##VIDEO ID:73AwV9d6iho## uh pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with applicable law this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public May access this meeting via virtual means participants May access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or Allowed by the chair persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting May do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak this meeting will be recorded please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair we will now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you are on the call Elise mayosi present thanks uh Lucia Lopez present Matthew Ronka present Michael Michael King present uh Parker hap Jane Moran present Karen Wills present vicaso prati present and Rob Benson is present yeah Parker sent an email before uh this meeting that he's sick and uh um so that's not unexpected uh now Town staff uh John guch present and L Lori St John present all right great all right I'm gonna jump right into our agenda do we have Vin gatle or Peter beamus on the call anyone I don't I don't see either of them Vin was on at one point oh he's on now yeah uh Vin gatley can you hear me yes okay so do you have a do you have an update uh uh on this top on the on this topic or what would you like to provide share I guess um yeah like I can give you an update um I guess it was since May when uh DPW um wrote a pretty strong letter criticizing the condition of the Road Wilson Street and um since then I think we've uh we've had a couple of uh maybe three s sidewalks um each time I think we had only one or two board members and um I think the and we also engaged uh well I had my engineer and we engaged or I guess the town engaged Bader uh to put together something that we thought would be reasonable to address the problems down there on on Wilson Street which um we feel are not our of our making whatsoever um I don't know it's it's a little difficult to explain but I think people who came for the S sidewalk uh were shown that Wilson Street there's an intersection of Legacy North and Wilson Street it's a four-way stop sign and the first and and that's the highest point so from that point going down Wilson Street towards Ashland it's basically all downhill and the first one ,000 ft from that intersection um we meaning uh the trails which is uh will be 175 units so 55 and over when we're done that first 1,000 ft that extends down to uh where Krueger road is on the other side of Wilson uh we have no Frontage we don't own any of that land um the next 500 ft which basically starts at Kruger Street and extends for the next 500 feet um let's see I guess that's um South excuse me North that um we do have some Frontage on that stretch and then after that the next 1,000 feet um takes us to the Ashland line and we have no Frontage on that 1,00 feet so that whole 3,000 foot stretch from the intersection to Ashland uh we we have 500 feet of Frontage on that street and we have in our original plans that were approved six years ago I think everybody that's on the board now including John all new faces um but the approval back then clearly had us being responsible for things that we could control and our design for drainage has done that at least for the section that we have Frontage on um and the problem here is that the high point is at that intersection and it just basically goes downhill 3,000 ft of roadway and that um water basically is coming down that street and that first thousand square thousand linear feet we have no control over um the town at least in my judgment should have addressed this cuz this has been a drainage problem on that street for years if you will go back to the uh the meetings during our approval we had quite um we had many neighbors on Krueger road that um you know attended our meetings and they were very concerned about water that has for years and continues to this day to shed down the street with nothing to catch it no gutter line along the the 1,00 foot stretch so the water goes wherever gravity takes it DPW did make some kind of a Improvement um down near Kruger Road I believe last year to handle some of that water and get it across the street not on our side but the other on the Kruger Road side of the street there was a cul there and we've been down there countless times my engineer clearly says that that does not work as intended it's not carrying any water it's not catching any water so what happens as a result that water just continues down Wilson and in that next 500 ft that we have Frontage on we had already designed and we are handling the water in that section CU that we can control that and I feel a responsibility for that since um the trails fronts that section of roadway and then the next th000 ft we we have no Frontage on there um it's all DCR land um and uh which I guess is state land so we have proposed um what we think is a a reasonable solution to the to the problem um and it's only a problem during significant rains which we know 21 we had significant rains that year 22 we had a drought 23 we had rains that were probably just as bad as 21 this year is more like 22 um drug conditions so whenever we have a significant storm event I'm going to say you know two to three inches um there is there is water that comes down that street but again we're not responsible for the water that's up Upstream sort of you know up elevation from where we are so we have proposed uh solution we've gone back and forth my engineer with Bader and I guess we're at a at a point where let's call it an impass um beter beta's comments [Music] are expecting us to bring that street I guess up to current Town standards that Street's in deplorable condition it has not been made maintained for I don't know we think it's 60 years other than a few patches and a few minor repairs that street is in rough shape and we're not willing to go any further as Bader is recommending to bring that street up to town standards um it's just not our responsibility that damage was there well before we started and I think what we've we're proposing um is reasonable and so I think about a week ago just before Thanksgiving my engineer uh Peter beamus sent an email to John to see if we could have a meeting because we're not getting anywhere um with back and forth and I think if he suggested the the I I think the right parties the DPW um and and of course the engineers and sit down if see if we can come up with something that works um like I said I feel very little responsibility I'm a good neighbor we have done I'm going to say 12 major onsite improvements drainage related as this Pro from the time this project started up through today we've spent I don't I know costs may not be an issue to you but um we' have spent over a million dollars on drainage and that's we understand that our original design that was approved Bader approved it as the towns Consulting engineer at the time it did not work it didn't take us long to to to figure that out um and every time we saw a shortcoming in our drainage we we addressed it we didn't run away from anything um there's been all sorts of issues down on the street that we've gone down for five years debris Fallen branches anything that rather than you know get the ch involved we just go down and take care of it so I think we're at a point where you know five years later the town is coming to us through DPW and um wanting us to be responsible and pay for these improvements and um so at this point I'm not willing to spend any more engineering dollars um but I think what we proposed now is just a sit a sit down with all the right parties both the town and the engineers and see if we can come up with um some kind of solution so that's kind of in a nutshell where we where we are all right thank thanks Mr kle that's uh that's my understanding as well um that we are at an impass uh the town is looking looking for you DPW is looking for you to to remedy the entire situation that's what beta is requesting and and you don't feel it's uh entirely your responsibility so I get I get the why there's the impass uh John what what do you what do you do you think that's a viable option is to have a meeting with the interested parties uh through the chair I don't think it's a viable option if Mr gatley is not going to uh pay any more towards engineering fees because we are not going to pay those fees as the town and um to have a meeting with the engineer the engineers got to attend so so we only we we really only have uh the only thing we can do uh as a planning board to protect the town is to increase the bond at this point we can't do anything else uh it sounds like that's I'm sure Mr gayy that's not what you want to hear but that's that's our recourse well again um I think the recourse should should be aimed at what we're responsible for and in rough numbers that 500 ft is 16% of that roadway that 3,000 ft and in that 500 ft that we have Frontage on we have addressed the drainage um and I don't know why 5 years later after approvals the town um I guess expects that the developer should be responsible to bring that road up to town standards especially where it's been I think the town has neglected their responsibility to maintain that road um I've made some it didn't seem to go anywhere but we have generated about $2 million a year in real estate taxes for the town I paid so far I believe $4 million in affordable housing fees and I've been very close with my residents up here where we just started the fourth and Final Phase as 127 people living here now and 48 more coming and I actually live here so I have a little extra responsibility um to the residents I feel being one myself and think to and we've been trying to be good neighbors uh but there's a point at which I think the town should step up and do what they should do and with the tax money we're generating here with basically no services with 55 and over we don't use the schools we have no trash pickup this we have generated a significant windfall for the town and my residents deserve better and I I think we're at a point where the town should recognize this they should put in some sort of capital Improv movement um and not just look at the to the developer five years later five years after the town approved it and expect well you know the developer should just step up and pay this um I've tried to be reasonable but there's a point at which I have I've had to draw the line and we're there now so I really don't I I would not want to see you increase the bond the bond was I think less than $100,000 for the project that's correct it was 75,000 yeah I think I think uh our position as a planning board is that we need to support our town staff which is the DPW director in this case and our peer review consultant that has proposed recommendations we can't there's no other option for us besides to support our town staff that's why um I think what you proposed was kind a good idea to get your engineer in a room with our peerreview consultant the DPW director to come to an agreement because the only thing we can do as a board for my perspective is to raise the bond to try to cover the cost to repair the road I'd rather if you guys could negotiate an agreement with people that are much more closer to e much more of experts in this field than the than we are on on drainage and storm water management um that would be my preferred preferred Avenue but if you don't want to continue to bring your P your engineer to the projects then the only option I see is to raise the bond well I didn't say I stop you know supporting the project with engineering dollars um I but I think we're at a point and I'm let's face it Vader is your consultant so DPW you know they're as they should they're trying to protect the town but you can't expect that um that we should be somehow paying to have that road brought up to current standards that is a country road that road would be illegal today to build um and it's DPW I think she has some responsibility for not keeping that road up to par I mean that's not even close to being up to par and we've I think proposed you know doing something there but it doesn't seem to be enough and um anyways uh and I just thought as a as a last step it would be good to get everybody around the table uh DPW especially they started off with a with a letter back in May that um well it was so it was so over the line as far as you know whose responsibility is what it was just totally self-serving I understand protecting the town but you can't expect the developer to pay you know a substantial amount of money for drainage that should have been in effect and should have been properly maintained over time by the town or whoever whoever uh you know has the frontage on that other 2500 feet of the 3,000 feet I'm talking about um so I think I think we um we can do one of two things we can give you time to have this meeting like you requested and set a deadline being our first meeting after the New Year where there would need to be an agreed upon salute uh agreed upon path forward with the DPW director the peer review consultant and yourself and your engineer so the first first meeting in our in the new year or we could raise the bond today those are the only two options I have