the buildings what about ebikes and the problem of fire and so I don't know I mean I don't know how I'm sure
somebody's anticipating that and how to deal with it. I don't know. I don't know. It's beyond the scope of today. I think >> ebikes is uh Dave I we're towns everywhere are trying to um grapple as is the state as are other jurisdictions
too with better regulations in and around the different kinds of ebikes. So those things are different the the fire protection and and everything else. Maybe they'll have different storage requirements or different battery storage. Ebikes can be a little bit
bigger as as well. They can be. And there's different kinds of ebikes, too. There's pedal assist versus a full-blown like it's almost like a moped. So, I don't know what to add to that. I think that we're we're go we'd be going down a
little bit of a rabbit hole if we threw threw something in there. >> No, I don't think we I get I'm getting a message we shouldn't be trying to deal with that here. It's just something that I went Whoa. What about because this is a problem and but clearly Jay has has has said that true. So, >> you know, I I think they can always come
back in the long run, you know, deal with it somehow as life evolves. You know, there's different inventions and uh this is what we have to do. >> By this time next year, it's going to be a very different because people are um wrestling with how to regulate um
ebikes. Not I think they've solved some of the fire issues. What they haven't solved is some of the safety issues around kids using them, but that's a whole other thing. So, we won't >> um talk about it. Um 14
um is pretty basic. It's kind of boilerplate. If we're going to approve a project, if this wasn't an approval, it would be worded differently, is we state that when they comply with all these conditions, it'll be, and I use quote unquote, the term consistent with local
needs. That's a 40B term. um and says as long so long as you comply with those conditions then it's consistent with local uh needs. Um and and then the board also finds that any unmitigated impacts posed by the project will not
outweigh the benefits provided by the project's affordable units. And what that means essentially is we know that there's, you know, some of the some elements of this project we don't like, but the powerful sway of affordable housing is um is generally in the
balancing test required by the state is going to outweigh anything unless we are essentially going to say no. But um you know there's there's another condition here that um
number 17 I'm just jumping ahead because it relates to it that we say that the conditions are necessary to properly address any local concerns and that those local conditions will not render the project uneconomic and to the extent
they do they're still necessary because those concerns outweigh the statutory requirements. So the project we're essentially saying the project finds kind of the sweet spot between addressing some things and complying with the conditions that make the
project approvable is essentially what we're saying there, >> right? And you know, some people on this in this on this board are not going to agree with maybe, you know, 14 through 17 and we can't really change the language,
you know, in my opinion um to make them comfortable with it because that that's why they might not vote for it because they don't think that it balances out. So, and we can't, you know, persuade them to do that and we shouldn't. People
have to do what they um what they think. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're now moving on to decision in >> Randy. I'm sorry, Jay. I I don't see anything on here about the dumpster. Did we land somewhere with that
>> as far as condition? I mean, uh >> I'm wondering is it shown on the latest set of plans in the agreed upon location? That's a good I had been I'd been wondering about that myself. My I had a vague recollection, Jenny, that at on a later set of plans, and maybe Sarah
could comment on that, if the if the location of the dumpster was in in an area that we could live with or not. Uh, I'm just pulling up the most recent plan set and
um the dumpster appears to be on well there's one on the easterly side of the property and one on the westerly side of the property towards the rear. So there are two dumpsters. Um, if I share my screen real quick, I can show you guys just to make sure these are the
locations. So here uh down at the bottom there and on the other side right there. So I um I do remember that they were moved but at one point the request was
to have them in the center away from the both sides of the abuters. That's what >> whose request >> I don't know maybe mine. I know I brought it up recently at the meeting house hearing and with that same principle that
something like that should should not be on the I think near and butter. I said that recently at meeting house but yes I I can't I mean yeah meeting house but I I don't remember if I specifically >> said exactly that for Main Street but I
I do know we talked about the dumpster a couple of times. Yeah, we might have talked about the my memory now and is that we talked about it and Penrose didn't think there was a way to really move it and still be able to have the
truck access it. Is that your memory, Sarah? >> Yeah, they said uh I do believe they said functionally it wouldn't work putting it in the central green space or near the maintenance building because of how the trucks have to swing to be able to access and empty the dumpster units.
Okay. So, I mean, I don't agree with that because I've been saying several times that to improve the setbacks for the butters without changing the infrastructure of the proposal, things were getting crowded and squeezed. And this is an example of that. So maybe I'm
just making a comment, but >> but that same side, the westerly side of butter was um tended to with >> Well, both sides were tended to and the back. >> Yeah. Right. >> I'm just saying in general, I don't think a dumpster should be next to an
abutter period in any complex >> of a hundred people. So that's just an example of where you know that there was a I had said in a few times that there's a crowding going on by improving the setbacks for the abuters. We lost
parking. We lost and maybe I didn't specifically say and we lost the dumpsters but I'm just that's why I brought it up just >> Yeah. >> I mean does anybody else have any comment on that or >> Yes. I'm equally I'm equally as
concerned. >> Yeah. >> So, Jenny's 100% correct. >> No, no, there's no doubt that she's correct. It's just what can we do about it is the issue. >> I think the issue came up in part because I asked them to respond to the uh suggestion that was made by uh Rick
Levit uh concerning uh where the dumpster was located. And at that time, they said they could not relocate it, >> right, >> as a result of the logistical problem. >> Yeah. So it was it it was responded to and the answer was no. Um that does
happen. Um maybe maybe we could condition it with um some extra um screening. Um I don't know. We could get to that with conditions perhaps. What do you think, Mr. Beach? >> Well, I think that screening is is of of the dumpsters has already been proposed.
Um, so I I don't know that I mean I know they that was part of the presentation said it isn't just the dumpsters sitting out there. It's going to be screened both I think with a fence and vegetation. So I I I think I think we I think we've
been through that with them. So >> yeah. No, I I can't disagree with you. Um >> but yet that's exactly what happened at the meeting house. They took it away from the edge. They put it in the middle and they and they screened it. Right. >> Right.
>> Right. >> So why can't they do it here? >> I don't know. >> How about if we table that? We'll come back to it. Promise >> it was turning radius of the fire truck maybe or or something. I think
>> right Sarah is that what it was? So, it had more I believe it had more to do with um not so much the fire truck because the fire trucks have adequate turning radi within this site. >> Um it had to do with you have parking
all along the interior >> of the green. So, the only place they could put it is in the green space, and you wouldn't be able to get you wouldn't be able to get a truck in there to back
up or get get to it because there's parking on either side. So, the site layout makes it very difficult to >> locate it in that central green space. And we talked about this in the office,
too, because, you know, I I share the concern. I do, and I don't think you're wrong at all. You're right. But I don't know what to do about it. >> I guess we're going to have to vote on it anyway. So, >> okay. >> It's part of something that might stick out.
Why why don't we um when we get down to the landscaping condition, I think it would be a good opportunity for us to kind of um put a pin in this and and discuss it as part of the overall um requirement for them to send enhanced
landscaping information and a final landscaping plan. >> Sure. >> So, and then if we have to come back and do a um a finding if necessary, we could always do that. >> Okay. Okay.
All right. So, moving on to um the most important section, decision and conditions. Um this a lot of this is boilerplate stuff, but I still want to go through it to make sure that you uh understand it.
