##VIDEO ID:8fuvZUO3frw## hey everybody let me uh Happy New Year uh and uh let me get started by rereading the remote script and we'll jump into our agenda 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 meanss participants May access meeting through the remote meeting link is post 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 speed 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 smosi present Lucia Lopez Matthew Rona present Michael King present Parker hap present Jane Moran present karon Wills present vica South pry present and obviously I'm here Rob Benson uh staff John John guch presid and Lorie St John pres all right thanks everybody so the only one we're missing to start is Luccia if she joins at some point someone try to signal signal me or let me know Rob Lucia said she's not feeling well so she's not she's not going to be here tonight okay I mean okay great all right well not great but um it's good to at least know all right let's jump into our agenda uh we're going to start with Nebraska Street subdivision um so there should be a set of plans that we uh need to vote on um is M Mark Joe are you a are you uh you want to give us an overview of what you're looking to get done here sure uh my part is the uh as you know is the plans and the storm water the plans have been uh revised storm water Cals revised and there was a memo issued uh today that all the outstanding items have been cleared up as far as we're concerned we're all in sync with uh t&b on the on the plan set John what's your perspective of the situ or is is that your perspective Ive too yep we got the memo from um Jean this morning and they've addressed the comments So the plan that marodon submitted last week uh should be good to go does anyone on the board have any questions so um through the chair Joe did you submit the myars I have them right here next to me okay so we'll get we'll need to get those so to through the chair if these are approved uh tonight the board will just have to come in and sign we'll need five signatures uh on the myars so Joe will bring them in tomorrow so that uh people can come in and uh come in in time okay if I uh seeing none uh no comments from the board I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board endorsed the subdivision plans for Nebraska Street en titled Diana Farm 6 Nebraska Street Hopkin Mass assessor map u-9 block 29 lock Z repared by JD marant and Associates Inc dated August 9th 2024 last Revis November 16th 2024 move so move Second Great roll call vote Alise MOSI yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane ran yes Wills yes baso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes so through the chair just a point of order on that one um question of Joe November 16th was that the current date or the newly revised date the newly revised is December 23rd yeah so the board may want to reconsider that motion and change it to December I'm sorry what was it 23 23 23rd because there was an issue with the dating of the plans and sorry I didn't catch this before the vote vote happened there was an issue with the dating of the plans where certain sheets were only revised so they didn't change the date at the front but then that kind of made it confusing because the decision was after November 16th so Joe modified it to have the decision or to have the plans dated December 23rd so the board could just modify the motion and then revote to get that new datee all right let me see if I can word this correctly I'd like to entertain a motion to adjust the revised date from November 16th for the um approval we just uh voted on to December 23rd 2024 I'm Mo second all right roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Luc uh Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes P South pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right should be good to go the chair um just a quick clarification to John basically John regarding the signatures I thought you can sign behalf of the board is that still active or is it something that I missed yeah that's only on anrs it's not on sub got it got it thank you thank you for theif all right best of luck Jeff thanks uh thanks for coming before the board great thank you all right we're on to agenda item 1.2 uh establish a Chester Street Bond Mount uh Peter V I'm not GNA sure if I'm gonna pronounce this correctly vetu you you're pretty close venuto venuto if you just like to give us an overview of of what you're looking to have done I don't remember this coming before the board in 2020 uh I I could provide an overview yeah that that'd be awesome so this was for the um Chester Street Extension uh for the McDonald's uh back in 2020 they got the extension of Chester Street Chester Street was basically a paper road that is now being built out to have uh one house lot and so uh what they have to do to do that is put the bond in so they can get the building permits um it's just the one lot road so it's not a huge um undertaking so that's why the bond is so small um comparatively so board just needs to just like any other subdivision the Board needs to approve the bond amount they will bring the bond either cash or third party to the town we'll send a letter to the treasurer and then that will allow them to get the building permits for the house all right terrific does anyone on the board have any questions all right hearing uh hearing and seeing none I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board set the performance guarantee amount for the Chester Street subdivision of $15 [Music] 15,170 Mr chair could I just say something before you go to the motion sure we have discussion go ahead it's it's actually two lots it's not one lot there's two lots doesn't change anything yeah there might be all right I just wanted to make sure and we already gave the amount of money requested to the John is it being held by your office I'll have to look I don't know I didn't know I brought a check I brought a check in uh weeks ago but it's there okay somebody somebody has it then yeah all right uh let me restate I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board set the performance guarantee amount of the chest Street subdivision at $1 15,170 so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael roll call Vote elas mayosi Yes yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes baso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right on to agenda item 1.3 thank you bye thanks Peter good luck good luck good night good night so I feel uh feel like we're kind of uh we don't have luc's input here but uh I'd like to entertain a mo like is first off is there any comments for Lori about the meeting minutes before we get into motions for December 16th all right I'm G to entertain a motion and then we can have discussion if we need to I like to entertain a motion to that the planning board approve the minutes for December 16th 2024 as written so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Michael any discussion all right roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King Michael we didn't hear you didn't hear me uh yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right we're on to agenda item number two so the applicant for zero Benson Road asked for a continuance is there any other update John or is that uh that's the latest that's the latest that I've heard but I believe the attorney the applicant attorney is on the call yes I am thank you um the applicants so far have not been able to find a piece of land but we are in the process of trying to pursue some other avenues that we hope to be able to present to the board that would be acceptable to them but I have nothing concrete right now and I don't want to waste your time tonight trying to piece something together um so that is why the continuance and I am also going to be on vacation for a couple of weeks that's why we're looking for an extension into mid-February do we have a exact date when you're looking to continue to um I believe I put the February 17th meeting in my letter on Mr Benson thank you so through the chair planning board is not meeting on the 17th we are meeting on the 10th or the 24th uh then I would request the 24th please I'm I'm not in town on the 10th is there any uh Matthew go ahead thanks Rob I I think that we've been talking about this since the current planning board's been assembled I'm a little concerned that we're reaching the end of our term and this just keeps getting continued I also am worried that it's not fair to the abuts who have continued to attend meetings um and just have it continued um if there isn't an end in sight I wonder if we should just close the the public hearing and let the uh the applicant reapply when there's a a better plan if there's not something coming up in sight in sight soon I I hear your concerns Mr brona um again I at this point I just we're trying to explore some other options that are available and they're just not firm yet and that is why the continuation um I will certainly discuss with my clients about looking at um what you have recommended but we would like an opportunity to come before you on the 24th if we can please John what what are the yeah I I I we we typically don't um we typically give a lot of applicants a lot of leeway to um John what is the like if it was to to continue and continue and to continue uh what is the fee to reapply I don't remember so I think your question has two different questions in it um it doesn't have to continue and continue and continue it's up to the board to determine whether you want to continue the hearing if the board is done Contin contining you can render a decision right and usually when you have to render a decision and the applicant is not