and that's um I think we're in agreement um I'm talking about sitting down too um everything so far with DPW has been through emails um and I think it's time to sit down and go through this and the original yeah I'm looking I'm looking at the original letter it's dated May 7th so we're uh right seven months into this um I don't want it to extend any longer that's uh does anyone else on the board have any comments that's my my thinking is give them until the first meeting to an agreed upon solution if they can't come to one we have we will be forced to have no choice who the chair go ahead John two comments on that um I would say maybe not the first meeting in January maybe the second meeting in January just to escape the holidays because okay that that sounds reasonable yeah if there's time in the middle um the second thing is and I don't want to talk about money um on this but I do believe that the um review revolving account is in a rear and so we are not able to get beta into that meeting unless we can pay them so that would have to be fixed and if Mr Gay is not willing to put more money into it I don't I didn't I didn't say that John you did you said you weren't willing to put more engineering money in well and I'm willing to do it if we're trying to come up with a solution but if we're just drawing a line right here tonight and saying it's we've we've had seven months to do it and that's the end of it then obviously I'm not but um and that's the first I heard that our account is in re I don't think we several emails asking for more money but we can talk about that offline I don't want to talk that here but I just don't want that to be a um a stopping point of you know the the board makes their decision and then we find out this is an issue that's not passable and then that throws the board's decision into um disarray so I I I I think that's the that's my proposed is the second meeting in January is it needs to be agreed upon path forward or we are going to look to raise the bond to try to cover uh cover the town's best interests does anyone else on the board have any comments Lucia go ahead I did have a question um regarding the basically the issue that they can't agree on did we ever determine what storm water runoff was pre-existing versus what is a result of the development because from what I recall DPW essentially asked baa to look over the entire you know from Legacy Farms North um down to Ashland and I don't recall it ever actually asking you know where the storm water was coming from uh I don't I don't have that answer I don't know uh well we've we have looked at and that's I think part of the impass we've looked at drainage calculations we feel we can show that um The Run run off post-development is less than it was pre-development and I guess that's one of the principles you you go by when you're designing for a site so but what's Happening Here is Upland up put that intersection we you know that water basically is making its way down into the street and that's not that's not our responsibility and um I think town is really should look at the fact that this road the condition that it is in um and hey I mean I stepped up after the project started and I saw that various drainage uh facilities were inadequate for actual conditions and we did something about it and I think we're in a we're in a good position today um we've gone Way Beyond and not that this is something you consider but we have gone way beyond what the original design that the town approved and beta approved we've gone well beyond that because we've always aired on the side of caution my my engineer lives literally a mile from the site and for five years he's been coming on site every time there's a significant rain storm to uh to actually see what water is doing and not relying on you know topography plans and things like that he's and and we've we've done a enormous amount of um I guess corrections to the original design the town hasn't done one thing and five years later through the chair yeah five years later is when now it's it's become an issue and that's what I don't understand um so anyways all right thank thank you Mr gayy go ahead Lucia um yeah I think we we all understand Mr gle's position and I think what I want to understand um if it is the case that we're going to go to a vote is if the town's position or dpw's position is you know this damage is here now and we want it solved or if it's something that wasn't there before and is there now given the development I think that's a question that I don't have the answer to at this point chair I might be able to give a little bit of background though I can't speak with authority on that go go ahead John thank you so um there's some things that I I take issue with with Mr gatley uh saying um there have been ongoing storm water issues related to this site um most notably having uh cleared the entire site rather than phased on a poor soil site that has uh high levels of silty soil that ended up running down Wilson Street and into the Ashlen Reservoir which uh has been a an ongoing issue with Conservation Commission and the town of Ashland um there have been modifications like Mr gatley said to the storm water design because it didn't work because of the way that it was either designed or installed they had to do an uh significant mitigation to address that runoff and a lot of it being along Wilson Street um Wilson Street was not always in Tip-Top shape but it has gotten significantly worse in the last number of years there are uh is some storm water that flows from um the intersection of Legacy Farms Road North in Wilson Street I no one to my knowledge has claimed that that's not true uh however there is a significant amount of storm water coming off of the trail site and so it's the main sources the main areas of damage are along Wilson Street near the trail site I'm sure there is some water contributing to that but it was not like that prior to Trails development going in um so that's dpw's concern uh getting that road fixed so that it's safe and not going to wash out and there have been numerous storm water issues related to this site in the past uh I believe there's still a cease and desist uh through concom that has to get approval from the concom to release certain um permits to allow for construction uh because the storm water issue has not been fully resolved on that site uh there is the opinion that uh within uh staff and and Conservation Commission members I believe that once the site is fully built out and Landscape that it will improve however that's not done yet and so we have to address the storm water issues that are on the ground now and that has been a challenge up to this point so uh there is some background to to point to this um saying that the trails has been one of the main perpetrators of this Wilson Street road damage and I would just say to that that um uh yes we we've had a couple of Brees no question about it um and we have paid dearly for that um and I see Mike sheet on on here and he'll remember that very first meeting was in 21 when we had some uh significant runoff and I remember his words you have to pay for this now it's time that's the way you get your attention you we you have to pay for this something like that Mike I'm sorry if I'm not exactly right but I thought that's and it was it was very clear and um conservation has been really really I think difficult on us some of it is C certainly deserved um and um these problems that you're talking about um JRE that we haven't had an issue there for a year probably longer okay we're we're spinning our we're spinning our Wheels here at least from my my point I just I just don't want to make it sound like you know we're just we're responsible and and have caused all the damage to that street and I think what you suggested of having a meeting with your yourself your engineer beta uh and the DPW director to come to a proposed solution is the next step and it needs to be done by January 27th which is our second meeting after the new year if not we are going to look to raise my opinion would be we would vote on whether we raised the bond at that point in time John do I need to officially continue this discussion or is it just uh no it's just a discussion it's not a hearing or anything like that so doesn't need to be continued all right so that's uh unless anybody disagrees in the board um we're going to move on to the next agenda item but that's the the go forward plan okay Jan January 27th needs to be an agreed upon solution that could be presented to the board uh okay well I appreciate the time I know we probably spent more on this first agenda item I know you get a long night ahead of you so I do appreciate the time I've been given and um and I think we I think sitting down is is really the best thing to do at this point so all right made out F thank you very much thank you okay have a great night thanks we're on to agenda item 1.2 215 Winter Street dear pen real realy I'm not sure who's uh speaking speak on behalf of this anr uh good evening uh Zachary beamus with engineering design Consultants this evening representing a deer pen realy trust uh the plan of land uh before the board this evening is a um parcel swap uh the intention is to uh create parcel a uh located there in the um lower Southeast corner from the larger parcel of land and convey it to adjacent land of uh STL realy trust they own land both to the East and to the north of um parcel a uh the remaining parcel remaining lot um will become lot 6A uh it'll have a just shy of seven acres and uh the existing 200t of Frontage will remain unchanged um this area of town is the agricultural zoning District which requires a minimum 20000 ft uh of Frontage and 60,000 Square F feet of lot area um particular to this uh this uh lot is it is an existing house uh the house does straddle the proposed um lot line that's going to create parcel a the existing house is to be raised um and it'll just become a vacant lot I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board has on this the uh parcel next to it R22 uh I don't know if you can see it on your map R22 268 is 2053 Acres uh I'm sorry which parcel is it uh on your map it's [Music] uh um above it uh so north of parcel a yes yes okay so that appears to be a 20 acre parcel uh I don't think that one perhaps the parcel to the east um I think of the plan to to the right of the sheet I believe that could be a 20 acre parcel of land but that not really the subject of this um of this anr plan well you you said somebody you're you're looking to convey the land to an abutter is did I hear that correctly yes parcel a will not be a landlocked parcel of land it's going to be conveyed to adjoining land and which adjoining part uh lot um it could go to either I suppose uh it's to go to STL realy trust they own both the parcel North and the parcel East or it could remain just like the parcels of the north and they could own three Parcels of land I just didn't want to imply that there was um an access issue with gaining access to parcel a there are a series of Trail networks in the woods so um there wouldn't be a required easement or or an implied easement uh to get to Winter Street okay does anyone on the board have any questions go ahead Matthew uh do we have any concern about the timing of when the house gets raised if we approve this and there's a house straddling there and never gets conveyed or any issues with that that has never come up before uh we've never had a situation like that that I'm aware of John do you have any uh opinion on that so an anrs are really just essentially boundary plans um they don't there's a statement that's required to be on them that says the endorsement of the plan does not constitute approval of zoning or something to that extent or conformance with zoning so um for an anr it doesn't really matter because if they don't raise the property and they subdivide it it's a non-conforming property um so they wouldn't be able like do anything else with it but um for anr purposes it doesn't play into it anyone else have any comments hearing none I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board endorsed the anr plan for 215 Winter Street entitled approval not required plan of land prepared by engineering design Consultants Inc dated November 1st 2024 so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Michael uh roll call vote Alise MOSI yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes thank you you are uh good to go thank you very much have a good night and how many people do we need to have come in and sign John is it five none because we did oh that's right can sign it for you all oh yeah excellent all right uh item one3 on our agenda Bond reduction request form K Elmwood Farms 3 Toll Brothers do we have the applicant on I see Ted Merchant go ahead good evening uh Ted Merchant land development director with to s um I was before you uh in October to release six Lots in the um Newberry Glenn subdivision which you approved we posted a bond um associated with that and um we have since done more work I think I threatened that we would be before you shortly and here I am um with with the remaining Lots so we we've paved um the vast majority of the site um there's