Um number one is essentially the main part of it is that um is that we are fixing the project based upon the last version of the plan. So you can see that it's uh as defined in
the plans. So um that's essentially just a putting that putting that marker in in that. So, um, we can allow some minor variations in design, but anything material they've got to come back and submit it for the board's review, and
we'll talk a little bit about that in a little bit. Um, number two is no more than 48 units. Pretty straightforward there. Um, number three is a requirement that they have to do anyway. They have to um before they can get building
permits have to get final approval by the applicant subsidizing agency which is EOHLC. That's standard that's in the regs. They'd have to do that even if I didn't have this um condition here. Number four is a condition that I've
kind of developed over time um with respect to 40B projects just to and part of this is because under 40B you're not required to do final design plans even though the plans are pretty sophisticated here. They're not really
final design plans. So, what we require is a final set of plans be submitted to us so we could have whoever we're going to use for engineering review or the building commissioner, a period of time to review them for consistency with this
decision. So, my experience has kind of led me to go with a 45day period so that we can review it. And it's going to be a lot of different plans. It's going to be the engineering plans, the architectural plans, landscaping plans, final lighting plans, um you know, construction
management plans, all of those things. We have some provisions in here for um uh extensions and to make sure that they give us um a complete set of plans. But this has been kind of a provision
that I have made to reflect um the unique process under 40B whereby we don't really get the final the final fully detailed plans until after our 40B project or our permitting is done with the zoning board. So this is pretty
straightforward. It's something that I've kind of developed and I kind of made a few changes to fit this particular project. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> I do say number five because this was a
uh something that the board had flagged um uh for uh review. Um and that is that they wanted to make sure that um that all of the mechanicals were shown, that
we know where they are, and if there's something more the board was looking for here, this would be the place to put it. So, because I I think that my understanding of the board's concern here is we didn't quite know where all the mechanicals were going. >> I think that's one issue that I raised
uh and that in part was we didn't know what they were going to look like either. Um and I'm and in connection with that, I'm not quite sure what uh prior administrative approval means in the context. >> So, and and and that's a good question. So, when I say prior administrative
approval, um it's so that we don't open a new public hearing that we're just checking a box, it doesn't mean we have to say yes, but we're not running, we're not making them go through a full-blown public hearing for showing us where these mechanicals are. They show them to
us. If it's okay, we say yes. If we want them to change the location slightly of them, then we tell them to fix it. But I want to make sure in fairness to them that we're not making every single little um requirement be a full-blown
public hearing. There's also a few cases out there under 40B where we can't require a whole bunch of new public hearings where we could essentially provide a poison pill and kill a project. So, this seemed to be among
those things that was um kind of a lesser detail, but we wanted it to be taken care of, which is why I made it more of an administrative approval rather than an approval after a public hearing. >> But it does indicate it would be on our
agenda and we would vote on it. >> Uh 100%. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, so for example, if they put it up on some kind of a ugly pedestal and we didn't like the way it appeared and we didn't feel like it had enough screening, we could deal with that, right?
>> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> but it's a it's a it's a way for us to capture um what we need to have done without unduly like impacting their process post
permit. So, we're we still would able would be able to get together with them and discuss it and have a little bit of jurisdiction over it without slowing things down too much. Jay, for consistenc sorry for consistency with our um local zoning
bylaw, uh instead of external mechanical systems, I I just change in my draft, I have an exterior mechanical system appliances just so the the terminology >> I'll change it too on mine as well. Um Sarah, thank you. Um okay, this one um
is relates to storm water management. We we generally will want a full-blown plan. This is part of the final site plans. I'm just adding a little more teeth to it to make sure that our engineer gets an opportunity to review everything there. There are some
detailed um and there has been some review, but when they get down to it, we want them uh our engineer to be able to review them for compliance with um uh the state's requirements here. Pretty straightforward.
Um uh final as to the final architectural plans, they'll be substantially in conformance with the building design and layout. Um uh as shown on the revised plan submitted to the board.
>> Um any review by our engineer will be only to show that the configuration of the building is consistent with the plans. We are not reviewing that. that's the building commissioner retains their customary review of the technical things. We just want to see them the
architectural plans to make sure that they conform with our um other conditions here, not to do a review that the building commissioner is going to do anyway. Um, and then let me make a
change here on the adultsiz bicycle. Change bin to enclosure. >> So Jay, number seven is really about the placement of the buildings and their heights. Is that accurate? Um,
number seven. Yeah, it's really just we want to make sure that it a that the design is consistent with the design that they gave us and their locations and heights and all those other good things. Yes. >> Okay. >> And then the rest of it, the actual
design stuff, the um building commissioner is going to uh do it there. >> Okay. And and number yeah, number eight is the one that I think Jenny's going to shed some light on in terms of we're not asking them if if I'm correct to use um
wood uh cedar shingles. We're asking them to use something a little different. Right, Jenny? >> Let's just finish with seven first. Good. Uh >> did we end up with two at the at the very least two adult-sized bicycles? >> No, >> I don't think so.
>> I think we ended up with one >> one. And we do want to say adult- sized. >> Yes. >> Yes, it says adult. >> Yeah, >> I know. But there was some dissension about that. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, and that's why I highlighted this um section here. So, essentially, and and Jenny can talk to this better than I can. >> Yeah. is we wanted to go with white painted clapboard on kind of the front-facing facades and then go with
more of a classic kind of cedar shake. But their proposal was I think a cementatious product and there was some indication in the proposed conditions that maybe we would go to um uh cedar
shingles on the sides and the rear. So my recollection is that we had brought that up. Um Lee Hovy actually during the hearing had raised it. Penrose came back and said that that could not be it would not be economically u viable. So for
cedar um and so uh that's so cedar I think was off the table. The white cedar, the traditional white cedar. However, the look of that is what I believe Penrose is referring to as the painted composite. Oh, sorry. No, the um
what's the term? It I can't >> cement the small >> it it um was the um fiberboard. That's what it was. Composite fiberboard, which I believe are panels of simulated shingles. So, I think instead of the
word cedar, we just change it to a composite or simulated cedar. Maybe that could be um >> So, yeah. So, I just changed it. I said um because I I I think the the way it was worded previously is it's a cement based product. >> Yeah, that's what
>> um and so it says a cementbased shingles mimicking white cedar on the sides and the rear. >> I thought it was gray. >> Yeah. So, we would we do need to talk about the color. It says fiber cement
um shingle board. So, that's a composite cedar shake. Uh, I don't think we got into the color because I think we assumed that it was going to be >> by by white. I don't I don't mean the the color. White. There's white cedar and red cedar. >> Oh, right. >> White cedar is the classic Cape Cod
>> cedar. Um, red cedar is more kind of vermonty Colorado. But >> the cedar that we see, the natural cedar everywhere, um, white cedar >> is white white cedar. >> Yeah, the red cedar is often for the roof. Um so yeah the other thing though
that I did notice is that there was one minor mistake but I want to clarify it in what I had sent which you used to largely write this. Um is that I say for building C the front gable portion only shall be this white uh shall be the
painted white lap uh board. But actually the sea building has that has a side which it doesn't say which side it is but it's the side that faces Main Street and it's the side of all the sea buildings that have that
shed dormer with the three levels of windows. Do you see that? So it's so really and that side so if you that's what it's saying here in this plan is that it is um the painted lap siding. So the C building has the painted lap
siding on the gable portion of the front and only the gable portion of the front. The recess part of of building C is the simulated cedar. But it also the only the C building, not A and B. A and B
have the front is the white lap painted white lap and the three sides are the simulated cedar. But in the C building because it has that it's the larger building and it has the side of it facing Main Street and then as you go
into the complex the sides of C face each other in in some configurations that one side it doesn't say whether it's what the name of the side is but it's the one side that has the doorway the entryway. So S has
entryway doors in the front and the side. So maybe that's a way of of uh delineating a J. >> So Jenny, I would also maybe describe that as the the two and a half story portion of the C building. It's that part. >> Yep.