comfortable with that decision they will elect to withdraw not always there's obviously caveats to that but um the board can just say you know we need to hear something by this date or we're going to render a decision um and then that might do something so that's one one part of the question the second part of the question is should they withdraw and um elect to reapply later on they could always request request that the board wave the fee for the uh application since they made the application and nothing was really finished on it um that's that's been done in the past so I don't know if there's a reduction in fee in our fee schedule I doubt it but um that has been practiced in the past is that they if somebody withdraws and then reapplies shortly thereafter um they've requested a waver of the fee and the board has granted it in most situations I believe all right uh um I tend to agree with Matthew that I don't want this to continue forever but I I do think it is my like I'm willing obviously like to hear the boy's opinion but I think continuing it to the 24th and then giving them one more follow on opportunity maybe at the meeting after that to come to a proposal uh other than that I think we're going to we're going to start making some decisions my my kind of uh uh timeline would be uh February 24th so like March 10th if we don't have something kind of by then we're g to we're going to make a decision will be my my thinking does anyone I'm I'm willing to listen to anyone else on the board any other opinions and Jo Mr antelis I'll get to you in a second I agree yeah I agree Rob to yep I do too all right I think that's reasonable Mr antonellis go ahead thank you I'm I'm not going to uh spend any time on it the board I think has a right to do what they're doing I was going to suggest that what is frustrating for the app for the abuts is that the meeting keeps getting continued and um we don't have an opportunity to uh have an OP to review what the proposal is going to be you have a subdivision plan that's been placed in front of you that has obviously been vetted and reviewed relative to that but the criteria which is the substitution of a uh uh of a of of land for the land that was supposed to go to the land trust and the piece that affects my client when when we come to a meeting with nothing else put in there I don't think it's fair for the applicant to go to the next meeting and have attorney wolf and the applicant uh submit something just you know on the Friday before the the meeting uh we checked the agenda this morning and and check the website on a regular basis and the last the last document that's been filed has been the request for continuance in my letter of November 26 2004 so to the extent that the board is going to give the applicant a uh opportunity to um to extend I think because the extension results basically in a modification to the modification there's nothing in the application that's before you that tells us what they're going to do that whatever it is that they're going to do should be posted on your website in in enough time to allow the the abots to review it thank you thank you Mr ANS I think that makes that makes sense let's I what I'd like to do at this time is is to continue it to the 24th we're not going to come to a vote or decision without giving you the opportunity to review it and and provide um your perspective I think that is only fair uh so let's uh tonight's meeting I I'd like to move along I think I think we have a plan to continue it to the 24th and um but we have a plan not to continue this indefinitely thank you all right thank you Mr Benson you're welcome all right I'd like to entertain a motion that we continue the zero Benson Road amended definitive subdivision plan public hearing to February 24th so second thanks Vic thanks Mike roll call vote Alise mayosi yes Matthew Rona no Michael King yes Parker ha no Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica South pry no and Rob Benson is a yes what is that for I didn't we keep in track John what was the vote tally five to three okay all right so it's continued to February 24th thank you all but you as you can tell from the board's vote they are getting tiresome we understand Mr Benson all right thank you thank you all right we're on to agenda item three 4852 Main Street uh Dash or6 Cedar Street so at the end of the last one second let me just kind of recap from my perspective at the end of our last meeting um we didn't have a kind of a clean uh wording of all the conditions or any or findings or maybe some of either or both uh so we continued it to this meeting and the hope tonight is we can uh get to a decision but uh Mr bam go ahead you an you seem anxious well I heard dead air and I thought it was my turn so oh go go go for it there's nothing worse than that sound the sound of nothing so my name's Neil Bingham I'm I'm Council for the applicant here and uh as you know this is a uh the proposed project is for a new three story uh mixed use building first floor is going to be retail second and third floor uh will be residential uh we're in the downtown business district and as a result this is an as of bright use uh under the byog so when we were yeah when we were last here we were discussing in some detail the um the uh December uh 11th letter peer review letter from Weston and Samson and I think we got through the entirety of it but had a couple of issues uh got some feedback and heard some comments from the board and from others uh and we were not in a position to finish uh in part because the conditions were not ready and uh in addition because we wanted to think about these other issues so we've used the time since December to think about those issues and as I recall the issues it was it was really these three it was one was a question of ventilation of the garage and whether that garage should be ventilated naturally or it should be ventilated mechanically in some way the second issue that I think was uh still being discussed was the trash removal and the third was uh the Landscaping on the Northerly side of the building which is which is primarily in shade and whether our choices were appropriate so as a team we've given each of those issues uh a great deal of thought we've had a chance to review the conditions as well uh and I think that the best thing to do is for us to very very briefly uh present uh a little bit of what we've done since December on on each of these issues um so uh I'm I'm going to ask Rich Rankin to speak first he's going to discuss a little bit about the garage ventilation and the trash uh removal and and maybe show a little bit about the architectural minor architectural changes that have have occurred since uh and and after after Rich speaks uh Matt MVA bowler engineering will address some of the land Landscaping issues our team is here we're here to answer whatever questions uh you may have but uh we're hopeful that we can do this quickly and efficiently and get to a good place evening so with that I'm going to turn things over to Rich Rankin uh thanks Neil for for the record Richard Rankin Rankin Associates um I'd like to start by running through some revisions to the plans and the elevations that address some of board's concerns that were brought up at the last meeting um some of these also address uh the design review board and and historic commission's uh comments from previous meetings uh We've made some modifications that we think are uh uh enhancing the design and we'll continue to do that as we go forward um starting with the South elevation um no real changes here I I think the the biggest changes were again adding some additional brick which is a request I think the board I guess all the boards agree that some more brick would would tie this into the the context a bit better so we've we've added some brick and we've we've modified some panels uh and and accentuated the peers and I think from last meeting there was a change to the lighting um on the west elevation really no major changes I think we had introduced some brick previously added another little component here uh we had made this modification to the lower parking level um but as we've gone through and and analyzed uh the the garages themselves what we've come up with is um desire I think on our part from a design standpoint a mechanical standpoint to mechanically ventilate these garages um so with that I think the idea for us is to keep maintain on Cedar Street the openness here with some security grading but on the second level of parking I think our idea here is to introduce some glazing uh which I think carries through on some of the residential unit design above at least from a facade stand point and so we've added that and and that allows us to to then mechanically ventilate I think on the North elevation the same holds true except for the fact that on the lower level we've introduced some panels in the opening so this lower level is completely enclosed and we've chosen some some various uh openings to install glazing and to allow some light in and we've also discussed internally whether or not we want to look at more of a translucent system to cut down any glare that may occur uh from the parking activities and so on uh East Elevation really no major changes I think we've we haven't shown this of late we've shown it in previous meetings but this is this is it this is the Courtyard area these are the two ends of the Wings this is our open parking below we've added that same glazing on that upper parking level adjacent to uh the courtyard now with regard to the plans again no major changes here at least on this particular level right now as I discussed we're we're keeping this open with security grills this gets closed off here