one section left which we were're planning on Paving this week but temperatures will push that off to next week um but we'll we'll complete the paving in full uh next week and looking to reduce or sorry um release uh all of the remaining Lots there um and to go along with that U looking to reduce the bond um commensurate with the work that we've done to date um and and John's got up there uh the bond reduction form um that I provided earlier all right is uh John what's the what's the status of our review of the roads that have been built and and so on to to basically go ahead y so par is the town's engineering consultant on this and they reviewed this uh form G the revised form G they've been on site uh observing the construction so they they're you know firsthand knowledge of what's going on and what's been done they agreed with the estimate of 1, 21,99 uh it's different than I believe what we had in the memo because there was um just an omission of one of the items that had to had to be done um and to Brothers identified that and revised the form so this is the current number the 1, 21,99 um and Par has signed off on that being the same as their calculation all right does anyone on the board have any questions I think from my point of view this is pretty St straightforward if our peerreview consultant agrees with this number um so this is to reduce the remaining Bond to 1, 21,99 that's correct and through the chair there I wouldn't do it together but there is then another vote after to um approve the form K which we can go over separately okay if nobody has uh any other the comments I'd like to entertain a motion that we reduce the bond for el1 Farm 3 from 2,686 th000 to 1, 21,99 65,000 all moved second all right roll call vote Alise mayosi yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right and so the second part of this is we need to um endorse Form K to release Lots 10A 11- 17 43b 44A 47a 52 54 and 55 so by releasing these lots that um John could you just give an overview of what releasing the Lots does for for them yep so releasing the Lots just allows the developer to sell them until the board allows them to be released from the Covenant uh which the bond kind of makes that trade um they aren't able to be sold so uh since we've now adopted a bond and then reduced it they're looking to release the remaining Lots um in the property so they can sell them all right is there any questions all right hearing none I'd like to entertain a motion to release the Lots 10A 11 through 17 43b 44A 47a 52 54 and 55 within Elmwood Farms 3 so moved thanks thanks Michael roll call vote Elise MOSI yes Lucille Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes thank you all for your time thanks Ted and through the chair before we move on um everyone could just come in and sign the form K tomorrow that' be great okay or all right moving on to 1.4 Maple Avenue Paving determination uh do we have anyone on the call to speak on this agenda item [Applause] if not the chair I can give a background yeah that would be great John okay so um Maple AV is nearby the Labor uh campus and laborers installed utility service through Maple a to serve the Labor's uh site and kind of as a handshake agreement um the Labor's Union is looking to pave that road for the residents of maple AB currently Maple a is unpaved hand packed gravel um kind of you know in disrepair older Road um needing some improvement and uh the question for the board is whether this work would need a storm water management permit um so the the applicant is looking or applicant in quotes is looking just for a determination as to whether this work would need to go for a storm water management permit or if it would be uh not ring to that level and the argument being it's already a hard pack Gravel Road pretty much considered impervious so you would just be doing a top coat of asphalt on top and you know we don't really cover this kind of a thing in the storm water management permit applicability criteria um so we wanted to go to the board and get the board's opinion as to whether they need to apply for a permit or they can just do the work does uh does anybody does do people on the board would it benefit anyone on the board to see a map of where Maple AV is in relation to labors theair benefit us to see how big it is too how big the street is the area they're going to pay yes it will be helpful if if we can see what we have I just I have our GIS maps up I can I can um I can just do that I guess I can share Rob I've got it up okay thanks Sean through the chair go ahead Jane while he's pulling that up um do we know offand if there are any Wetland issues there um my knowledge is it it's just a flat um Road not very long and the water just kind of runs off the side currently um the only thing I could think of that would um slow it down is maybe some Wetland issues I can't speak if there's any wetlands in the area I don't think there are but I think there's a there's something on the our system that we we can pull up Wetlands on the maps on the gis system I think we can but I don't like to rely on this because it's not super accurate okay generally accurate but that's of my knowledge the only what issues there are the puddles in the road that are created through big um mud puddles in the gravel road occasionally so for some reason my JS doesn't want to work I'm turning the turning it on but it's not showing up so okay I think you might need to be off of uh of um all right let's try off of Ariel yeah off of aiel turn that off once it turn on that one um John you might know the answer to this question as well it it's not a privately owned road is it it's Town owned isn't it uh no it is a private road okay yeah if it was town-owned DPW would be charged with with Paving it I don't know what's going on with the map I'm sorry well uh ma Matthew go ahead um yeah through the the chair according to the art the letter that was written the length is 800 feet to answer I think it was Michael's question um my question was uh if just if we have uh concurrence with the the the numbers there for the coefficient of the runoff the 90 uh 96 versus 098 which seems like the main difference here I assume those are coming from someplace that we have confidence that's probably coming from the applicant we haven't had this peer reviewed because there's no application before us did Carrie have a did DPW have a response because I didn't see that in the thread DPW really probably wouldn't even weigh in since it's a private road it's private road like Lucia has a question Lucia go ahead thanks you Michael um so in terms of Jane's question about this being a private road um I did see something in the documents from the DPW director asking if there was any intent to have maple a accepted as a public road and if that's what the paving was kind of setting off and I didn't see a response to that I can't tell you what their intent is I know that uh DPW sent out a number of letters recently to uh residents on private roads saying DPW is no longer going to be plowing the roads during the winter and some residents have come to us and inquired about how to make their Road public um but the same thing we've said to all of them is you can do whatever you want on a private road doesn't mean it's going to get accepted because basically the DPW director is going to review it um review the status of the road before town meeting and make a recommendation and that's probably going to carry the town vote uh but they can try they can pave it and it might make it better in terms of Street acceptance but that's really going to come down to DPW director looking at the road the quality of the road and how much it would actually cost for the town to bring it up to standards if be should the road be accepted and that would come out at a town meeting um whenever it gets on the the warrant they may try and put on the warrant in Spring I don't know um but that's where that's where we stand with that is there anyone on the public that has any commentary about about this just one followup um I'm sure the um residents are in favor of this um aren't they was that that handshake agreement yes yeah I would in general think they would view this as a very good thing I would think so too I don't have a problem with it I don't either I'm just trying to safeguard us uh I I I me generally in for it does anyone have any dissenting opinions I'm just curious about the process I guess do they have to uh ask us for this or are they just kind of doing this to be um good citizens I guess they're doing it on their own but they don't need our permission to do it they could just do it essentially without right it's so it's kind of it's a it's a gray area of the storm water bylaws um because it's it's a hard pack gravel road so is that new impervious or not is that going is Paving it going to change the storm water flow is it going to change the way that storm water is treated on site those types of things is it is it considered disturbance since the road is really technically already Disturbed that kind of a thing and so it's that gray area that the applicant and I decided it would probably be best for the board to weigh in and say this looks like something that we really do want to look at in a little bit more detail and therefore we want a permit to be filed or permit application to be filed or this is a road that probably isn't going to change that much if it's paved and therefore we don't really need to go into too too deep of a process to give them the okay um we thought that it would be best for the planning board to make that decision anyone else have any anything else to add Matthew go ahead yeah so I I want to be in favor of saying they could just go ahead for 800 feet um my my main concerns are one right we were just talking about uh miscalculating runoff on and the behavior on roads before and the surrounding area and so that's fresh in my mind um and I I just don't I don't know if the calculations are right if we haven't looked at them internally um and how similar the uh permeability is to the current situation and if we're paved um so I'm a little hesitant based on the Jos of those two things why don't we take a vote we got two motions one motion is unless if unless somebody wants to uh disagree I there's two motions one motion is uh motion one is basically that we they don't need a storm water management permit uh because it will have minimal impact because there's the existing Road and it's uh motion two is that we should review it as the planning board so I'm going to I'll I'm going to entertain motion one first so I I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board determines that the proposed repaving of Maple Avenue is anticipated to have minimal impacts to storm water management in comparison to the current conditions and therefore does not require a storm water management permit so moved thanks Jane any discussion do I have a second yep second thanks Michael uh so if you think so if they get five votes here or we only we have eight so I still think it takes five votes then uh they won't need a storm water management permit so Elise how do you vote I vote Yes Lucia yes Matthew no Michael Yes Jane yes Karen yes Vic no and Rob is a yes all right we're moving to item 1.5 uh planning board meeting dates I don't I think in years past John we just kind of look at these at this point in time and oh Matthew go did you still have a comment yeah I just want to call out that may fth is annual town meeting um I think this is a annual occurrence I think we put that there just because we could have a meeting like right before it longing regular business yeah so what I was goingon to say is like in years past like nobody knows their exact calendar a year out but uh we kind of set the schedule and I think we have some flexibility to cancel a meeting or move a meeting if we have uh some notice but at this point in time this seems reasonable to me anyone have any comments Matthew go ahead I mean if we have flexibility there's two other conflicts I have but I'll try to make them otherwise um I don't know if it makes sense to reschedule I I I do like everyone to attend all of our meetings but I think we could get into an very very long conversation if we try to plan everyone's calendar for the whole year around our meetings um anyone else have any comments no all right I I think these looks fine John if like if we get into a situation uh and we we know we won't have a quum or something we can adjust yeah through the chair these don't need to be approved or anything like that it's just no yeah yeah I know all right so we've got one two three four five six we really have six sets of meeting minutes to approve okay uh I'd like to entertain a motion the plan uh actually does anyone any comments on the minutes beforehand Matthew go ahead um are we taking these one by one or just all of them at once we I will do whatever the board would like all right uh we start with October is it EAS to start just go by I I'll let Lucia have her comment I guess Rob Lucia go ahead I was just gonna say one by one all right let's go one by one okay now what are the what are the comments about the notes all right uh is it back to me yep all right October 