>> The rest of the building is is the twostory >> correct part. >> Yep. >> So yeah. >> Yeah. >> So that might be a way to distinguish what you're saying. U >> Yeah. So Jay, in in your number eight where you say for building C, the front
gable portion only, that that's what I wanted to edit. It's not just the front gable portion. It's the front gable portion and the two and a half story side. >> The sides of that those of the both sides and the front of the the three
sides of that two and a half story. Correct. >> No. >> No, >> it's only the two and a half story side of of building. only the the one side and the rest is the >> the other side is not.
>> Yeah. The other side is the fiber cement shingle board. >> Okay. So for building C, what we're saying is the two and a half story side and the front gable portion shall be painted white uh lap siding with um
uh with the sides and other sides and rear being uh or with the other side and rear being the simulated white cedar. >> Correct. That's correct. >> Can I just ask one? No. Do you are you
only talking about buildings one and nine because they're the ones that are out front. You want to just to be to make it clear you want to do all C buildings because >> well I I I it's not my uh >> No, no, your suggestion.
>> I think it's what they are are proposing. That's what I think they're proposing. >> So not just the two buildings that that are on Main Street. definitely the two that are on Main Street, but I have no problem with the two and a half story on the other C buildings >> being the same. And in fact, I thought
they would be. >> Okay. Yep. I just wanted to be clear. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. I think you got it, Jay. >> All right. Great. >> All right. Number nine is the um uh
management I should say management um administrative building here. So we're asking them to redesign it so that it's more evocative of um local ar um local area architecture and
compatible with the other buildings in the project. and speaking with Randy earlier today, um she wanted it to be look more like a traditional cape, but if if we wanted to add any spec specificity, this would be
where we'd do it. >> Does anybody Does anybody want to comment on that? I I I I envisioned it looking, you know, like it matches to an extent the buildings that it that flank it.
same kind of colorist scheme. No, >> Jenny. >> Well, I'm not supporting the management building, but I'm I'll comment on >> I know you have another idea, too. Yeah. >> Well, it's it's not the idea. It's just that you're asking me to comment on
Please. >> Okay. Yes. So, um I uh thought I heard you say or someone say at a previous hearing that it could be uh like a full cape, a more traditional full cape. So, uh I don't
know if they needed a second story or not or if the what's being proposed is second story, but it could be um a full cape, center door, chimney, uh two, you know, two windows on both sides, full cape. And if it was just that, it it
could look nice to be the white seat, the white lap board in the front, >> right? >> And three sides being the fiberboard chingo. I also though like the um or I had thought we had talked about maybe at one point or maybe it was an idea that I had thought at one point, but the
Buckley property, the home on the Buckley house, not the extension and the garage, but just the full cape, which actually does have a second story with a full shed dormer across the top in the roof line. It's fully It's four sides
shingle, no white, no white cedar. Um, I'm sorry. No white uh lap board. I thought that could be uh a nice uh homage to the Buckleys for their generosity and making this possible for
the for for their cooperation in the town, purchasing it, etc. And it could look like that uh as a as an option which is also a full cape but a little bit more substantial with in that it has the and then at the shed door it would look I think just like the front of the
buckley >> so it would be like a replica. Let's see what everybody thinks of that. Um I'm just for the record I'm going with the first version a cape that has the same coloring of as the two building the flank. But let's just go around this way. We'll get you last. That's okay.
Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh Steve, >> I kind of like that idea. Um which which >> one of the it sort of uh mimics what's there actually early on. I I even asked if the existing house could be relocated.
>> So something like that um would be fine with me. >> Just think about what looks best for the streetscape for HBDC at the same time. That's all I'm saying. Mhm. >> Uh Lee, >> um I I am definitely in favor of a a
traditional Cape style home, but I feel pretty strongly that it should be one story. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Me, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Enough for them to do their business. Yeah. >> Paul, >> I agree with Lee.
>> Okay. David, >> Jenny, >> and Mr. V. Well, I'm um I as as far as I know what we're talking about um is we've given them a a square
footage figure. >> Yes. >> But we haven't we're not really looking at I mean I I think I think the idea I understand the idea of of you know a full cape is a nice looking look but it also has to have certain proportions
to work. And so if the building is somehow differently uh configured, it may be that something other than a full cape, you know, maybe uh might be just as compatible with the surrounding
buildings. So I'm I'm reluctant to to narrow it too much. I'd rather see what they come in with. I think maybe it seemed to me that you were seeing more broadly looks more capelike and and I I'm happy
with seeing what they develop coming out of that rather than trying to um I mean I I think the idea of of honoring the Buckley House is a nice idea, but it it's it's about the proportions of the building as well as the fenestration and
the door placement. So, >> right. So, you're openminded. I'm openminded. >> Okay. I think we have what we need that we'll see what Penrose comes back with and we'll deal with it. >> Yeah. I think that's the way to go here. Again, we're leaving it open. There's
they could come up with something that just blows us away that has a slight difference. But when they come back to it, if it look if you all think like, "No, we just want a cape the simplest possible cape design," then you'll have that right to do that. In any event, I
think that they've heard you loud and clear on, you know, what what you'd like to see >> and I'd like to see it um on a page with the other two buildings flank flanking it so we can really see, you know, what
it looks like with the how it will look for the streetscape. You know, if we just see it by itself on a page, it doesn't, you know, I might have to cut it and then put it in a picture, but if they could do that, that would be nice. Yeah.
Okay. >> Okay. >> 10. Pretty straightforward. All the lighting is going to be dark sky compliant. They're doing a full lighting plan as part of the final site plans anyway. Uh 11. I just kind of doctorred up a little bit to reflect what we
talked about earlier that they're going to provide uh a report to us 6 months after uh full occupancy and the report shall address whether the parking allocation is adequate or whether modifications are required. So pretty
straightforward there. Um okay, crosswalk is number 12. Um, and this is where we would want to add um some more details. So, I'm going to add signalized here, but I don't know if
folks want to add any more detail to this one than I have here. >> The second sentence is um more the process. The first sentence is what it will be. >> Jay, I had a question on the first
sentence. You say to the east of the property, uh, property being the defined term. Is this then you're under this wording, it would not be connecting to the property? >> Um, I I don't know. Um, it could be uh
connecting. What I heard or what I saw in some of the suggested conditions was that it would be to the east of it. But if it would be connecting to the property on just the east side of the property, we should state that here.