where the openings were previously with panels and then the rest of this is all below grade all all the way around so again no no major changes on the lower level on the upper level again we've added some some glazing on this upper level glazing here as well and we've also from the trash standpoint we've uh we've decided to increase and and centralize the trash and recycling area on this floor adjacent to the parking entrance uh and we're currently working with our vendors on an operational plan that centralizes the trash recycling collection this being off Street completely and uh internal to the project so that's that's a part of our our recycling plan or trash and recycling plan to get you know there was concern I think previously of of pickups and traffic uh imposition at this location but we're going to show it and plan on it in this in this location on that upper level of parking um so with that I will hand it over to Matt mver landscape architect from bowler engineering to to discuss some of the concerns I think that were brought up with regard to the Landscaping uh good evening everyone Matt murva from bowler uh principal and head of our landscape Architectural Group uh Eric de Bru is also with me tonight uh in case there are any questions on civil engineering uh but really just wanted to highlight one of the concerns from the uh from the abutter at 8 Cedar about the nature of the landscape uh at the buffer between the two properties there along the north facade of of our building um I think one of the concerns was you know the light glare coming in from uh parking operations on our property which I think has been mitigated uh by the architectural modifications that that Rich has put together um but in terms of the species that were being selected for the buffer along here um you know the the question I think came up are these going to be shade tolerant and and are these plant materials going to survive um we feel comfortable that the we're using a mixture of different types of arbite along this Edge um and while this is going to be the shadier part of the building um we do feel that they will survive in this location uh we'll monitor them obviously um and you know being in that shady condition may slow the growth rate a little bit but we we do not have concerns that that those materials aren't going to aren't going to make it there um so we're we're comfortable with what's there we're certainly willing to listen to any suggestions that that um the butter might have uh at the8 seater location but at the time of planting those materials are going to be 6 to 8 feet tall uh and you know the normal growth rate might be a foot a year for something like that if it's a little slower in this condition because of the shade I think we're still going to have some good efficacy and kind of day one impact from that material uh as soon as it goes in uh and that in combination with the the architectural modifications hopefully alleviate any concerns that that we have there uh so glad to answer any other questions that that anyone has on on landscape uh otherwise I can turn it back over here yeah I think to the board but that that concludes really the presentation we' be glad to answer any questions at this [Music] point so one comment was made about uh the brick uh yes I am a proponent of the whole entire building being brick I don't know that I we can't I don't think the planning board can force that but uh if you're taking an opinion poll I would like the whole building to be brick um in terms of trash on the on the uh across from like the post office is there a trash area on the that level of the parking garage as well like I I saw the larger area on like the second level of the parking um but I don't know if I missed it or didn't see it or yeah Mr chair we the the plan currently is to have a larger trash room on the upper level of parking not so much not so much on the Cedar Street side working with the vendors on Logistics to kind of enter that Courtyard area for kind of quick removal and and and off maybe so in theory they can come in they can come in there and not be on the like a side of a a key card gate uh and if they have to wheel trash receptacles or whatever to to be taken away correct so it it alleviates any sort of barrels waiting on on the side of either Main Street or Cedar Street it's pretty well isolated and the trash room is fairly Central with all of the residential units above that upper level of parking um that that that's the the current plan and this is also not necessarily planning board specific but uh on the on the Northern view like the view from like where 8 Cedar Street would look at this building it looked like there was balconies on is that am I are they really balconies or are they just gra like some type of um architectural detail the plan is on the exterior to have them more Juliet style balconies which are you know kind of faux balconies um on the courtyard side we're still contemplating that they may be uh actual balconies um but that's that's a design decision we'll make going forward but as we kind of presented previously the the the idea of having you know balconies on the on the perimeter we were worried about what they might turn into you know based on the tendency and and we want to keep some consistency with regard to the elevation so they're they're not they're not usable they're more aesthetic yeah so they create a little bit of visual interest and any if there are to be balconies in that Courtyard area there would be some pretty strict bylaws as to what would be able to be included on those okay anyone on the board does anyone on the board have any questions R the chair uh me I I heard you Karen I'll I'll let you go first oh I'm sorry I saw I saw Matthew raised his hand I can never find I don't know I don't know who was first to be honest well thank you thank you Matthew um so Mr Ranken I heard at the I thought at the beginning you of your presentation you said that you're going to do ventilation in the garage is that correct and because but then the only thing I heard after that was window glazing which yes addresses the glare but could you elaborate a little bit more on that please sure we we had uh discussed previously whether or not we wanted to have this an open a situation where mechanical ventilation would not be required um and I think there was a question in our own minds as you calculate what you know the requirement based on on the building code and the International Mechanical code uh whether or not we could really achieve that with the amount of openness that we couldn't create here given that half the building is buried and in in the ground and so on so that all being said we came to the conclusion that you know based on some of the comments that we heard uh from the last meeting and the concerns of the abutter that um mechanical ventilation would work well for us here and that that that allowed us to enclose the the garage levels for the most part the only open part is going to be on the lower level of Cedar Street uh all others are are contained so we have to we were required by code to mechanically ventilate those levels yeah and Rich ju just to clarify I think that we were as a team comfortable with the fact that the open air would pass all of the different codes but really were more sensitive to the to the comments and and feedback so older elevations had that lower level and upper level parking um completely open with you know bars or louvers um now that's enclosed lower level parking on the Cedar Street side has more of a panelized detail not open at all and then the upper level parking has glazed glazed Windows that'll actually be able to Shield any sort of interior light okay so so both levels will be ventilated is that correct there there's a combination on both levels of open air because we're not going to have a door at the entrances the fair enough the front seat CER Street side will also remain open on the upper level of parking you the open air will be you know the the gate access into the covered parking so it's still not an enclosed garage but it will be you know mechanically enhanced for ventilation so there will be mechanical ventilation on both floors is that correct yes correct okay thank you back to you matth I'm done I think Jane has a question um I see Matthew let's go to Matthew and Jane you can uh you can go next Matthew go ahead thanks um first of all I want to thank the applicant for being responsive to the comments that were made um Rob I've got a question probably for John um just listening to the concerns about the trees and uh it sounds conf like the applicant's confident that they'll grow and uh they'll survive or Thrive um um I'm just wondering if we need to worry about that in the conditions um or if it's otherwise covered if something were to fail within I don't know a few years uh so through the chair no that's not covered in the conditions so if the board wants to have some type of performance guarantee on that we can absolutely add conditions um these are just suggested right so I don't cover everything that the board might be wanting to include uh it's just kind of standard conditions and then what has been discussed so if the board ever wants to include include specific conditions to certain projects um on items that might not be in my list feel free to uh draft some conditions and we can work on AE time if you want or or in the meeting but uh if that something the board wants to do absolutely I think it'd be worth uh having John think about wording there uh for just ensure that they're set for a number of years I think on you know behalf of the the applicant I think we'd be would be certainly open to a condition you know related