7th we're starting with that one yes um so there is it looks like the notes were originally intended under NBA NBTA communities overiew presentation uh I think the first paragraph ends with XT steps it looks like it was originally beginning with next steps I think that can just be stricken um and the other note Lor Lori are you Lori are Lori are you getting these yep so I got MBTA delete next steps so or XT steps dot um the other item I have is I want to suggest a change in wording um where it says Mr Benson stated that the zoning advisory committee's act put together three options including option one to be discussed at the October 28th 2024 public hearing I want to change um to be discussed to be which will be discussed to make it clear uh or less ambiguous that they there were going to be discussed but it wasn't necessarily because Zach was determining that that it was a planning board decision does that make sense taking to a different wording through the chair it might be helpful from some of the board members um I know Lucia did this earlier but if you could type up your proposed amendments and send them to me and Lori that would just be easier on us to incorporate the correct wording I will for those right now do we wanna uh well with that being considered like Matthew I don't know how many how if you have additional comments like if we can do this all right now great if not um we're going to need to find another plan those are the only two I had for the sth okay uh anyone else have any comments Lucia October 7th we're on October 7th page two under MBTA the paragraph that starts Mr hap um so it says 34% so that should either be changed to three4 or 75% and that was my only edit for October 7th I have no edits for October 21st and also if we want to let anyone know about any hearings that have been continued who might be waiting for those hearings I think that might be appreciated oh uh yeah so uh for anybody that's calling in from the public we have on our agenda zero Benson Road uh and we also have the Redevelopment of Hopkin and Drug 48 through 52 is that Main Street those will be continued we're going to have a uh to Future meetings so if you're waiting on the call for those uh we'll pick those up um at a later date I might have a brief comment about each one but uh uh they will be continued we will not get into any bulk of the uh discussion on either of those tonight all right let's let's go back to our minutes all right so at this time I'd like to entertain a I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 7th 20124 so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael Alise meowski yes Lucia Lopez as amended yes excellent Matthew Rona thank you Luccia I realized I missed that yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Robert Benson is a yes all right October 21st any comments on Matthew go ahead okay um so I did four of these to um to John uh so hopefully he's got them um I have two changes here the second is I I'll do first is uh just an extra comma and Miss Wills asked how many shops would fit into 6 6800 squ ft um intend for retail use there's two commas there um the other one is um as I was speaking I I attempted to correct modern with contemporary but it it quotes me as moderncontemporary um I'm fine with my exact words including the rec correcting uh quoted um but since this is paraphrasing um I'd like to switch that to just contemporary um about the Contemporary look of the proposed Lori John do you get those yeah I'll make a note thank you is there any other uh proposed edits for October 21st all right I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 21st as amended so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Michael uh roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Luccia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Jane Maran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and and Rob Benson is yes all right October 28th Lucia go ahead on page two where it starts Ted Barker hook um I think we should change member to chair and that was my only edit for that one go ahead Matthew uh under the section where Mr bronka noted that the Legacy Farms had about 20 children for 100 units and Windor below the town average of 50 Children um it leaves out that I was that I that I was talking about the apartments there was actually the leadin which is distinct because I actually comment that the overall Legacy Farms is above the average um my suggested change which I've forwarded an email um is changing that section to say that Mr vonka noted that the apartments at Legacy Farm average about 20 children per 100 units The Windsor development in total is still below the town average with 50 children per 100 units while the town average is about 60 okay anything else that's it for me on that all right I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for October 28th 2024 as amended so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael uh Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right November 4th Matthew go ahead um there is a uh mispelling of evsc as evsv in one section so just correcting evsv to EVS e uh were applicable and then the first recommendation uh to the the first motion to recommend Preserve in wott Valley is uh elided from the minutes entirely did you send these over email too as I did I not send the complete uh quote of the the vote but um I did include those in the email I sent okay and Lucia go ahead I sent what Matt is referring to in terms of the missing motion and vote um and I use the same format that Lori uses so if that is something that the board is fine with um basically it's the walcot Valley Preserve downtown areas and the people who made the motions and then the four in favor four opposed and one exstension is what I sent um my other edit to that is on page six the first bullet under my name I would like to strike because it and replace it with that and strike and and replace it with because so that it reads stata that she does not support excluding the original plan that was voted down at annual town meeting because there were unanswered questions okay I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for November 4th uh as amended so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Michael roll call vote Alise mayosi yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes Vic South pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right we're on to November 13th Lucia you're up first um so November 13th under the votes I didn't write a page number but um opposed needs to be changed to abstained I think it's a paragraph that starts with the votes I don't know what page it's on um but it that somebody opposed and I believe they abstained and then under the second motion the same needs to happen where um opposed needs to be changed to abstained okay so this is where there was a four to four to one vote the on on I think both both proposals yeah I think one person abstained on one and two people abstained on the other and they both say that they opposed rather thaned all right any other comments all right I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for November 13 2024 as amended so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes viasa przi yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right we're on to November 18th through the chair looks good Luc do you have any comments I do not awesome all right I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for November 18th 2024 so moved thanks Matthew second thanks Michael roll call vote Alise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes Vic prti yes and Rob Benson is a yes so uh item two on our agenda is zero Benson Road um so we're we're g to continue that I don't think uh anybody for this project is on the call um I think uh one comment I have before we just continue it is I was talking to somebody on the ospc uh board over the Thanksgiving kind of week and um for the most part most Parcels that they'd be interested in obtaining they've reached out to land owners to see if the land owners are interested in selling so with that first parcel this developer this uh applicant proposed um the osc wasn't interested the general feeling was that there'd be it'd be very hard for this developer to find a parcel that they are interested in that would be financially viable for them to buy in lie of making uh us saying zero Benson Road could be developed I just want to give that as kind of background information I think we do need to we should continue it um let them continue their search and the discussion but um I think it was worth me mentioning that the OPC does reach out to potential land owners if they think there's a parcel that's a particular interest that could connect Trails or do other things and and benefit the town as a whole in terms of open space um so that's the only reason I mention it does anybody have have any comments before we can uh try to continue this do I need to continue the public hearing and storm water manage like there's no storm water management permit or am I am I mistaken there's no storm waterer management chair thank you however rob you do have to extend the um definitive subdivision plan decision because it's due December 16th so continue the public hearing till January 6 and the decision deadline till when John usually ask for a week after so January 13th y so I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the zero Benson Road amended definitive subdivision plan decision to January 6th and or the hearing to January 6 and the decision Dead uh decision deadline to January 13 all moved moved second thank you uh Alise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South prti yes and and Rob Benson is a yes all right we're on to agenda item three which is also going to be continued really the chair go ahead John I know one of the abutters had sent in a letter uh asking if the board was interested in doing a site walk on her property which is adjacent to the subject property I see she's on the call but I don't know if she's paying attention to the meeting right now so I didn't want the board to continue without giving her the opportunity to speak um looks like she just came on hi hi Kathleen I I saw your letter uh would you like to just expl explain your concern and uh sure what you offered just to re kind of remind everybody sure I sent a letter I think was um at the end of October was my first letter I sent kind of detailing what some of my concerns were um with this um proposed building and parking garage um but I also um I also sent out a letter after that I believe it was the first week in November maybe um Mid mid November um requesting a site walk of my property just so I could show you firsthand what some of my concerns were um but I also I didn't know it was going to be continued tonight so I did kind of prepare a couple little overview of what some of my concerns were I don't know if I'm John can I talk to that effect or yeah you're on the you're on the you're on you're on now so go ahead okay so um basically my name is Kathleen real um I'm the owner of eight8 seater Street which is the property that directly abuts the proposed building to the north um I'm also a hopkington resident and I bought this building at8 Cedar Street in 1993 and since that time my small business has been on the first floor and I also rent some space to other small businesses on the first floor and the second floor is a um is an apartment it's a two-bedroom one and a half bath apartment that I currently rent to a family um let me look at some of my notes here um I'd like to first of all let everybody know that I think this mix use building is a good idea um I just have some concerns um with the proximity of the building to my building as well as um the size or the scope of the building and how it's going to impact my property and also my tenants um like I said the proximity and the scale of the proposed building is a concern of mine um the building in the parking garage will be approximately 10 and 1 half feet from my building although the building is described as a three-story building from the perspective of my property line it will be four stories tall and will be approximately 42 ft in height the first two levels of the building are allocated to be an above ground parking garage that has approximately 22 parking spaces that will face bedrooms and Living Spaces in my building my concern is that the headlights will be about 10 and 1 half feet from these bedrooms and living spaces and there'll be 247 interior lights in the parking garage that will glare into second floor bed bedroom windows there's also no air conditioning on the second floor apartment so windows are open during the summer months the applicant has agreed to construct a 5ft wide Landscaping buffer this buffer will provide no relief in screening a two level parking garage that that garage will have lights fumes and also sounds that will affect my building the landscaping and screening requirements for the hopkington zoning bylaws are specifically tailored for parking lots they are not designed for parking garages I don't think that there are any landscape solutions that would provide an effective year round screen