>> Well, that's why I raise it because it seems to me it's on the plans. It is >> and on the plans it connects to the property itself. >> So, it wouldn't be to the east of the property. It would be to the easterly side of the property. Um, I'm open to changing it however the
board wants to do it. >> I would agree. >> Well, that would that would be my suggestion. Be consistent with with the plans that they've submitted. >> I agree. >> Sure. >> Okay. Everybody's nodding. >> So, it's going to be on the on the
eastsized frontage. Yes. Easterly side of the property as defined. The property is defined >> capital P >> instead of to the east. Okay. Making that change now. Okay. All right. So then the second sentence
is that they're going to be required to diligently pursue such approvals and shall be relieved of the responsibility to provide the crosswalk. I'm going to say only if uh it can demonstrate to the board that it exhausted all efforts to obtain
approvals. Uh but that despite best efforts, Mass DOT denied the request. >> Fair. Okay. Mr. Nixon likes that one. That's good. Omen. You're doing all you can. >> Okay. >> Looks like number 13 is extremely
boilerplate and long. >> It is. This is the product of and I and you know I tried to um make sure that it didn't have anything extra um with respect to
um your particular uh approach to things. But it is it is very boilerplate of the kinds of things that we want to see in a construction mitigation plan. Erosion control, stockpiling, working with the police, all of those other good things.
>> Good. Number 14 will cause us some discussion. >> Okay. Don't get ahead of us, Randy. >> All right. >> All right. So, this is the final landscaping one. >> Yeah. And um this is uh one where I took
a deep decent amount in fact most from uh what Jenny had in her conditions which I know we discussed. If we want to have any changes to that, this is the time that that we would do it on this is just on
the maintaining of the or the planting of new trees and the plant and the maintaining of existing trees. >> The only thing I saw Jay was um and if I if it was in my notes I apologize. It's not seven new trees.
It's it's increasing the caliber of seven existing diagram proposed trees on along Main Street. So I would just take out the word new >> and seven trees. Okay.
>> Seven new trees. It's the seven trees. So the beginning of that sentence is that we are um um the cal the caliber >> but but those are the ones that are proposed to be planted, right? >> Yeah. But they're not new to the plan.
They're new. Yeah. Yeah. >> New as in they're green. Okay. I I thought you meant u new as in additional. Sorry. Okay. So new is okay if it's Yes. >> No. No. I I if it's confusing, I want to change it. So, so I'm changing it to additionally the caliber of the seven
trees proposed to be planted at the property frontage and 11 trees >> in the inner >> proposed four. Yeah. >> Right. Exactly. >> Proposed for the inner driveway shall be increased so that they are not less um
uh than four five uh 4.5 in. >> Yes. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. So, it just depends on what you call new, but they're all new. So, Okay. New is okay. Additional is is what I was >> to clarify.
>> Okay, good. Questions, comments on this one. >> No. >> Okay. Um All right. So, uh final landscape plan shall include a maintenance plan that um
little typo ensures proper care, maintenance, and irrigation of all trees and other landscaping. Any trees that die shall be properly properly promptly sorry replanted according to such plan. Other plantings shall be replaced or enhanced as necessary to maintain the
same level of landscaping. You know, smaller plantings, they're going to enhance and change over time, but we want essentially the same level of uh landscaping coverage. >> Looks good. Comprehensive.
>> Okay. 16 is the irrigation um system that is um we want there. As as you'll recall, Mr. Singer said um not subject to restrictions within the um town imposed restrictions within the
first I think he said two to three growing seasons. >> But whatever people want to do here, I will add there. That's why I have the blank. >> Yeah. because they need to be able to be able to live up to number 15. So, they
have to be able to do their due diligence. So, I think that's what they're really asking. >> Can we can we just go back a little bit there? Um, initially this what was proposed here was a a landscaping plan which had no
well and no irrigation system and which they indicated would be maintained uh for a nice uh beautiful location and um we pushed back on that. I think
Ed raised it initially uh with the idea that there's a lot of green shown here and that uh there must be some kind of watering system in order to maintain a green and I think that included some lawn and um so that then raised the
question of whether there should be a well. Uh Penrose said we're willing to put a well in uh if you want us to put a well in. Um and that then led to the well being on the next plan. But uh at that time I had also raised the question
of whether that had been run through the conservation people in the town. As it turned out it had not uh other than when it was originally proposed which was not a well system at all. So uh I raised the question of whether we want to uh
encourage uh more wells and uh irrigation systems uh in the town when in fact we're trying to cut back on all of that. So uh I said that you know from my viewpoint I could see the use of a well or
irrigation for uh a period of time to establish the plants but that they should be plants which are designed to withstand drought and native species and that uh they should not ultimately
require a well system to support them. So, uh, I was not in favor of of a well system. The other thing that had surprised me was that if, in fact, you look at all of the well water restrictions that the town imposes and which we're under right now, they don't
apply to a well system. Uh, they apply to using town water. So, theoretically, uh, you could put a well system in for irrigation here that would run during the rain. Uh, wouldn't matter. there wouldn't be affected by any of the town
regulations. So I think my backup position would be if in fact we're going to have a well that that well should be controlled the use of that well should be controlled by the uh town regulations which regulate not the well systems
necessarily although would include them but also town water that's used currently uh for uh pre-existing systems and which are subject to the idea of for instance uh oddnumbered houses using it for particular days of the week and
others not. So that would be my view. If if we're going to put a well system in, it should be limited in its use to uh uh restrictions that apply to nonwell systems in the town uh as they exist on a day-to-day basis.
>> What do you think, Paul? Are you saying that that includes the two to three seasons that um that um the note that um Andrew proposed? Uh are you saying you
want to you'd like to apply that to that to the establishment time period or following the the the two to three season establishment period? >> Well, I think it could I I could go either way. It didn't make any difference to It's it seems to me I
would I I I'd feel more comfortable if we allowed the establishment period and let them do what they needed to do, especially assuming that the town still is not trying to regulate private well um irrigation systems through that time
period. Then following that, after the the good establishment of the landscaping, then we we overlay with the the town's um watering restriction regulations. >> That's that's fine with me. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm on board with that.
And um I think the word was flourish that uh Jenny had used. There's a difference between like just barely surviving and flourishing. And um I'm looking to flourish. This is one of the conditions that caused me to vote yes on
this project. So I just want everybody to remember that because I was in no way just, you know, I wasn't an easy persuasion on this and this is one of the things that I think will make it um acceptable to have a flourishing, you
know, and but we could stop it, you know, um we could set the other parameters like Paul had said after it's established. Um Mr. Yeah, I I think it's a mistake to
uh zero it in on like two or three seasons or whatever it might be. I mean, it's, you know, you could go to all this trouble, all this beautiful planting, and then then they're going to, you know, then they don't look so great or they die off or whatnot that
uh if you are giving control of this to Penrose, which you are, then I think they should have control over the watering system and not be hampered by something that we throw at them.