to the the health of that screening we we are confident that the trees you know specified for those areas will maintain um you know a good health but happy to entertain uh a condition so through the chair before I get started on this drafting what would be specifics of that condition include is the board looking for a um a bond for the Landscaping to guarantee that the uh property owner will maintain alive plants for five years what are we looking for I think that and I think that's basically what I would call is a reasonable uh that's what I would say is reasonable I don't know if anyone else has anybody any other opinions which would be reasonable the bond or the guarantee that they would keep it alive for a certain number of time certain length of time well I basically like to to make sure to ensure that it is kept alive for five years and then um if we need to do that by re holding money in the form of a bond we can but um I I don't know how else to secure uh that it's remain like remain there's a performance guarantee without the bond I guess how else would we do it John could have I think sorry go ahead NE yeah well I think that the I think that the bond has nothing to do with actually securing it I think that if we had a condition that said a performance condition with respect to it for whatever number of years whe we're talking about one year or two years that that would be enforc by the building inspector in the in the event that there was an issue and then then we would have to deal with the building inspector and if we were if we were not responsive to this condition in the future then there would be remedies that we would not like uh which would be some sort of enforcement action uh and at you know in an enforcement action if you find that we're not a good neighbor and we're not keeping up with our obligations then at that moment in time you would be able to do something but I would I would request that there be no bond with respect to this that there simply be a condition for performance for I think that one year would be a good amount of time for determining whether or not uh the the plants are going to be established but we have a landscape architect who could probably answer that a little bit better than the lawyer uh but you know that's what I that's what I would request that the board do with respect to that condition yeah once once the plants have grown in in that first year they're they're either going to live or not within that first year so um I think that's a a reasonable amount if you wanted to make it a little bit longer than that I think that's understandable but I if five years would be well beyond what what would be typically The Establishment period for this landscape um so I I would say a year or two is is reasonable and and would get the result you're looking for um if it doesn't survive year one that's when you're going to know that that there's an issue so Rob if I can yeah go ahead mat um my original thought was about three years in part just like I I don't know if the plants are going to go in before construction is completed for instance and there might be some impact as things are wrapping up um but maybe the condition could be something based on like two years post uh completion of construction or something yeah John if we can have a condition without a bond I think that would fill suffice yeah I just want to make sure that the uh enforcement Powers by the zoning enforcement officer for non-criminal disposition would apply to a site plan decision violation yeah that's I'm looking through the zoning right now so I all right let as you do that we we'll come back to the the discussion of this uh additional condition but Jane did you have a comment Kathleen I see your hands raised we'll get to you in a minute Jane did you have something to add so through the chair go ahead uh a question for Rich you mentioned in your um discussion earlier a translucent system for some of what I'm I could you elaborate on that I I think the bottom line is that we're going to infill the openings with a glazing system and I I think just the question is whether or not it's clear glass or tinted glass or or translucent glass I think on the Cedar Street side they would be no reason to perhaps use the translucent uh unless we want it to stay consistent but the thinking was that on the North side the butter side that uh it may take um it may reduce any glare that that may be present you know due to the parking activities I think the the the sill height of those openings is upwards of three and a half to four feet uh you know typically headlights aren't shining up in the air they're shining down at the ground um but there is you know typically some overwash and so on so the idea was that translucent glass may cut down on glare U thank you I think that would be helpful um the second thing um I'm wondering if um you have thought about uh as far as Recycling and their trash there seems to be a lot of discussion about barrels and carting things around I've seen systems where there is actual shoots where the residents on a certain level can then go to certain designated points and uh empty their trash in one opening or recycle in another opening and it would be deposited right into the receptacles in the bottom have you given that any thought that might be um helpful for some of the residents and cut down on a lot of barrels being wheeled around yeah we have given that some thought the problem with those shoots that you're actually seeing a lot of these buildings like this go away from that just because those shoots inevitably the trash room where they land ultimately becomes really difficult to maintain um it's pretty pretty common in a building certainly of of this size for the residents to discard their trash this is meant to be a clean space clean barrels and would be monitored as such okay that's interesting I haven't heard that before um that was all I had through the chair go ahead John so looking at the zoning there is a section 21058 that says whoever violates any provision of this chapter any of the conditions under which a permit is issued by the director of Municipal directions or any decision rendered by the board of appeals under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to a fine etc etc where each uh day where it's not uh done is a separate violation so it doesn't specifically mention the planning board um candidly you have two options do a different way of um enforcing this or trying to format a condition that references this section and puts the enforcement power on the director of Municipal inspections to enforce this decision similar to 210 158 I don't know if that would fly I don't know if it's even necessary because the applicant's probably going to keep the Landscaping up anyway but that is an option but the planning board at from my very quick summary read of the zoning does not have the ability to do that same daily violation uh if conditions are not followed unless explicitly said in the decision but that might even be questionable okay all right before we decide what we're going to do there uh Kathleen go ahead can you hear me yeah if you just could state your name and address and uh sure Kathleen real 8 Cedar Street um I just first of all want to thank the planning board for kind of hearing me out and everybody out over the last couple of months because I know it's been kind of a big topic and everybody's been chatting out Solutions and what have you I also want to thank the applicants for coming back with the um with the changes that they made um but I just I still just want to touch upon the fact how how important this project is not just to me but to the whole town of hopkington um you know from Main Street side it's very aesthetically pleasing I still feel the building is just too big for the space it's a four story building with two levels of parking and two apartments above and I feel like because of all the conversations we had I know everybody's kind of taking a pause to it and saying is this really something that's going to work for the town and benefit the town is 60 Apartments you know is this going to work for the town um I don't know I mean this building just seems too big to me still I just don't feel 100% good about it I don't know how all you folks feel on the planning board but I don't know if it's really the best thing for the town um I think it looks great for Main Street I'm not sure about Cedar Street it's is still going to be a looming over seedar Street looming over my building I'm going to have any sunlight is just something I think that we kind of need to rethink I don't know if we have to rush into a decision but if we do I think it has to be very well thought out um like I said I appreciate the changes they made but it's not impacting the size of the building I feel like they're putting a lot onto a small space and I just hope we're not regretting it 5 years from now um that's I guess all I want to say um so uh Kathleen I I appreciate your comments uh so as a planning board member like uh I'll I'll give you my opinion we have um property owners have rights and we have to uphold the bylaws the best we can and do what we can do with within the rules to do what's best for the town we can't deny an applicant just because we don't feel good about it um so that's just a a matter of fact I uh I will give you my opinion uh everybody on the call is I think it is massive I think a four-story building opposite of our post office will seem huge I think it is very big um I think there will be a lot of residents that will um not like such a massive building right on the corner of our downtown intersection but that's not my um I'm not that's not my really uh purview as the