for a twole partially enclosed garage that's a little over 10t from my building that's used as a residence the height and proximity of the proposed building will also block all sunlight to the south side of my building and possibly block sunlight to the east side of the building I would like to request to shade study be be carried out to determine the effects that the proposed building and parking garage will have on all abing properties the primary thing I'm asking for tonight is that no cars be parked facing any Windows of my building I'm requesting that the applicant also scale back the size of their building and their parking garage and place it further back from the property line that abuts my building and as I said I also welcome the planning board to come out to my property and to take a look to see the firsthand the concerns that I have thanks Kathleen uh I know um I know the we've had a sidewalk of uh this site already does what uh I don't know that we specifically uh did it from the perspective of Kathleen at a Cedar Street does it uh how does the board feel about going back to kind of try to assess the situation from her uh her parcel of land Matthew go ahead uh I I think we spent quite a bit of time actually looking at that that that's uh Crossman post office right is yeah yeah so I think we spent quite a bit of time looking at what that would be like from there as best as we could um Rob was I thought the the parking garage was I I didn't think the parking garage had stuff on top I thought there were units on top is that wrong I'm trying to go through so from from the uh Route 85 side so there's elevation change the Route 85 side and what Kathleen's describing is there's an entrance at street level and then there's parking on that first level and then there's a level up which would be parking so from her perspective her the the street uh like going down 85 it will be a feel like those are going to be stck yeah there will be second floor yeah there'll be two levels of parking whereas if you're up the hill across kind of from the muffin house or there abouts it'll give the field much more of one level of parking because you'll go in and then the second parking level will be down um if that makes sense so was a parking parking residential residential so yeah it's basically a four story building that's going to be on you know from the Cedar Street side on the furthest North of the Cedar Street side as well as on the northwest corner which is where my building is located I just a landscape is great for a parking lot but for when it's two levels we're talking a two level open spaced parking garage um it's facing bedrooms this should have been thought through by the by the applicant they knew that it was a mixed use building with an apartment in here it's a family that lives here so I I I I guess um what I'm thinking is I'm thinking uh we're going to continue the bulk of the discussion uh when the applicant is on for our next meeting on December 16th and that we would have uh another meeting after that I'd almost like to revisit the idea of a s sidewalk at our next meeting December 16th um I would really I I I I'd like you to come and just from this from this side of the property and see um for the site walk I was here in my building um for part of the time that you guys had your site walk I didn't see anybody on the you know property lines um literally my building is there's nothing I can do on my side it's six inches um six inches from the property line I I understand Jane Jane go ahead sure so I have a couple of thoughts I'm I'm not opposed to a second site walk I think it would be interesting I'm also thinking this might not be the right timing but um would it be possible to ask the developer if he could do like some sort of small um mockup of the building so that we could kind of conceptualize what this might look like it's such a huge project that's going to impact the downtown area it might be interesting I don't know if he'd be willing to do that or not and um the third thing is there might be something um balance Shades or metal screening um that they could use on the for the parking area but that's probably for a different discussion to kind of block the headlight okay um I've been researching this and I've been I've been looking to see what other towns do there any other regulations for parking garages um you know the South borrow is something I keep going back to because I consider it kind of on the same caliber as Hopkin ten and they have a I think it's a 30 a 20 foot buffer um they have a 20 foot buffer for any parking lot that AB buts any building that has a partial use or residential use it just it just seems like it's a lot if it was a parking if it was a if it was a four-story building I wouldn't be having this probably a lot of these concerns that I have but that it is a two level parking garage there there's not much you can do with landscaping for a second floor of parking shining into bedroom windows so uh I'm not opposed to going on a s sidewalk uh um it would be much appreciated Let's uh I'm I'm pulling up a calendar here what about Saturday uh December 14th at 9 A.M works for me it works for me okay I won't be in town but I live right there and I walk by there all the time so I have a good idea what you guys are looking at yeah all right uh Matthew go ahead you have question um I was just going to add to similar in Jane's suggestion I think most the mockups I've seen have been uh from basically Main Street like it might be helpful to see even a 3D rendering of what the other sides of the building would look like um to help us picture this because I know we talked a lot about the impact of people driving in late at night for instance um so I don't remember exactly what how the second floor was designed um to be made but I know that was that was a question that came up during the discussion um so I think uh if people I I know this is one of the more well um attended site walks that we've had lately um but if anybody hasn't stopped by and looked at it um it's definitely uh good to think about um but I'd also like to hear more from the uh from the applicant once the meeting was resumed about what they could do or what their ideas are for for Med this um but I'm not opposed to to scheduling on the 14th either all right 14th at 9:00 a. okay all right at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the major project site plan uh hearing to December 16th and to the decision deadline to December 23rd I think we've got as the 24th just to give us a little bit extra oh December December 24th so D second thanks roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes Vias South pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes and through the chair when was the site walk scheduled December 14th at 9:00 a.m. thank you through the chair thank you for your time too thanks Kathleen go ahead Lucia I I feel like maybe we need to make sure that people know that when we have a sidewalk the public is welcome to attend so if it's the case that Kathleen was there while we were doing the sidewalk like we would have gladly come on to your property then and as Matthew mentioned this was one of the better attended site walks as well so you had a majority of the board which this might be the first s sidewalk I've been to where we had a quorum at a s sidewalk um so I feel like you know we were asking a lot of the questions that you've brought up just in terms of trying to visualize and get a better understanding because we understand your concerns and you know we'll have more discussion as has been mentioned um but I think that's something that we would have welcomed you to come and take part and if you wanted us to you know walk your property line then we would have we're also happy to schedule another s sidewalk but I don't know if it's the case that we just need to kind of make it clear that you're welcome to to come thank I I wasn't sure otherwise I would have um you know if I'd seen you kind of popping over to like right where the property line I probably would said hey you know how you doing but I was inside the building and then outside kind of running back and forth to go to a job so I I wasn't really right there but I I didn't know that I could attend but now I did okay yes uh public the public is welcome to attend any of our site walks any of our scheduled site walks all right we're going to move on to our next agenda item continued public hearing for six Nebraska Street uh definitive subdivision plan Jeff Diana Joe are you gonna kick off the discussion certainly I'm glad to all right what's the latest since we um met last with the board we have um conducted a s sidewalk on the 16th of November with a couple of members we also um made an attempt to um attack the items that were identified during the peer review uh for the Project based on uh a memo from October 30th uh there's a plan revision uh out there dated uh November 16th and we feel that we've Whitted um the outstanding items down to a handful of issues okay um if you I think I think at this point like to hear from our uh peer review consultant uh gen you uh thanks hi everyone uh Jean Christie principal engineer atalian Bond um we did receive the revised documents and a response to our comments um I think in general A lot's been addressed there are probably a small handful of things that um we probably want to talk about tonight I think there's a couple that are are pointed back to the board um you know I'm not sure how you want to handle some of these things um there's a couple specific to some real technical storm water things um I don't think there any of them are going to really change kind of the the end result of the design um but we would probably for the record for a complete record for the the town we want them to be addressed at some point um probably up to the board to determine if they want to be conditions or if we want to have the applicant you know revise them at this point um do you want me to go through those specific ones uh sure I don't know if everybody has the my um letter from this morning I think everybody uh let me check in the shared folder so everyone should have it okay yeah all right um so the first one was regarding waivers that's something the Board needs to you know weigh on I don't know if you discussed that at all at the last meeting um but I'll let the board do that themselves um the second one's about endorsements and I haven't done um a definitive subdivision approval through the town of hopkington yet I don't know if you require your endorsement block on every plan sheet or just the definitive subdivision sheets um so that's what numbers two is about um I don't know if you have a a thought about that J John I I don't know technically either yeah we usually just do the subdivision sheets we don't usually have the title block and like the details or anything like that okay so then number two can be all set um number three was about building setbacks while we note that the setback information was provided you know in a tabular form we like to see the line work you know a line an offset line from the property line just to make sure on the plan that everything looks good um you know again that's up to the board really if if you want to see that or not um is there anybody who wants to any thoughts on that one I'm trying to follow along uh yeah this was specific to kind of just the layout of you know making sure that the existing buildings comply with the setbacks the chair go ahead Joe often times Rob we will add a a a thix set line or a different line type at the offset from the boundary line so you can quickly refer and see that the proposed dwelling or whatever element you're concerned about meets the offset to the boundary line um because there were only two lots we tried to simplify it but it's certainly not an issue for us to add that line to the plan yeah yeah like um I I don't really have any commentary on it I don't I don't know I don't even know how to answer the question I guess I guess it's it's my opinion um that it's you know not necessary it's easy for quick reference to see visually yep it meets the Z back um but it's not necessary if the board wanted to just forget about it through the chair just before we continue going through all this um and I appreciate Jean going through all these in detail I just want to point the board to the revised memo that I sent out today that has um not all of the comments because Jean pointed out there are some that the Board needs to just kind of make a decision on the waivers and how you want to process that but the more technical comments um comments 34 16 18 27 28 and 29 are highlighted in the conditions so that if the board were comfortable with how it's designed you can just approve this with those conditions that all those things get satisfied prior to the building permit and that's all kind of the technical stuff rather than the waiver stuff yeah that to be uh that's what I've reviewed so uh um I'm not sure what to Jee why didn't you keep going through uh the list here okay um go ahead okay uh as John said next Bunch um regarding you know the storm water compliance with the massachus storm water standards um generally I think all of