I can't disagree because I'm trying to work towards flourishing. >> I I would think that though in most instances that three growing seasons is enough to allow plants to establish
themselves. >> Three. That's Paul. Are you on board with three? >> I I think that's standard. I don't I don't have a problem with that standard. I mean, we have we have, if you think about it, we have landscaping that uh was established at the old Flemings
restaurant section in front on 28 that has no irrigation and is now somewhat flourishing. >> Anybody else want to comment on this? Jenny, go ahead. >> Yeah, and I I I remember making that comment and what I meant by that was
that I think we need a well commitment, not town water, to establish, not die, and to flourish. meaning ongoing. They will look better if they have water. So, I'm not um if I'm understanding this
correctly, the town's limitation on you on well is when it's the town's water. If it's a well, if it's I mean, I'm sorry, irrigation system. If it's an irrigation system with a well, those town limitations don't apply.
>> That's right. Because it's not treated water. And I did run it by Rob Faley who from the town versus you know I I actually did try the um the um conservation commission but I didn't get a hold of anyone but he is like similar
because he's water and sewer. He he was the one that said to me well they need to put a well there >> right? So, I I think that if we get to a situation where the town is saying no irrigation, municipal water, and wells, then that
would apply. But I'm not in favor of limiting it to um because they have a well, and that's not what the town is limiting when they're saying um no irrigation. I I'm I'm uh happy to uh not limit it if
we could still get three votes for the project. >> Well, I'm I can go I mean, whatever's whatever it's going to take to resolve this, but I'm more in in in um Paul's camp on this. I mean, given that they and and I
w you wasn't studying all this that closely at the time, but what I was saying is they they they've said that they're the plantings that they're choosing are um supposed to be drought tolerant to a certain degree. Yes. >> Now, I'm sure that it probably doesn't apply to the grass, but at least to the
other the shrubs and trees and things like that. So, um I I would think that if if we they've been through the establishment period and and they've the the plants have flourished and been successful that the goal that as they
initially proposed was something that was not going to require a lot of ongoing um maintenance. So, I don't see a I don't see a problem if in that if if in that time period the town has some has restrictions on days to water.
Why? Why? I think I'm thinking part of Paul's proposal is saying this project sponsored by the town large scale project etc. If we're going to ask this the rest of the citizens town to only water on even
and odd days depending their address or whatever it that should apply to this project as well after that establish a period. But Randy if if that doesn't work for you. >> But we're not asking the town the people to limit their well use that I know of.
>> Well the not the well use. >> No this is well used. >> Okay. So but well Paul correct me if I'm wrong. Am I were you thinking about well use here or about the spirit of it with
respect to the use of wells? I what I was what I was referring to is I I understand that the restrictions that currently are in place do not apply to wells and uh whether the town will revise that at some point in the future I don't know but we have an opportunity to apply this
to this particular project to say that in fact we won't use well water uh in situations where the rest of the town water which is being used for irrigation from systems that were previously established are restricted and we should
be maintaining the same restrictions. >> So the spirit is what spirit. Yeah. And and as much as I have utmost respect for your intelligence, I think you've already forgotten more than I'll ever know. >> However, I disagree with you on this. >> Yeah.
>> I I I think the uh people with wells are asked voluntarily to follow the same restrictions that people uh have irrigations. you know, you know, the odd and even numbered uh watering days and and such. I think they're sort of asked to to sort of go along with those
guidelines. And there are things like rain sensors and things that are tied into the irrigation system so that if we get x number of, you know, 3/4 of an inch or an inch of rain and over a certain period of time, the the irrigation system doesn't run. So there are safeguards against overwatering also
and overusage. So you know, I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to to to maintain um the landscape even past the three years >> ma maintain their investment. >> Yes. >> Yes. I agree.
>> Um so what are we going to do? >> Well, I think if this if the sense of the board is that uh is that my position is not the one to adapt, that's fine. That's what if that's where they end up, that's where they end up. But >> you're not going to blow the project off over it. That's for sure. No, I'm not gonna
>> All right. So, I I would like to hold my ground on this one if it's okay. >> So, we're wiping out the the three-year restriction and if they want to comply with it, they can. >> Yes. Let them use their judgment on their you know, they are making uh a
substantial um investment on this uh vegetation and so I think um we need to let them do what they did diligence on it. Um, okay. >> I don't think we need we don't need a vote on it. No. No.
>> All right. So, let me just um tell you what the change is and and they're both in 15 and 16. I did add a sentence. I think Paul was talking about this. Um, all plantings shall be native species and shall wherever feasible be drought
tolerant. I think it more or less folks are in agreement with that. But I've simplified number 16 to state an irrigation uh system and accompanying well shall be installed in irrigation of project planting shall not be uh subject to town restrictions. Any waiverss to
install such well and irrigation system are hereby granted. >> Sounds good to me. >> And the the only thing I want to clarify I don't know if Mark's here today. I don't think he is. >> We can't do we can't do Mark. >> Okay. Um, I just want to make sure that I I I think I remember him saying that
to the extent possible he had drought I mean native species >> in his plan, but there may be a few that are not native. And so I just don't want to uh make that I just want that statement to be whatever was um consistent with what
>> I think he said all >> okay. All right. just in in case he didn't I wanted to make sure that that wasn't uh conflicting. >> My recollection is that they're using just native species. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, um number 17, they've got to comply with any other permits um and that the terms of those permits are incorporated as if restated in this decision. And if there's any conflict or inconsistency with the decision, the
most restrictive requirements will apply unless the board amends this decision to remove such conflicts uh upon request by the applicant. Um and then I cite the the regulations there. Um 18 pretty straightforward. Got to
listen to the fire chief in terms of um emergency vehicle access which are in you know anything that's incorporated in the plans on that and the final site plans. The project shall demonstrate adequate fire flow for fire protection
purposes as uh confirmed by the fire chief and the DPW. It's pretty boilerplate. um uh any easements that they have for the project for utility or anything else, they've got to send it over to us
to take a look at first, make sure that it's consistent. We look at those just to form. Um they have to comply with any relevant terms of the L LDA. Uh that's number 20. Um and um prior to
the um issuance of a building permit, they have to give us a a signage monument plan. I think Randy, did you have any questions on signage >> or comments on that? >> I think Sarah might have an update on whether or not they even need a waiver
on this given the last uh um delivery of what it might look like. Go ahead. So based on the plan um the Crowley Catrell plan for signage for the one perpendicular to double-sided sign. The
waiver they had requested was for a double-sided sign not to exceed 18 square feet per sign face. They included the brick portion um the monument as
part of their calculation. So, we may want to um consider changing that. Otherwise, it could allow for 18 square feet of actual sign face to be installed. So,
>> well, so what what I'm what what this condition uh 21A says you're going to show it to us anyway at the um after the permit and um before the building permit to see what the final signs look like.
>> So, we'll be >> So, if they're if they're if they're too big, then we'll tell them they're too big. >> If they're not big enough, we'll tell them that. and seeing it like in front of the management building where how it's actually going to look would be helpful.
>> See it in real time because it might look awkward. >> I'm just curious, Sarah, do you off the top of your head, do you know that distance from the street what's allowed uh in the sign code? >> So, because it's a residential zone,
it's different. If this were to be a business zone, for example, >> okay, >> um with a zero to zero to 15 feet from the road, you are allowed a 20 square foot sign. Now, that could be doublesided. >> Um the what was shown and proposed
um the solid portion of the sign where the name of it would be is approximately well the area where they would actually have the signage is just over nine square feet. Okay. >> Um, so I that's why I said I don't know
if even though it's listed in the waiver to the extent necessary. >> Yeah. >> I think allowing an 18 square foot per sign face maybe doesn't go with the intent of what they were showing on the plans that were presented to the board. >> Right. Yeah. Right. I understand that.