on the planning board I don't get to decide that uh we should have that in the town or not the property owner has rights and they have to adhere to the zoning guidelines and we as a board need to enforce those so that's what we're trying to do um but I toally understand your sentiment and I understand and I know that Mr Bingham had mentioned you know as as of right and I just don't get that can because when I'm reading the uh zoning bylaws I I I don't see how it could be of right um because it says that a mixed use building comprised of retail space on the first floor an office or residential dwelling dwelling units on the second and third floors this first floor is mostly a parking garage it's not all retail and also I guess another question I have is the retail designated space is that definitely going to be retail is it going to be like a sweet Greens restaurant or is it going to be another like Hallmark store is it guaranteed to be retail because I know that's what the town really is looking forward to we're looking forward to destinations so I guess that's a two-part question first of all can the applicant guarantee that that retail space is going to be retail meaning we walk in and can buy something there's a cash register there can can guarantee that it's going to be retail and in fact uh uh the building inspector and the planner can guarantee the same thing because we're not going to get approved for a use whatever that use ends up being unless it's retail so if we tried to put some sort of industrial use in there it's not it's not going to be allowed we won't be we won't get a building permit we won't get a certificate of occupancy uh and the decision that comes from this board is going to set forth very expressly that the use on the first floor must be retail and we intend to abide by that okay um that's good because I think the town will be happy about that um but how about the you know the bylaws that says the mix use building comprised of retail space on the first floor uh I I think you're getting into John can you it's it's not completely clear to me either because there's such a grade to the land of like how we deter how the the exact calculations of what first floor versus second Flor but yeah I was just looking at what they said like level one when they had their plans and when I'm like I just I just want to understand it I guess more than anything yeah the chair the intent the intent wasn't to have the entire first floor space as retail that's not what the zoning is saying the the intent of the zoning is that the ground floor of any building whatever is on the floor that pedestrians can enter the building from the street will be retail and not residential so that you're not having apartments on the ground level you can have you're not having offices on the ground level right you you want uses that are going to attract foot traffic you don't want offices that are going to have people go in and then you know stay for eight hours and never come out or residences those are on the upper levels so you have the retail on the lower level okay so whether the the first level is next to Central Public House or the first level is next to the intersection it doesn't really matter that's the first level and then we go from there okay I just took it that the the whole first level had to be retail no I just said that there has to be retail space on the first level and that residential space has to be on the floors above okay thank you I just didn't understand that so I just when Mr Bingham had said as of right I just kind of looked at my notes and I wasn't wasn't sure how that worked out so I just you know this the whole size of the building I just I'm not happy about being in complete darkness um with no sunlight and I just think that it's going to be a buildings that's going to be really large so I know there's not like you said there's not much you can do about it but thank you thanks Kathleen thanks for uh coming to the me the meeting um is there anyone else uh in the public comment or on the board that has any questions or comments all right I'm going to try to make our way through the process of um outlining our agenda here so I'm going to start on Section 3.7 for people following along especially on the board that that makes sense right John just like to start by going over the decision criteria yes all right I believe I need to read all of these aloud and um and maybe John you can so you don't have to read the decision criteria loud you just have to read the conditions and the findings okay the standard these sub um site plan standards are in the zoning so those are public information does anyone have any any questions about the decision criteria on the board or the St storm water management permit 3.7.2 all right uh there's no requested waivers for the major project site plan and storm water management uh perit um can I should I go through the storm water management permit first go through the findings then the conditions and then do the project second all right section 3.9.2 for the storm water management permit we're going to start with the storm water management permit I think that makes sense the proposed work will comply with Hopkin storm water regulations that's the proposed finding and so the proposed conditions for storm water management permit is 3.1.2 so I need to read all these alloud so this is going to take a a couple minutes um so just bear with me as I read this uh all erosion and sediment controls should comply with the following performance criteria minimize total area of disturbance and project uh protect natural features in soil sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance Mass clearing the rating of the entire site should be avoided minimize Peak rate of runoff in accordance with the Massachusetts storm water standards minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction provided that prevention of erosion is preferred over sedimentation control divert uncontaminated water around Disturbed areas maximize groundwater recharge install and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the manufacturer specifications in good engineering practices prevent off-site transport of sediment protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas overburden in stock piles of dirt borrow areas or other areas used solely by the permited project are considered a part of the project comply with applicable federal state and local laws and regulations including waste disposal sanitary sewer or septic system regulations and air quality requirements including dust control prevent significant alteration of habitats mapped by the Massachusetts natural heritage and endangered species program as endangered threatened or of special concern estimated habitats of rare wildlife and certified vernal pools and priority habitats of rare species from the proposed activities Institute interim and permanent stabilization measur measures which shall be instituted on a disturbed area as soon as practicable but no more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site properly manage on-site construction and waste materials prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments dust should be controlled at the site divert off-site runoff from highly erodable soils and steep slopes to stable areas the uh number part two or number two of this the project should comply with the following erosion and siment control requirements prior to any Lear any land disturbance areas uh let me restart prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site the developer shall physically Mark limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape signs or orange construction fence so that workers can see the areas to be protected the physical marker shall remain in place until a certificate of completion has been issued appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to soil disturbance measures should be taken to control erosion within the project area sediment and runoff shall be trapped and retained within the project area Wetland areas and surface water shall be protected from sediment sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches 1 qu to 1/ half the height of a hay bale sediment shall be removed from the silt fence prior to reaching the load bearing capacity of the silt fence which may be lower than 1 qu to 1 half the height sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation Pond should be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50% soil stock piles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday stock piles side slopes shall not be greater than 2 to one all stock piles should be surrounded by sediment controls Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days should be stabilized with seating wood chips bark Ms Tarpin or any other approved methods for active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas roadway improvements and areas within 50 ft of a building under construction a perimeter sediment control system sh shall be installed and maintained to certain to contain soil a tracking pad or other approved stabilization method shall be constructed at all entrance exit points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried onto roadways and off the site Wilson Street and Cedar Street in the vicinity of the project should be swept as needed throughout the construction process permanent seating should be undertaken in the spring from March through May and in late summer and early fall fall from August to October 15th during the peak summer months and in the fall after October 15th when seeding is found to be impractical appropriate temporary stabilization should be applied permanent seating