that has been addressed um so then we get down to again like John said some of the the nitty-gritty technical pieces um you know number 14 was in regard to um the the hydrologic soil grouping um you know it's we don't feel it's our job to go look for that we like to see that presented in the storm water report that could be a condition of approval we don't think it's it's wrong it's just you know some wrapping up the loose ends on that um number 16 uh we this is where we recommend that the applicant you know include the seasonal High groundwater elevation in the model um just to make sure nothing wonky is happening you know after the fact I don't think it's going to take change anything but um just want to include that piece um again could be a condition of approval number 18 was minor comment about pipe lengths in the model a simple thing it's not going to change anything again um again could be a condition um and we keep going down to the end here uh number 27 is we didn't see anything from the fire dep Department um but I don't I don't need to as long as the board is satisfied with fire department's approval we are as well and then there was two technical two technical additions based on the revised information number 28 and 29 really specific to the the in uh infiltration system as well as what you know the gravel surface is because the gravel is considered impervious here so um again again those are things I can absolutely review outside of this the hearing process if the board wishes to go that way Rob you're muted at this point in time I'd like to give it uh hand it to John to give kind of a a uh oh you you gave the staff report last time so um does anyone on the board have any questions Lucia go ahead so in terms of the fire department um because that was pointed out I went back and I looked and one comment that I did see was that they said all aspects of the driveway by law must be met that was a comment from the fire department way early on and so my question was is this the case because I know they're requesting waivers but none of those are specific to the driveway bylaw right correct and the major difference would be the fact that they were looking for a 12T wide surface in some locations were down around 10 and 11 ft and we conducted the swiat path analysis and we keep the truck generally on the ex existing gravel surface we are slightly different from the fire department byaw but the uh effectiveness of the route the truck takes is handled with the design um and then my other question has to do with the lot to the south of the culdesac I'm not sure the address on that one um but my question is does the frontage change to that lot and what is the original Frontage versus the new Frontage they go ahead they currently have uh 7 33 ft 40 ft along the 33t wide RightWay on the southerly side and then the end of that rideway of 33 ft so 73 feet there is common Frontage of approximately 25 ft with this circle with the with the cuac along the common line so there would be an additional 25 odd feet then my followup question is that's below the 100 ft of Frontage that um is required in this residential area like it was below and it will still be below the 100 feet of Frontage um I guess I'm not sure what you're asking so I guess the the basis of my question is I just want to make sure that we're not changing anything to the southernly loot by adding CAC so it currently before you add the culdesac does not have the frontage necessary off of Nebraska to be a lot that meets the standard Frontage requirements but we're adding some Frontage with the culdesac and if it's still below 100 then in essence we're not changing that but if it is 100 or more now we would be changing that so yeah 73 up to 98 so we'll still be under the 100 foot minimum okay thank you okay John do you have anything additional to add at this time or um nothing new but um just to kind of give the board a summary overview it looks like the peer riew is relatively comfortable with u the design at this point there are some things that still need to be addressed but I think they are and Jean correct me if I'm wrong comfortable with these being conditioned of approval um so at this point I think the board it's in the board's hands and uh go through your hearing outline and hopefully get through this tonight all right thanks John all right so um I'm G to try to try to move through this so decision to criteria uh the board must determine if the proposal meets the standards that set forth in the subdivision regulations the board finds such that is issue an approval of the subdiv proposed subdivision amended definitive subdivision plans are treated the same as new subdivision plans with regard to the approval process so let's talk uh we're let's talk section 4.8 about the requested waivers what's that might have a public comment somebody has their hand up hi Mr shepher you're welcome to go he's muted Mike you're muted I think now you can hear me yep we got you now great thank you very much um first of all I want to thank thank rob you and all the members of the board for the hard work you do tonight is indicative of what you normally do and uh I'm thankful for your job you're doing um I want to speak to the Diana project um only because um the the Diana family is a multigenerational family in town they they've been here forever um Jeff and his brothers um Jeff works for his dad Billy and and one brother was a a former uh police officer and another one works in construction a police officer in hopkington uh it's a great family uh Jeff and his wife and daughters live now down in Woodville and they've kind of ungrown over outgrown their house and um having the family together up on Nebraska Street uh much the same as most of the neighbors wrote you guys letters and support um is important for them it's it's important for me as a family and and um I I just want to say that I I really endorse and support this project um and uh hope that you folks will approve uh Jeff's requests so we can get this thing going um great family again you guys do a great job and I thank you for it but that's about it all right thanks Mr Shepherd I appreciate it does anybody on the uh if no if there's no immediate questions about the waivers EXC uh uh Joe do you want to go through the requested waivers and then we can um if maybe that elicit any comments or questions certainly um the bulk of the of the waivers deal with uh the access drives to the existing and the future home the one that's kind of outside that infrastructure is soil testing um within the storm water mitigation system we did do two test holes the system uh didn't prove out to be as large as we originally anticipated so we have one test hole in the infiltration area proper two in on the site so we're a little deficient from the um requirements of of the definitive plan process but we feel that the single Testo does convey the information with regard to the conditions um for the storm water unit the rest are related to uh construction of the road and sidewalk what we're trying to do there is to maintain what they have at the location not only for the benefit of the dianas but for those neighbors Stratton uh Kesler that view uh that location um the idea that to meet the subdivision regulations we would um install Granite curving we would uh put asphalt burm and other locations that we would go U for the full width of the culdesac pavement that um we would uh have a sidewalk uh down to that location on what is a very quiet Street seemed inappropriate for this one location um good in theory uh for all other the spots makes an awful lot of sense here it seemed like it maybe dial it back to what they have there now which are well-maintained uh gravel driveways hard pack gravel driveways that provide access uh for the vehicles uh at Bill's home at number six currently no issues show up with puddling or um the Integrity of the surface I guess is a way to put it so it seemed like the waivers were appropriate in this location and that's the reason that we uh we asked for those with the filing okay um anyone on the board have any comments What's the total length of the of Nebraska Street uh currently now it's 380 feet and the addition will take us to 487 okay Matthew go ahead thanks um I tend to agree with this as much as I love sidewalks in town um I tend to agree on this specific case just it doesn't make sense um I I just bringing up uh the's question earlier was I guess I wasn't quite clear on the response I know they they did a swept path analysis but did the fire department have any like see that or agree that it was good enough and have any comments before we rant a waiver on the width of the travel uh minimum width of the travel way yes they were part of the pre-submission meeting well the department heads we also um spent some time with them offline line going uh through the analysis um Jeff spent some time uh with the former Chief down there reviewing um all of this stuff and U they uh felt this the situation was satisfactory they did ask Jeff at the time of construction to um perhaps allow them to take the truck down there and run it through the the Maneuvers to access and um and move from the site and then make any changes necessary and Jeff's certainly willing uh to go through all of that so um the model fears to work and we're going to test it out at the site thank you and that and through the chair that's uh probably to John that's covered by uh 23 E in the conditions right so that we we'd get an approval just to confirm that before uh I guess anything gets built or approved yes sir common 207 yeah so 23e or sorry condition 23e comment 27 addresses this um and so if the board were to approve it and then use these proposed conditions uh that would require the submission of the um whatever the fire chief the approval from the fire chief um in order to get the bilding pro all right uh I don't see a lot of I don't see anyone's hand raised for uh questions about the waivers what what's what do you think is the best course of uh procedure procedurally John what do you think is the best course of action just to vote on the waivers at this time um I would say you can do if the board is okay with it do the waivers all at once um or if the board if any members of the board want to discuss any of the specific waivers in more detail pull those out and then do the rest of them as one motion and then the other one is a separate motion and then the findings as a motion and then the approval as a motion so three separate motions uh as part of this if that is how the board looks to proceed does anyone want to pull out any of the requested waivers to discuss independently all right hearing n I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the requested waivers in section 4.8 of our uh agenda uh which are section 5.4.1 Dov uh um section 8.2.2 DOA section 8.2.2 doc section 8.2.3 doc section 8.2.4 dob section 8.2.5 dob section 8.3 as detailed in our agenda memo so moved so moved second any discussion all right roll call vote Alise MOSI yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right section 4.9 the proposed findings I'm going to read these out loud uh the proposed amendment to the definitive subdivision plan conforms to the subdivision regulations number two Nebraska street is an existing Dead End Street that was established prior to the subdivision control law section number three the waivers granted by the board are not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood so I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the proposed findings that I just read aloud so second uh roll call vote Elise MOSI yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes and do I I uh do I need to read I I believe I need to read all the proposed conditions is that correct John uh they have to be read aloud it doesn't have to be you if you if you want to take a break I can take over uh but yes they they do need to be read aloud all right let me let me let me read if I need a if I need a water break or breather I'll I'll sub you in but let let me start on these all right section 4.10 for anybody following along at home uh or on the call proposed conditions after finding that it was in the uh after finding finding that it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the subdivision control law the planning board wave strict compliance with the following provisions of the rules and regulations related to the subdivision of land the subdivision regulations the waivers of the provisions allow the construction of the subdivision is shown in the approved subdivision plan and uh list waivers granted so that's section 5.4.1 Dov section 8.2.2 DOA section 8.2.2 doc section 8.2.3 doc section 8.2.4 dob section 8.2.5 dob and section 8.3 so number two maintenance of any and all stormm water management facilities outside the road rights of way shown on the subdivision plan shall be responsibility of a homeowners association and not the town of Hopkinton if applicable the maintenance agreement shall include a provision which allows the town of Hopkin to perform emergency work and for reimbursement therefore homeowners association documents should be submitted to the principal planner for review and approval prior