Yeah. And and a residential zone is different, but we we get to make the rules this time. >> Yeah. Because you're the sign code appeals committee as well. Um, so, uh, but tech typically they would be an 18 square foot per signed face for a major
entrance to a subdivision for a residential property. >> Oh, okay. So, all right. All right. But what they're propos at least looks like their latest drawing was nine square feet per per side >> approximately. >> Okay, >> that makes sense. And they had originally asked for two
signs and we're going to do one perpendicular sign like every other business along the HBDC. >> Yeah. Just to clarify. >> All right, Jay. >> Okay. So, again, they're going to come to us with some signs. They're going to
come to us under number uh subsection B with the name of a person that we can talk to 24 hours a day on the construction. >> Um uh number 22 is we get into some boilerplate in and around uh the
affordable housing stuff. >> The affordability and all the other requirements in and around 40B is going to be baked into a regulatory agreement. Um there's pretty straightforward. I usually like to see that before and approve the form of it, which is pretty
straightforward these days, before they start construction. And I like to see evidence that it be recorded before building permits. Um, uh, Penrose has reached out to me and asked if I could back off the recording of that until
occupancy permits. My general feeling is no, that I'd like to see them before building permits. Uh, this decision is going to generally because we like to take care of that well before they're actually marketing because they're probably going to be doing some affordable marketing well before there's
actual occupancy. It's a nuance difference, but almost every single permit I've ever done has a requirement that a regulatory agreement be executed and recorded before we issue a building permit. That's the industry standard. I'd like to keep it that way
unless anyone is fine with moving it to occupancy permits. >> No, no one is indicating that they want to disagree with you. >> All right. I I'd like to I'd like to keep it there then. Okay. Um monitoring is um essentially the entity the
monitoring agent and it might be EOHLC itself is the entity that essentially is going to be looking at um and qualifying the households for their income qualification. We'd like to see those monitoring
services agreements. Again, they're pretty canned, but we'd like to see that. So again, this is more just boilerplate. Um 24 similarly is going to be boilerplate. It's going to be addressed more in the regulatory agreement. They
have an annual requirement to certify tenants for affordability. And then when folks go over income, um, which is usually an amount, um, a little bit over what the the numbers actually are, then the next, uh, uh, vacant, I'm going to
say equivalent, not because there's no market rate units on the project. Equivalent um, uh, unit in the project should be reserved and restricted for for lease to a um, a qualifying
household. So that again, pretty boilerplate stuff. Um, again, it's all going to be in the regulatory agreement anyway, but I like to forecast it. Um, they're going to have a profit limitation. That's number 25 on that. That's going to be covered
under the regulatory agreement anyway. Um, uh, this is number 26. Also pretty standard. we're going to need their assistance a little bit potentially. Um, and we're going to and there's a
requirement that all of those 32 units at 60% of AMI be eligible to be included on our subsidized housing inventory for the town. Um, and that uh there's going to be cooperation there. Um, and number
27 is the local preference. It's pretty standard and broad, but they're going to cooperate and assist us with submitting to EOHLC any necessary applications, reports, other documents that shall be necessary for the town to apply for
local preference. We're in the maximum number of units may be reserved for local preference. So, we don't have as much control over that process as we used to. So, this is really the best we can manage out of it. It is will be a 70% local preference is the most they'll
give us, but we're going to have to prove the demographic need for it. >> Jay, I have a quick question on 26. Um, just to >> just go back real quickly. Um I thought all 48 of these are going to be on the
um >> No, because the 110% units um are above the income levels um that uh to be included. A unit has to be uh restricted for a household at 80% of
area median income or lower in order to get on the subsidized housing inventory. The 110% units might um help us in rounding out what we call our attainable um income units um income based units
but they were they cannot be included on our subsidized housing inventory. >> Okay. So they don't they don't contribute to the towards 10% then. >> No. Yeah. Just the the well so yes and
no. Um, all of the units actually maybe I'll I'll revise this a a little bit because more than 25% are affordable. So, let me change this a little bit. >> Um, in order to have >> I'm going to change it to all of the
units because if 32 are there and it remains rental, that's a good catch, >> right? the rental part is what cuz I think I've I've been having to explain that to some people that they all count and don't I think it gets us to 611. I'm
not positive but um that would be a good fact to know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you for that. This was probably >> just I borrowed too much from a for sale um based permit but thank you for the catch. So I I've changed that to all the units.
>> Good. Thank you. Um so um 28 is a pre-construction meeting and conferences and everything else to make sure that we're um you know schedule of inspections. We like to have an event for SL for larger projects and
this is large from Chadam's perspective whereby we're going to have this kind of pre-construction thing. Everyone's going to get together and talk about it. That's primarily whoever we appoint as an engineer to manage this afterwards, whether it's Ty Bond or someone else, as
well as our building commissioner. Um 29 is they're responsible for paying any details. Um there could be both state details as well as local details here. So it would be both. Um they've got to 30 is they they they can't mess
around. They've got to fix our roads. um uh to our satisfaction prior to any certificate of occupancy. Um so that's pretty straightforward. 31 straightforward. They've got to clean up any debris on the local roads in
addition to fixing the damages. 32. If to the extent that you this is something that I kind of uh sketch out and works, but if you have any changes to the times that you like to see, then this is where we would um put them. I
kind of went with um uh the the kind of the basics here in terms of the time limitations. Obviously, no work on the holidays. So, I don't know if anyone has any comments on that. Yeah, Jay. Um I really think uh
your this would be the second to last line. Uh weekday evenings until 8:00 p.m. is way too late. >> Uh I would I would want that kept at 6:00 p.m.
>> Right. I I have that for interior construction that doesn't generate noise. Okay. But if you want to if the board is wants to do it to 6 pm, you know, I give them a little bit of a grace on the interior stuff that they're doing so that they can get the work
done. You know, the the push and pull here is that we want to make sure that they're not disrupting the neighborhood at all, but we also want them to finish this project as soon as possible. So, we we try and have a a balance of things,
which is why I generally include the provision that allows them to do non-noisy interior stuff until 8. But I I'll put in whatever the board wants. >> Yeah. To me, it's the noise of the trucks coming and going, the people, you
know, radios going. I I know they keep down the the noise, but um in my neighborhood, we had a guy singing Italian areas from within a house, and he was loud. He should have gone on the stage. So, it it does happen. So, to me, if
they've worked from 7 in the morning, they ought to go home at 6:00 p.m. >> I I just had one question. >> I just had one question also. was a little confusing. Uh there's two different delivery times at 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Um it seems to me that
you're you're trying to say that in you know something for uh >> You're right. You're right. There is a conflict there. >> So um I think 7 a.m. is probably better. A delivery is a delivery whether it's interior exterior. >> Okay, you're right. There's a redundancy
there. Okay. >> Does the town's noise bylaw give a time? It does. Evening time. >> The town's bylaw gives 7 a.m. I think for >> No, 7 a.m. But it doesn't give an evening. >> I don't know. Does it?