may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering All Slopes steeper than 3:1 uh height to uh I think that's 8 H H colon v 33.3% as well as perimeter dikes sediment basins or traps and embankments must upon completion be immediately stabilized with sod seed and anchor STW mulch or other approved stabilization me measures areas outside of the perimeter sediment control system must not be disturbed temporary sediment trapping devices must not be removed until permanent stabilization is established in all contributory drainage areas All Temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be removed after the final St stabilization Disturbed soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized within 30 days of removal a minimum of 7 days prior to the start of construction a detail construction sequence shall be submitted to the principal planner by the site contractor for review and approval the approval approved construction sequence shall be followed throughout the course of the construction and shall be altered only with prior review with prior review by and written approval from the principal planner a signed copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan should be provided to the board prior to the building for perment per 6.0 dok2 the S SW PPP must include the sign notice of inent and approval letter all required storm water pollution prevention plan storm water construction site inspection report shall be submitted to the principal planner within 14 days of each inspection an adequate stockpile of erosion control materials should be on site at all times for emergency or routine replacement sh'll include materials to repair or replace Sil fences hay bells Stone filters BMS or any other devices planned for use during construction soil testing and excavation of the site stormw basins must be observed by the board's engineer prior to laying L and Seed the applicant developer should notify the princip planner at least 48 hours weekends and holidays excluded prior to the soil testing and or excavation to allow for adequate time to coordinate these observations all storm water basins must be cleaned once the site is stabilized all storm motivation should be cleaned prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant devel shall submit a revised storm water management report as reference in the peer review letter from Weston and Samson dated December 11th 2024 so at this time I think I'd like to vote on the motion uh I mean the finding ings for the storm water management permit I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approved the findings um previously I read allowed for the storm water management permit application so moved than is that Matthew thanks Matthew uh roll call vote Elise MOSI yes Matthew yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes bath prti yes and Rob Benson is a yes so at this time I think I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the storm water management permit I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the storm water management permit with the following conditions as they were previously read aloud by the chair so moved all right roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicasa prti yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right so I'm going to go back to section 3 do n.1 the proposed findings um for the major project site plan so this is on page 22 uh 3 section 3.9.1 the proposed major project site plan conforms to the site plan standards as described in section 210-368-1264 10% of the total spaces 100 spaces required as evse installed parking spaces 10 10 parking spaces or 20% of the total spaces is EV ready parking spaces 26 parking spaces the applicant has stated that they will provide 10 evse installed parking spaces as part of the proposed work do the chair go ahead John I think that might be a typo because 20% of 100 is not 26 uh yeah uh let me just re restate that like 20% of the toll spaces is e ready parking which would be 20 parking spaces but it is really I guess the main point is the appin has stated that they will provide 10 EV SE installed parking spaces part of the proposed work all right so I'm going to I need to read all the proposed conditions and John at the end I'm going to ask uh maybe we if we can add a condition about uh the landscaping and the Landscaping I don't know exactly how to I I heard what you said I still don't know the best way to include it but we'll try to work it out at the end let me let me read the rest of it and we'll uh we'll go from there all right 3.10.1 uh major project site plan proposed conditions the director of Municipal inspections inspects projects under constructions for compliance with approved decision of site plan review this includes the driveway roadway and infrastructure construction shown on the plan if applicable if the director of Municipal inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the storm water management system or any other component of the site plan the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections all construction activities shall adhere to applicable local state and 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 siltation and dust control the the applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the projects and to regularly sweep such areas is directed by the director of Municipal inspections in consultation with the Department of Public Works director number four the applicant should regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with good construction practice in the construction management plant no tree stumps demolition material trash or debris shall be burned or buried on the site all exterior lighting within the development project whether shown on the approved site plan or required by the massachusett State Building Code shall be shielded directed downward and not upward outward shall not spill onto adjacent property all fixed mechanical equipment on the site should be screened from view from the ground such screening shall be sufficient in the opinion of the director of Municipal Municipal inspections if construction has not commenced within three years of the date of filing of the site plan decision with the town clerk approval should be automatically resented unless such time is extended by the board for the purposes of this condition the term commenced shall mean commencement of site work construction may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. pursuing to chapter 141 article one of the town of hin General bylaws the applicant shall submit final as built plans to the planning War prior to the ISS issuance of her certificate of occupancy this as built submission shall include an as-built drawing that depicts the as-built mean grade and the elevation of the highest point of the roof this plan shall be stamped by a registered land surveyor number 10 the applicant developer should provide the principal planner with a project point of contact and contact information prior to the issuance of a building perment this point of contact information should be kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete a completed signed construction management plan shall be submitted to the planning board prior to the commencement of any site work the applicant should also submit a complete final revised plan set which incorporates all of the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision number 12 a completed signed long-term operation of maintenance plan should be submitted to the planning board prior to the commencement of construction this can be combined with a construction management plan if preferred by the applicant assigned elicit discharge statement should be provided to the planning board prior to construction erosion and sedimentation control should be implemented during the construction period in accordance with the approv site plan and construction management plan if they are found to be inadequate the applicant shall immediately correct any deficiencies planning board shall receive a sign off confirming that the site contractor and any major subcontractors have received construction management plan prior to the commencement of any site work in the event the applicant developer elects to not incorporate a snow melt system into the design of the project the property owner should be responsible for snow removal and circumstances in circumstances where snow removal has accumulated on site to the extent that the required number of parking spaces is not available tenants and others served by the uses of the contained uses contained on the property the property owner shall be responsible for removing snow from the site and disposed offsite at an appropriate facility at the property owner's expense the applicant shall include a note on the final revised plan set that stated the proposed drainage system shall connect to the existing drainage system within Cedar Street at a manhole trash removal from the subject site shall be serviced by a private trash hauler and shall not be the responsibility of the of hington a copy of plan of plan and details of the final lightting controls for the subject site shall be submitted to the planning board prior of certificate of occupany the board May secure a third party review by a qualified professional at the expense of the applicant developer to determine if the proposed plan and the details of light control complies with applicable laws and standards prior to the Assurance of a building permit the applicant developers shall submit a revised storm water management report as referenced in the peer review letter from Weston and Samson dated December 11th 2024 page 19 prior to the issuance of certificate of occupany the applicant developer