to the commencement of construction prior to the planning board's endorsement of the subdivision plan the applicant shall execute an agreement with the planning board that no lot depending on the new new roadway forther legal Frontage shall be sold or buildings or structures erected or placed on or building permits issued with respect to any such lot until 3A the work on the ground necessary to adequately serve such a lot such a lot has been completed in accordance with the contents of the subdivision plan and profile and the subdivision rules and regulations and that all other requirements of the subdivision rules and regulations have been fully compliant with or the applicant has executed a contract with the planning board accompanied by appropriately appropriate security to secure performance consistent with Section 7.6 of this of the subdivision regulations to complete construction of the roadway in accordance with subdivision rules and regulations on or before date specified in the constrict and the applicant has recorded in the registry of deeds or land Court a certificate Form K executed by the planning board that the above conditions with respect to any such lot have been completed or have been amended modified revoked waivers or relas by the planning wood number four a town clerk's certified version of this decision shall be recorded at the middlex county self registry of deeds prior to the issuance of a building permit for the work that is subject to this decision the director of Municipal inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance with the approved decision this includes the driveway roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the plan if the director of Municipal inspections determines that any time before during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professionals required to assist with the inspections of the storm water management system or any other component of the approval the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections all construction activity shall adhere to applicable local state and federal federal laws and regulations regarding noise vibration dust sedimentation and the use of interference with or blocking of town roads the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts including erosion saltation and dust control the applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil mud or debris deposit are due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the director of Municipal inspections in consultation with the DPW director during construction streets should be swept and catch Bas sumps shall be cleaned regularly at least twice a year or otherwise directed in an order of conditions issued by the Conservation Commission the applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and to B from the site in accordance with good construction practice and the construction management plan no tree stumps demolition materials trash orbr should be burned or buried on the site a completed signed construction management plan shall be submitted to the principal planner prior to the commencement of any site work the applicant shall submit a revised full plan set which includes all of the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision prior to the commencement of any site work a completed signed long-term operation and maintenance plan should be submitted to the principal planner prior to the commencement of construction this can be combined with a construction management plan if preferred by the applicant a long-term pollution prevention plan should be included as part of the long long-term operation and maintenance plan if applicable the completed and signed storm water pollution prevention plan spp p and a copy of the notice of intent and Construction general permit EPA shall be provided to the planning board prior to the commencement of construction a copy of the mass D approval of the S swppp shall be also be provided prior to commencement of site work number 14 assigned elic elicit discharge statement shall be provided to the planning board prior to commencement of site work number 15 no Earth Products shall be delivered to the site which are not for use on the property no Earth shall be stripped or excavated and removed from the areas of the site unless for road infrastructure home or lawful accessory use construction no Earth processing or operations still occur on the site unless Earth Products are to be combined and or mixed for use on the property all P piles of stockpiled Earth shall be stabilized with adequate dust and erosion controls all piles of Earth shall be removed from the subdivision upon completion of construction of the road and infrastructure any piles remaining after that time shall be sold in conjunction with an active permit for construction of sewage Disposal system building or lawful accessory use any violation of this provision may result in a stop workk order or plan recision erosion control measures to prevent sultation onto Wetlands neighboring properties and Roads during the construction should be implemented erosion erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be implemented during the construction period in accordance with the approved plan and construction management plan if they are found to be inadequate the applicant shall immediately correct any deficiencies in the event that erosion and sedimentation problems arise during construction the planning board may require that all work cease until measures necessary to ensure prevention are implemented the principal planner shall receive a sign off confirming that the site contractor and any major sub subcontractors have received the construction management plan prior to the commencement of any site work construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4 P.M pursuant to chapter 141 of town of Hopkin and general bylaws number 19 no building permit shall be issued or any instruction the subdivision allowed until approval for such work has been obtained from the Conservation Commission for areas affected by the wetlands protection act and the Hopkin and wetlands protection bylaw chapter 206 of the bylaws of the town of hopkington if applicable number 20 each lot shall be assigned a street number by the director of M Municipal inspections and such number shall be noted on the final plan prior to endorsement the applicant developer shall provide the principal planner with a project point of contact and contact information prior to the issuance of a building permit this point of contact information Rec kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete there shall be a maximum of two building Lots in the subdivision this condition shall be written on the subdivision plan prior to endorsement no further subdivision of the lot shall be permitted without the submission and approval of a new definitive subdivision application number 23 the applicant developer shall address the outstanding comments is detailed in time bonds letter dated December 2nd 2024 Diana a farm subdivision 6 Nebraska Street peer review 2 to the satisf satisfa satisfaction of the principal planner and thaan bond prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed dwelling unit the outstanding comments as of the writing of this include uh 23A comment three the applicant shall add the required building setback boundaries graphically to the site plans to verify the that the proposed features comply with requirements under the zoning bylaw 23b comment 14 while an nrcs soil map is provided is does not include information regarding the hydrologic soil group classifications within the project area the applicant should provide hydrologic soil group information within the nrcs report to verify the C and soil group classifications reported to the hydrog cad model comment 16 tyan Bond recommends the applicant include the estimated seasonal high groundw elevation in the post condition model 18 while the other pipe diameters have been revised to reflect the hydrocad calculations the pipes are modeled as 10 ft in length the site plans appear to propose Ellet pipes approximately 11t 7 in and 14t 3 in in length the applicant should revise the hydrocad model to reflect the length of the elet pipes on the site plans comment 27 tyan bond is not in receipt of a response from the Hopkin fire department the approval from the fire chief should be submitted to the planning board comment 28 the applicant should provide a revised detail for the ctech c-100 HD infiltration system proposed as part of the storm water management system design the detail included on sheet five of eight appears to be that for a ctech recharger 330 XL HD system comment 29 the hydrocad results included for review report an increase in perious area of 0.04 Acres roof area and an increase in gravel surface of 0.04 acres for Section 4B of the Hopkin storm water regulations impervious surface is defined to include without limitation paved parking a sidewalks rooftops driveways patios and paved gravel and compacted dirt surface roads the applicant should indicate on the site plans the nature of the proposed gravel surface and note its location if the proposed gravel surface is proposed to be compacted the applicant should revise the required recharge calculations to reflect a proposed impervious area of zero 08 Acres all right we made it through uh reading all of the proposed conditions so we've approve we've approved the waivers uh I just hold on we approved the findings so now we're going to uh does anyone have any comments before uh I entertain a motion for the ENT for the project so I like to entertain a motion that the board approved the definitive subdivision plan with the following conditions that were previously read aloud by the chair some moved thanks Jane second thanks Matthew any discussion all right roll call vote Alise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Robenson is the yes all right at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to to close the public hearing for uh for six Nebraska street so moved second all right roll call vote Alis meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is yes me Rob yeah Jeff go ahead oh I just want to uh thank everyone for for uh listening to us tonight and approving that I really appreciate it I just want to say thank you good luck you're welcome Jeff best of luck thank you appreciate it thanks all right all right we're moving on to our next agenda [Music] item 18 theer street is uh so this is um they are looking for a special permit for off-site parking in the business district all right who's gonna speak on behalf of the applicant point of order evening everybody meeting first oh I think I have to open the public hearing do do I need to open yeah I do uh I'd like to chain a motion to open the public hearing for 18 Cedar Street so moved thanks Matthew thanks Michael sorry about that uh roll call vote Alis mayosi yes Luccia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vith pry yes and Rob Benson is yes as I was kind of saying who's going to speak on behalf of the applicant introduce the project good evening everybody I I'll be presenting the project this evening um I appreciate everybody's time tonight um my name is Jack nean of NE and nean and click on 85 Main Street in hopkington I am here tonight on behalf of the applicant Janis Brown of Cambridge Homes LLC the owner of 18 Cedar Street we are also joined tonight by the Project's architect uh Carl oldenberg um just by brief history I know we haven't been in front of the plan uh we've been in front of board of appeals a few times um from 1900 to 2018 uh 18 Cedar Street has strictly been a single family residence um obviously since 1900 when the property was established uh it has been zoned on the very edge of the downtown business district um Miss Brown purchased the property in an unlivable condition and was left no option but to redevelop the project due to structural issues um after working with members of the town and various departments on September 25th of this year Miss Brown was granted a special permit by the board of appeals to construct a structure containing four one bedroom units um and just to be clear at the beginning of this hearing off street parking has always existed on this property under its residential use um so pursuant to hopon zoning bylaw chapter 210 section 124 regarding off street parking um the bylaw requires that a multi-fam dwelling provides at least one space per bedroom uh the project as designed and approved by the board of appeals provides four tandem spots so two spots per unit as well as three guest parkings totaling 11 spaces um I'll allow Carl to review the plan in Greater detail with everybody um but as uh the chair mentioned we're here tonight because we need uh relief as there's going to be parking on uh on the on the subject property which is located in the downtown business district um chapter 210 section 204a subsection one uh which lays out two factors the board must consider in its decision in granting such relief as it relates to the off street parking one is that the parking will not be detrimental to the surrounding Neighbors neighor Hood two is the pro proposed location design of parking will enhance