>> No. >> And it doesn't get >> I don't recall off the top of my head. Again, we get to design our own conditions here. >> No, I was looking at Jay, our building commissioner. Um, sorry. Okay. Other Jay. Um, please. It's a fallacy. Nobody
really has a set time for start and stop. It's just common courtesy for neighbors and neighborhoods. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> It's there's going to be a lot going on there. It's going to be noisy and there's going to be trucks that that we all know.
>> Okay, Jay. >> All right. Where are we okay with the 8:00 PM or do we want to back that down to 6 PM for the interior non-noisy work? What? What does everybody want to do?
>> I would have made it earlier, but six is okay. >> I I I don't have a an opinion on much. >> Well, I was the one that proposed it, so obviously I'm in favor. >> Okay, sure. Why don't we just do six then? Unless somebody has a problem. >> That's funny. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Yep.
>> Six is is fine. Let's get the project done. >> Yep. Okay. >> Okay. So that means that I don't even need that sentence at all because I think we're six to six anyway, right? >> Or we're seven to six. >> Seven to six. Yes, that's correct.
>> Yep. >> Okay. >> Right. So I can take out that sentence. Um again, detours, lane closures, pretty basic. Um boiler plate there.
um e excavations. Okay, so here's the waiver thing and people are going to see different things the way different attorneys and different boards would like to do this. My approach to waivers is a little more
simplified. I think that we know that waivers were going to give in all circumstances. um especially the waiverss relating to uses and um because we know what the use is
and dimensions because it's shown on the plan. So, my preference and my long-standing practice has been not to provide a lengthy waiver list that tries to address each one of those and and tries to mine down into every single
dimensional characteristic that there might be a waiver needed because my experience is when we try and do that, we forget one or we give one that's not relevant. And I think if they need a waiver to do what they to what they're
showing on the plans physically or to occupy it in that way, they get that waiver. It's just simpler and I think it's more efficient. Um if there's processoriented waivers and this is why I have subsection B
highlighted then we should um put them in the in an attachment. I'm not aware of any process related waiverss here and we've been pretty specific about a lot of process things. So that's why I'm not even sure
if we need it. Now I can go through it before we finalize it for signature and see if and I'll work with Sarah on this and Randy to see if there was any processoriented things. You know like we talk about
hours of operation. Well, we just addressed that, but there could be some things that are that you can't see on the plans that that we may have to address in an exhibit A, but generally speaking, there's not much there.
>> I'm satisfied with that explanation. >> Okay. Seriously? >> So, why don't I Yeah, why don't I do this after this session? Um, I'll work with Sarah to take a look at the original waiver requests from Penrose
and if there's anything there, we'll attach it to attachment A. And if there's not, then I'll remove this this sentence. >> Okay. Sure. >> Good. >> Okay. >> And then the the the rest of these are the kinds of things that that we don't
wave. Um, you know, we we can't wave any other state or federal law. We don't give any waivers beyond what you can wave under 40B. We don't wave any local fees such as building permit inspectional fees. Um uh and anything we
don't wave is enforcable. So pretty straightforward, just kind of a a series of conditions there. Okay. 36 is an important condition and it's a way of capturing um what we do with subdivisions where we
need some kind of security before we're going to release um building permits or or occupancy permits um rather. and that is that we want to make sure that that we can inspect the site infrastructure, the the driveways, the parking areas,
the storm water management, all those things, the essential infrastructure before they can get an occupancy permit. So, like we would do in subdivisions, and this isn't a subdivision, what we want to capture that is we say, okay,
our engineer has to sign off that all that work was done before we give you occupancy. Because the worst thing that could happen is that they it's occupied and we find out there's things not done. And then um and if there's additional things like a final coat of pavement or
or some final landscaping stuff that can we don't need to do that we can let them have some occupancy of. Then what we like to do is hold back a few units of occupancy until such time as they do
that finish work. Um, and here I put it at six. And they they can if they want to replace that with um those kind of punch list items with financial security um to make sure that they do them. But
generally I hold back just the last um half dozen or so units in a project until they um take care of that. >> That's very reasonable. I think >> and and it and it's and it's pretty routine. It's what we do in all kinds of
other projects. So, it's just a way any developer knows that they have to get inspections of these things and it's just a way to do it. And I've kind of modified this over time to make it work. And uh our our engineer, whoever we retain, um is going to approve all that
stuff. and then the building commissioner is going to wait until he gets the approval of the engineer to issue occupancy there. Um 37 is we'd like to see an asbuilt plan here. Uh pretty straightforward.
Um that's at the end of the project. Um uh we 38 is we have some enforcement uh ability here. Pretty straightforward. just um uh 39 is it's all theirs. Everything is private. Uh we want to
know if they are going to use a management company to maintain the site. They're going to give us the contact information. 40 is that they're going to clean up any snow. The final site plan shall include a a suitable snow storage area. Um so
the they're they're going to be responsible at their sole cost for trash and recycling disposal. That's 41. 42 essentially charges whoever we uh select as an engineer to be our eyes and ears on the on the construction. Um and
that they're and then the next provision is that they're going to be all those services are going to get paid by the applicant. Um the 44 is kind of a legal thing. All these buildings are postexisting non-conforming, which means
that they can't make changes to them unless they come back to you for a modification for the 40B project. We state that they can't build additional bedrooms or, you know, no construction of lofts, nooks, or other areas, new new
rooms within a dwelling unit not shown on the plan on the plans. No conversion of any other rooms to bedrooms, those kinds of things like that. And then 45 is recording. 46 is what they have to do. If they want
to change anything, they have to come back to us and then we would rule on whether it's a major or a minor project. Um, and again, 47 is about other easements that they would have to show to us. Uh, 48 is something that we
traditionally do here. Um, Penrose didn't love this, but it's pretty standard. We want to make sure that if they're going to transfer or sign the permit that we get to approve that or if they're going to sell 50% of their assets, then we get to look at that. We
can't really say no to that, which is why I say the approval is not to be unreasonably withheld, but we should know who we're dealing with. This is an important project. So, I know that Penrose didn't love this condition, but I've used it in permit after permit
after permit, and I think it's a good common sense way, especially for a rental project, so that we know who we're dealing with on on that basis. >> Jay, does uh 48 cover a transfer of the uh stock ownership of Penrose?
>> Yeah. So I if there's more than uh 50% of the assets or interests in the applicant that are conveyed then they've got to come to us as well. >> Okay. >> And 49's pretty straightforward. It is um
um they have they've got three years to exercise the permit or to start construction. And I define that as the installation of the foundations for two of the buildings. Um 50 is just a severability clause which means that if someone knocks out
one of these then the rest of them are good and 51 is the last of it. That's how they that they can make appeals. >> Jay going back to uh 49. Um is there a completion date? >> No, there is not. Um
um we can put a a sunset on it if you like though. It's a it's a project that there is going to be I think there's a requirement for construction sequencing in the final site plans. We could put a sunset clause on it if you want. I think we should be somewhat generous in that.
There's a lot of things that they have to accomplish here. But um you know um and they can come to us for an extension, but if you'd like me to I can put a sunset date in here, Paul. And that's a good you know always can be good. >> Well, my my uh my only concern would be
that they start the project and uh for whatever reasons uh get partway through it and then uh decide that they want to hold up and going forward um the pro the site is then tied up. uh
the project is not completed. I'm not sure we have a a remedy there. Do do we >> Well, there there can be some remedies, but like any uncompleted project, you know, our remedies are somewhat limited.