shall install the face plates for the signalized crossing push buttons which are missing on both pedestrian posts on the northeast corner of the intersection J to the site if this missing equipment has not been installed in conjunction with the downtown car massive d project at that time so we're looking to add a proposed condition number 22 condition can I speak to that for one second sure so we were talking about whether or not a uh a condition under a site pan plan approval would be enforceable in an enforcement action under under two 10 155 to 158 uh so I would just direct the board to uh section 210 137 of the bylaw which is the site plan uh uh area and I'll just read what it says because at the end of the day it is it is enforcable in an enforcement action this is my at least my reading for any construction project or change in use that require site plan review no building permit May issue un lesson until the applicant is complet implied with the provisions of this article the conditions modifications and restrictions contained in the decision of site plan review shall be referenced in incorporated into and made an Express condition of such building permit so in other words a violation of a site plan condition is a violation of the building permit because those in those conditions are are incorporated into the building permit and therefore and so what I'm trying to conclude here is that the idea of a bond is not necessary because we would be subject to the regular procedure uh for in an enforcement action which as everyone knows is uh uh not something no one wants to be before the zba on an enforcement action and uh I think that that is motivation enough for us to keep those plants uh alive in addition to us wanting to have a beautiful building and doing it nonetheless who the chair go ahead John my one concern with Mr bingham's um argument for that is that once the building permit is issued and then a certificate of compliance is issued or certificate of occupancy is issued and then that year starts that building permit is no longer enforcable because certificate of occupancy has already been issued so I I understand what you're saying but it's going to be very hard for an argument to be made to enforce a building permit that has not been complied with a year after the certificate of occupants he has been issued right except that the performance obligations are going to be expressly set forth for some period of time into the future so unlike most uh situations that I think that we're thinking about which which come and go uh almost upon the issuance of the building permit this one will very clearly say after the after some certain date and we can say that's a completion of construction that was what was suggested by someone and I think that that's a good idea uh it it I don't know how I would argue against being bound by that before the zba I don't think I could and I sort of believed what I said to be true without having read those words but now that I'm reading these particular words I have no doubt that the that the town has recourse against my client should my client fail to do what it is promised to do with respect to landscaping for whatever period of time you decide I'm of the mindset we try to uh put together a condition John this is my opinion and anyone else can on the board can chime in we put together a condition that we think protects us or protects the the Landscaping the best we can for a period of three years and word it in that I liked your suggestion of like the way that zba langu the zba has Authority if we can somehow word a condition that way and not require a bond I think that would uh be about the best we should shoot for would be my guess so that's fine through the chair I can try and word something I've got something half written right now but I just want to be completely transparent with the board I guess what I was getting at with saying all that is um this planb consent case law on this situation should things go super sideways right I don't think the applicant is gonna let things die right it's it's going to benefit them to have the Landscaping look as nice as possible so I don't think this is an issue but if the board does make this condition and the applicant appeals and it goes to court I I don't know of any case law that that talks about um planning board including a condition for uh enforcement with like daily violations so maybe that's something that needs to be adjudicated but I don't think that's going to happen I just want to make the board clear that like that is a possibility in drafting this condition that should things go completely sideways there may be some legal recourse that might need to be taken John Mr chair if I may I I think that Matt had mentioned a year and a half from time of planting is certainly indicative of the trees germinating and kind of O overall health of the trees does that sound about what you said Matt yeah I mean typically that's a a year is a typical guarantee period where you you would understand whether the the plant was in the right spot or had the right soil or was getting water enough like you you you'd know if the plane was going to survive after that year if you wanted to you know push it out year and a half two years whatever to to make it but but a year should should give you the indication of whether it's going to survive or not okay I'll I'll be at a fairly significant screening along the the side of the building if we were to come with a reasonable amount based on the value of those plantings um you know i' I'd be willing to do a bond for you know for up to a year and a half from the time of maybe certificate of occupancy by by that time it would certainly be well planted and then you'd have a year and a half after that I this I'm I'm not an expert on trying to ensure uh these plantings I'm looking for some advice uh John anyone on the board anyone so yeah generally the way that we handle this is through bonds but the applicants said they were hoping to not do a bond so we were just trying to figure out a roundabout way to do enforcement if they're looking to do a bond that simplifies it um but otherwise I'm not and I don't want to make it seem like the applicant is going to fail to keep these plantings alive I don't think that's a problem at all I'm just I I I don't think it is that we're going into a territory where conditions may require things that might not be legally allowed I I'm not a lawyer so I'm not super sure about all that but um we usually handle these things through bonds to answer your question M Matthew I see your hands raised yeah I mean if I can agree on a bond I think that's the most straightforward um I I like two years better than a year and a half if we can meet there um just to avoid any potential season issues of when that one and a half years starts um but I I can take other people's opinion there um is there a single or certificate of occupancy being issued or is it per unit here or per building or how's that treated just since we're talking about when that's issue yeah I think um I think if it was condos it would be a per unit uh situation but I I think there's one CEO in a I'm not I'm not 100% on that but I think I'm right yeah that's a building department what do you think uh Brendan occasionally it's done by floor um but but more typically by building so if the through the chair if the board were willing you just say the final certificate of occupancy or the first for first certific yeah I think the final one uh addresses the concern about potentially additional building and disruption happening that would impact the trees from the initial date I don't so through the chair I don't think that would be realistic because the certificate of occupancies would be for the internal units so it's not like they're going to build a half of a building and then get it's going to be more of like they'll build the shell than the interior units and then the the retail um tenant will build it out and then get a certificate of occupancy for that unit so I I think the point of the first certificate of occupancy means that the building is livable or usable from that point it's just a matter of finishing the units and and getting tenants in all the units okay do the chair Rob go ahead Karen yeah I still haven't figured out how to do the raise your hand thing but um I would I would support Matthew's um proposal of of two years and the final occupancy I I appreciate John's perspective on the um you know on the do pulling out of the occupancies I mean maybe it could be you know not withstanding the the retail ones because those will probably take a little bit longer to fill but um you know I mean I think we're looking to to protect the people the abutters and things and just you know in the um and I appreciate the the applicants putting up a bond and I'd like to hear if their what their perspective is on on Matthew's proposal but I do think that that's a good one so can I just chime in there on the um just sort of a from a construction standpoint uh and and Brendan you can weigh in here too but I would think when we're going for our first certificate of occupancy which end up could end up being our only certificate of occupancy the site is going to need to be buttoned up to the point where you know erosion controls are satisfied we've got Paving in place Landscaping is in place that would all be uh that could be conditioned that it would have to be done uh with with no further disturbance um as part of that first certificant of occupancy and and the clock could start then so to speak if if we're going to have a a retailer come in and and do a certificate of occupany that is a you know follows some months later or a year later or