the downtown Street scate uh taking those two factors in order regarding the parking not being detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood um this project was designed in very close communication with the fire department regarding the resident safety um it's to no surprise that Route 85 is a main road um so it was important that the project was designed to the extent that the town's larg apparatus was able to fully pull into the driveway and off of Cedar Street to not cause any type of traffic jam in the event of Emergency Services needed at 18 Cedar Street um and to further that and make sure no one staged in the space where the emergency vehicles would pull um prohibitive painted lines will be marked to prevent any Vehicles parking in that designated area um as it relates to the location and design of the parking area in enhancing the downtown Street skate um a major component of Miss Brown's project does involve a robust planting and screening plan along a street and then completely surrounding the parking area um by relocating the structure further back on the lot um more room was allowed to position the parking area to to be able to receive 11 spaces um and low lighting will illuminate the designated parking area to allow residents and guests to navigate the driveway you know early mornings and and evening hours um so you know for the reason stated here in you know the applicant request the planning board members vote to Grant a special permit to allow off street parking at 18 Cedar um and at this point I'll turn it over to Carl altenberg to review the plan and afterwards we'll both be happy to answer any questions any members of the board or the public they have uh regarding the parking oh thank excuse me thanks very much uh may I share my screen to show a site plan yeah I think John uh is our owns the zoom meeting so he can give you permission you should be all say Carl okay can everyone see the uh the drawing on my on the screen um I'll zoom in a little bit to make it easier to see see um this is a site plan uh Route 85 Cedar Street is running I wonder if we're seeing your other screen we're seeing kind of a engineering schematic oh that's not what you're supposed to graphing graphing uh okay I M upop no worries it's 9:23 it's yes it's 9:23 how's that there you go all right you didn't want to see my cab drawings h um so the site plan is um as you know the site is located at the corner of Cedar Street which is Route 85 and a street let me zoom out a little bit um it's about a 12,000 square a little under 12,000 square feet um as as was mentioned it's at the very edge of the business district zoning uh District but it is um the abing properties on on the two the two abing sides are ra residential district and the property across a street although it's in the business district has you know very sort of residential scale structure in it so the whole site uh and it is of course existing as a single family residence so it looks and feels like a residential uh location not a um not so much a business um Miss Brown purchased the property with the intent and the desire to provide uh housing particularly housing of sort of modest scale to appeal to those who would like to live in in the area close to the uh business district of Hopkinson uh as opposed to a large single family house or something which could be built there um the uh under the zoning bylaw a residential use in a business district is permissible by special permit which we we have obtained and uh the residential use or the U zoning requirements would be those of the ra District even though it's in the BD district and the key ones here are the setbacks and that is for residential use uh there's a 40 foot setback from the street and 10 feet from the side in this case it's a corner lot so the 40 foot setback applies to both Cedar Street and a street on my site plan I've indicated a red dash line which is the site the setbacks and as you can see there's not a whole lot of space left over after the site after the setbacks are applied in which to construct a building um the building as we said was uh is is four units on two stories each unit is about 1,000 square ft or so so the footprint is roughly 2,000 square ft and that pretty much fills up the available area therefore there is no option but to locate parking between the building and one of the two streets and our understanding is that a special permit is apply is required from the planning board to have parking between a principal building and a street uh um we are showing here the parking located between the building and a street and this allows the space in front of the building to remain open kind of like a big front yard um the existing single family house which is uh has not been inhabited for many years it's in very poor condition is shown by this light gray dashed line here and it does not comply with setbacks or much else in terms of zoning and building code requirements um The Proposal is for uh as Jack said for uh 11 parking spaces eight of which are a tandem uh arrangements so that each unit would have two spaces even only only even though only one is required by the zoning plus three guest spaces um we would be providing uh screening uh landscape screening and a solid fence to hide the parking from a street and from part of Cedar Street um I'd like to move to the next drawing if I may um we did a sort of context plan to show the size and position of the building relative to other structures that are nearby uh we sort of see this building as sort of like a like a house it's in a residential area we've designed it as a woodf framed house with kind of a traditional residential style to it uh as opposed to a large commercial structure and we're trying to treat the site as as like a big uh like a yard like a big front yard with the lawn and so forth in front of it uh this is the site as it appear as it appears now this picture was actually taken several years ago uh but the house still stands on the left uh this is a SE Street running uh in in front of the picture and a street off to the right hand side uh and this is our proposed structure uh this is a view taken from roughly the same position as that previous image uh the driveway would be in the same position as the existing driveway which we felt was actually a pretty good location uh we didn't feel was appropriate to add a driveway serving a parking lot onto a street be better to have it on onto Cedar Street but uh it was an appropriate distance away from the corner you don't want it too close to the corner and we didn't want it too far to the North here because that would sort of interfere with our concept of the the big lawn in front um we have a landscape plan which I I believe has been submitted and it's probably very difficult to read on the on the screen here but um this was commissioned by a local Landscape designer and uh we're emphasizing screening plantings between uh the property and the adjacent house which is uh kind of where my cursor is floating around and between the parking and the street as well as a fence um to the north uh again the big lawn area but again there's some screening plantings between the property and adjacent adjacent properties um as Jack mentioned part of a major part of the design criteria was uh uh providing sufficient space for uh the current largest fire apparatus to uh uh to be fully off of Cedar Street and onto the parking lot uh in the event that might be necess Sor we worked with the fire department they've reviewed and approved our our diagram here with the swep pass swept path analysis for the uh for the fire apparatus um the driveway is uh large enough to accommodate it but we would be providing striping to prevent parking from occurring there so it's not to impede access by the fire trucks and an aerial view rendering just to kind of further illustrate the proposal the landscape shown in the rendering is that the renderer tookes artistic license it's not an exact representation I can describe the plantings a little bit if you'd like but uh the concept is um some screening here the adjacent house is not shown in the rendering but there is an adjacent house here which we try to uh screen from the parking lot with plantings there's also an elevation difference in that the the uh ground level of the parking lot is a couple of feet lower than that of the adjacent land so that that plus a low retaining wall plus the fencing Plus plantings will prevent any headlight glare from reaching the house next door along a street there'll be a uh a 6 foot high solid fence uh wrapping down a street and then across part of Cedar Street to screen the view of the cars and in addition uh a lot of plantings to screen from View and also to prevent the possibility of people parking where they're not supposed to off the pavement between the pavement in the fence um I do have additional drawings uh floor PL and other sort of construction drawings but I I suspect they're not really necessary and I hate to kind of waste your time showing that um I think the uh the proposal is pretty straightforward we're simply looking for a special permit to allow parking between the principal building and the street and in this case there kind of isn't any choice but to do it that way so I'd welcome any questions thank you uh Carl uh does anyone on the board have any questions so we we typically uh for a project like this like to schedule a s sidewalk and we'd like to do the same here we have uh a site walk scheduled for 8 Cedar Street on December 14th at 9:00 amm I'd like to my proposal would be to uh also uh after that site walk uh come here and and look at 18 Cedar Street uh if you're amenable to that on the on the 14th at about 9:30 that works well how does that work for the board makes sense y that sounds good all right John does it make sense to do would you like to give a staff report on this uh tonight sure um so this is a special permit that we don't Grant very often uh because it's only applicable in certain situations um but it's really parking between a building and the roadway so it's intended if you're going to do parking um in your front yard essentially this is a unique situation in that it's a corner lot so it has a street on two sides and therefore parking on the side of the building is technically parking between the road and the building uh if this wasn't a corner lot this likely would not need a special permit um so it's really just the planning board's role to determine if this is appropriate um and if the screening is appropriate and that's pretty much it we didn't uh ask for a peerreview because it's really not a technical review and you can see the applicant has requested a waiver from the peerreview deposit uh because this is really kind of a planning board decision whether it's appropriate or not um and that's where we stand all right anyone else on the board have any questions or uh I think that's what I I'd like to have the sidewalk and continue this uh to our next meeting um I I would like to say something um just to be totally go ahead Le uh I think I'm technically in a butter because I live very close to this property um I do believe that I can stay impartial um I'm not against it in any way shape or form um but I just wanted to put that out there any other members of the board care if I join in on this Vote or not um I don't know what to do with that information to be honest uh do you John do you have any opinion on that you muted I wasn't even talking yet Jane um yeah I think uh you know a butter they can participate as long as they disclose it you you know sometimes most of the time not that El leise has to do this but um um they'll recuse themselves just to avoid that kind of Association or perceived Association but if Alise is comfortable with uh being impartial and and feels like she can do that role and no one else objects to it I don't see why it's an issue worth the applicant has no problem with with her voting on this hearing all right um Rob let's let's uh is the applicant okay with continuing this to our next uh scheduled meeting on December 16th we'll have the sidewalk in December 14th pick the discussion up after the sidewalk no problem no problem for the applicant do the chair go ahead Lucia um so so similarly I just I also wanted to disclose I serve on the affordable housing trust fund board with Jack um but I feel like I won't uh go any easier on him than I would on anyone else okay all great information uh at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for 18 Cedar Street to December 16th so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael roll call vote Alise MOSI yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane morand yes Karen Wills yes bath pry yes Rob Benson is a yes all right thanks Mr nean thanks uh Carl I didn't oh I'll go you I'll go by Carl because it's easier than your last name but thanks Carl that's fine with me thank you all thank you very much thank you at this time uh I I think that brings us to the end of our uh agenda so at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Luc Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry yes and Rob venson is a yes all right thanks everybody thank you good meeting all right bye