I' I'm always battling against um incomplete subdivisions and you know, you can't force someone to build something they don't want to build. But if we say that all construction of the project shall be completed, you know, within um I could do five years
uh from the date hereof. >> I think whatever whatever is is a reasonable time frame, but I just don't >> I think that that's generally considered um generally considered uh reasonable. >> Okay. Well, I just don't want to be in a
situation where we're tied up. we can't we don't get the project done but at the same time we can't do anything about it. >> Yeah. You know some of those things Paul it can be kind of tricky because again you can't if people abandon a project midway through much less of a of a
chance that that will happen here seeing they're going to be building most of it all at the same time likely. But, um, you know, I've got a whole bunch of projects, subdivisions generally, where people run out of money. But I just put
in a five-year thing. >> Okay. >> I think something along those lines makes some sense. And I'm going to say that they can come to us um for an extension of that if they want. >> Y >> um
okay. So that's it. That's what I got. >> Mr. Nixon has a question. >> Yes, sir. Jay, uh, this is a a bill from you that's going to be huge and you deserve every dime.
Uh, I don't think I've heard just who is responsible for your legal work. Is it the town or is it >> the developer? >> So, the the the town is and and thank
you for looking out for me. Um, I'd like to say that I love doing this so much that I do it for free, uh, Dave, but I'd be a liar. Um, you know, the the way we um, and I don't want to get too deep into the weeds on it, the way we structure our contract with the town is
that we don't really build by the hour and it includes all this kind of permitting. We also know that this is a really important project and you know um and it's complex and our billing arrangement with the town includes and
and um allows us still uh for me to put some food on the table um and do all of this work. So I think we're we're um still compensated okay here. But I I do appreciate it. I think we're we're we're
satisfied with this. I there are other examples in towns where I get paid hourly where we do shift some of the costs um on some of the things but um here I think we're fine. >> Okay. Well, I'd be more than happy to offer a condition that the your bill be
sent to Penrose, but are you are you are you saying I can't do that? >> Yeah, I I'd say that you know I can't because we're there's all there's some other complicated things on why we couldn't do that. Anyway, there's a few cases on the shifting of legal legal
expenses here, >> but here there's no need because we've already contemplated um these types of services to the town in our overall fee agreement. It might mean that, you know, when we're really busy on some things for the town that
our effective hourly rate is not as great as other months, but uh we're fine. So, I'm comfortable with this, David. But I appreciate it. again you've done a spectacular job and I thank you for all of us. >> I appreciate that very much. It's a good
board to work with. >> Yeah. So before I u also lather you with praise, I think we kind we forgot something um that has an amount of relevance and that is the lighting style. Um given that we've done the um
the sides, the lighting was a submission on 1022. Uh yes, the plan date for the lighting alternative um is shown as 10:225. So I didn't know where we had said um
under number 10 all site lighting shall be dark sky compliant uh as shown on lighting alternative plan dated 10225. >> Is that is that okay? Because we want to make sure we get the style that we that
we bargain for. It was >> Yeah, I think so. So I I think it it would be probably included in where I reference ancillary plans. So what what I'll do is um as shown on the lighting
plan dated and then Sarah and I could fill in that blank there. And then I hate to say it, but do we need to go back to the dumpster issue? Um, we do need to go back to it uh for
the vote. Well, Steve, >> I I had a question be before we do anything. I don't know. Can we regulate the hours of operation or pickup >> so that they're not coming in there at 4:00 in the morning or >> to do what? The to pick it up to pick up the dumpsters.
>> Sure. Yeah, we could do that. Um, okay. But what about this dumpster location? Who's not who who wants to bring it up again? Anybody? >> No.
>> Well, >> I mean, in addition to what I brought up earlier. >> Yeah. Have you come to terms with the dumpsters going to be there? >> Well, I mean, what what's my alternative? I I I brought it up. >> Oh, turn your Yeah. No, I don't know. I
mean, I don't I brought it up because I uh don't like it on the side. >> No. And I don't think any of us like it either. I just don't know. We just bringing it up again because uh a member wanted to bring it up again. So, >> yeah. I mean, >> please go ahead.
>> I'm not convinced that it can't go someplace in the middle. I'm just not convinced that it it can't go there. as they proved with meeting house. >> We we did talk about this in the office
if that's any consolation. Um we did >> yes please. >> I just wanted to add that I do believe that um Penrose stated that the pickup would be twice weekly. I don't know if that helps or hurts, but
I I think in a development of this size with only two dumpster locations, a twice weekly pickup is very appropriate. >> Even though it means more noise, um but then I think it eliminates other problems. >> They know what they need to do with
that. I'm going to leave that squarely in in in my opinion in their camp. Um but anything else? Okay. No. >> All right. So, uh dare I say a motion,
Paul, >> would this be a motion to chapter 40? >> Oh, >> would this would this be a motion pursuant to chapter 40B? >> Jay, what would the motion be? It would be >> so it would be I think a a motion to
approve the uh comprehensive permit um as um as amended and discussed by the board or even a so moved. I I will uh I will move first to chapter 40B
uh that uh we approve uh the application for comprehensive permit as modified and described by uh us in our hearings and the proposal uh before us.
>> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Mr. Nixon. Well, as I explained last week, uh I'm totally against this. I think it's just wrong. I'll be voting no. >> Okay, Paul. >> All votes yes.
>> And Jenny, >> because the management building is staying in and I had said that I wanted the reduction of density and to get my vote it needed to be gone, I would vote no. >> Okay. And I am going to vote um yes. And I want to just qualify that because I
think that um given the work that we've done, we've uh taken it over the 50 yard line in terms of in terms of acceptability. Um I would have preferred the building heights to be under 30 feet or under
like the um like the um plan had uh been with the town, but we we didn't quite get that. And and like I said before, uh Penrose came in, you know, upfront about that. Um but we do have better lighting, we have better siding, we have a much,
in my opinion, a um a very uh attractive streetscape. Uh the parking is lessened. Um but still adequate in terms of uh Penrose's opinion. The setbacks are improved. Uh the vegetation and
irrigation are um are good. And there was no irrigation plan at the beginning and we have larger caliber trees. Um we will have um a safer uh situation on on Route 28 um most likely especially given
the fact that we have received a grant for that by the state. So it would be hard to believe that the state is going to give us money but say we can't do it. So um I I I'm feeling very positive about that stoplight uh situation. and this this the crosswalk and uh the
cushima for that. Um the amenities, we have the gas grill, you know, bike racks. We have a better looking sign in my opinion, perpendicular sign that comports with the other signs along 28. So I think that we've um got a better
project, a lot better, a different project indeed. I wasn't sure along the way, but now I am comfortable with it and I I hope that um when it's all said and done, it'll look attractive and it certainly will provide much needed
housing. So, um I'm voting yes. So, that's that. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjourn. Dave seconds. Vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> All vote yes. I vote yes. >> D votes yes.
>> Vinnie votes yes. >> As do I. Uh, and what time is it? >> 4:11 p.m. >> All right. Well, good evening, Chadam. >> Thank you, everyone.