two we don't we don't know that the timing on all of these things that's a harder time frame I think to to ascertain and understand but we should we should need to have the site buttoned up at our first certificate of occupancy which to in my mind would would be the the proper time to start the the period that we're talking about here and Mt well kind of along those lines the only thing I'd add is maybe a conditional inspection you know when that screening has been planted and then a year and a half from its initial planting or something lines chair I would also um just weigh in on the final Co it sometimes it happens where developers don't fit out all the units it's actually not financially feasible to finish a condo unit or an apartment and then they don't build it it's just a shell and so if it's the final CEO and they're waiting on that one they could indefinitely maintain not that they shouldn't indefinitely m maintain the Landscaping but they would potentially never get their bond back unless that unit is developed I think really I I think we're we want to be uh cognizant of the abutters but I think we're really going above like I think it's going to I agree that the developer app has no vested interest in letting the Landscaping go uh to die that that just would be bad business practice so um I want to I want to come up with a reasonable solution here and I think if we can if the if the applicant is willing to agree to two years uh kind of performance guarantee on the Landscaping from the from the date of the first certificate of occupancy I think that's what I would like to condition to be can the members of the board live with that specific to the Cedar Street screening correct uh can you just repeat that I can get it all I'll get Brandon I I'll get back to that so I would like it to be two basically a performance guarantee for two years for the Landscaping um from the date of the first certificate of occupancy and a bond for to maintain that landscaping and I'm I don't know how anyone else feels I'm okay if it's just uh the Cedar Street uh the side that we maintain we have this uh bond for but I don't know if anyone else on the board has any other opinions that's that's like what we're from my perspective that's what the butter is who we're really trying to protect but uh does anyone else have any thoughts through the chair from Rob from the Cedar Street side you mean the north side of the building yes okay with the one that's abing eight Cedar Street yeah I'm I would be fine with that with what you through the chair uh how how many units are we looking at the north side of the building I'm just curious about it uh um is can somebody I mean I know I've seen the plans but I didn't counted it but I'm just trying to understand how many units are we looking at that which that have Windows on that side I don't know probably probably roughly a third just the kind of best guess based on the shape of the building yeah are we talking about units on the north side of the building only yes I I would prefer a number I know I third but it's difficult to calculate that precisely for me oh let see on the third level there's one two three four five and on a second level there is the same so 10 units 10 units okay thank you Michael you've been waiting patient patient yeah yeah no I was just thinking about like yeah so I guess my question question is like um how come you guys would be okay with like a year and a half for a bond and not two years specific to the Cedar Street side the additional six months isn't you know that that's not a a game it's not a deal breaker for us I was just using the year and a half because that's more than ample time for what Matt had suggested yeah okay you know the the bonds are we're going to have a significant investment in the project the bonds are just a little bit of like a paper cut but understand you know that was an effort Just For Peace of Mind for the board and uh have it well conditioned we're we're agreeable to that Vic go ahead um thank you just to confirm when we say first OC certificate of occupant coo right are we talking only from the North End side of it or is it the entire building anywhere of it um or in the same direction when we said the final occupancy are we saying that you know all the 10 units when all the 10 UNS get occupied since then are we requesting this uh 2-year Bond just trying to understand I think I think this just general confusion and um the reality is the out the real realistically the outside of the building the whole shell of the building needs to be built and done before the first certificate of occupancy can be issued uh it's it's not like they're going to have uh just the the the the side of the building facing AB buding 8 Cedar Street is going to be done first and then it's just going to be construction on on the like it's going to be dirt up against the the intersection so I um I guess I don't understand your question to be honest I mean I was more telling to was you know they build a shell agreed uh they do that but just you know it also depends upon the kind of prospect to buyers and the kind of uh which side of the building that you have more demand and you you get the first uh you know um certification or occupancy so that's what I was trying to understand if at all is there a way which we can put it across saying that at least from the north and side what are the tenures if one of them gets the first OC or whatever it is then just to protect the uh the concerns of the but that's all I mean if I'm clear enough or you want me to elaborate I I think I get your I think I understand your sentiment um I think that's really Overkill okay um yeah it's not a just a comment I'm just trying to understand that's all is there a possibility that's all I I I like the two-year Bond Rob I think that's good for the Landscaping on Cedar Street yeah I I tend to agree I do as well uh Vic to to your question I I think real realistically if it's uh this is going to be condo condos correct these aren't apartments right am I correct in that they're condos or they going to be month or rentals rentals okay oh rentals okay but it's it's G to be it's gonna be based off of market demand which which like they may have a build schedule of like which ones they're going to outfit first but also the desire of the consumer of which ones they want to occupy first will drive that that's right uh I'm trying to buy a little time John to see if you had any had any uh I yeah I have a draft condition if you're ready for it I am all right so the applicant developer shall applicant developer shall maintain all Landscaping as shown on the approved plan along the northern property line for a period of two years after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy the applicant developer shall submit a performance guarantee consistent with Section 210- 138 of zoning bylaws this performance guarantee shall be submitted to the planning board prior to the issuance of the first building permit so section 210 138 just basically outlines site plan performance guarantees they have to have an um prepared by their engineer bring it to the board the board approves the amount and then we move forward forward from there I think that sounds good to me so at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the major project site plan findings so uh I'd like to ENT entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud of the major project site plan application by the chair and by our principal planner John kelich so moved second second thanks everybody roll call vote Alise MOSI yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Aaron Wills yes Bas South proy yes and Robert Benson is a yes all right and so uh now section 3.2.2 do1 uh I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approved the major project site plan with the following conditions as they were previously read aloud by the chair and our principal planner so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Parker roll call vote Elise meowski yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker ha yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vica pry yes and Robert Benson is a yes is there anything left to do before closing the public hearing all right at this time I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for 48-52 uh hold on what are we calling the project 4852 Main Street 6 yeah 48-52 Main Street 6 Cedar Street uh so moved second thanks Vick roll call vote Elise meowski yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King oh yes K yes yep Parker H yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vith pry yes and Robenson is a yes all right uh I think we are good luck so through the chair I'll draft that decision it's due um on the 13th to be filed with the town clerk so I'll draft that decision and have you come sign it and then we will send it to the applicant all right thanks John thank you all great thank you very much everyone thank Youk thank you good luck thanks good night good night so we we don't really we don't have anything else in our agenda besides the next meetings so unless uh unless anybody uh wants to talk about their New Year's activities uh I think we should I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening so moved second all right roll call vote uh Alise meowski yes uh Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker h of order I would have disc discussed my break had you said additional discussion but yes all right Jane Rand yes Karen Wills yes vicaso praty yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right thanks everybody uh difficult uh project to get through tonight so thank you good job have a nice evening all right bye bye bye everyone