Hi everyone, this is H Pam and we are recording and we are live now. So feel free to start whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, Donna. We going to wait for a few more minutes till other board members can join.
Bear with me one sec. One second. We'll just wait another minute or two and allow people to join and then I'll uh kick us off. All right, let me uh start off by reading the remote meeting script and uh we'll go from there. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the act of 2023, this meeting
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 is 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're on the call. Matthew Rona, >> present. Thank you. Elise Mayoski, >> present. >> Thank you. Lucia Lopez, >> present.
>> Thank you. Parker Haps, >> he's not joining chair. >> Okay. Michael King, >> present. >> Vicas Pratti. >> All right. Peter Mimo >> present. >> All right. Amna Dwan and Rob Benz. Rob Benson is present. All
right. Staff Aneri Patel >> present. >> Yeah, obviously here. And Lori St. John, >> she will join us later. >> Okay. All right. Well, let's just uh jump into
uh the minutes for the November 3rd, 2025 meeting. >> Um we did not receive any comments or changes on November 3rd minutes. So, I'm guessing >> does anyone have any objections to move
forward with uh uh basically a motion to So, let me let me make the motion uh or entertain the motion. I'd like to entertain a motion that the uh board approve the minutes of November 3rd, 2025 as written.
>> Either one. Take your pick, Rob. >> Matthew with a motion. Michael with a second. All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. Yes. >> Alis Meowski. >> Yes. >> Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo.
>> Yes. >> And Rob Benson is yes. If somebody sees uh Amna or Vic join, just uh somehow wave me down. Let me know. All right. Next thing on our agenda is to review process determination for 8589
West Main Street. Um, so where where we are is uh, and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, but we're at a point where the the
proposal is to just restripe the existing parking lot. uh stay at 42 spaces, fundamentally move a handicap space, and this requires restriping of uh parking lot lines. And um I think as
a board, we need to uh decide if this is something that's in the planning board's uh that we should be involved in or if this is uh uh not. Um, I can just start off by saying my
opinion. Uh, we typically like I haven't been on the planning board or haven't seen this come be uh determined by the planning board in our in Hopkin where we're involved in restriping of uh parking lot lines. Like once the project
is built, the asbuilt plans have parking lot determination, but if they were to restripe a parking lot years later, they got their driveway if their parking lot seal coated and restriped the lines like we wouldn't be involved. Uh does anyone uh want to
think we should be want to have a different opinion? Um I think that in this my opinion is the status quo of uh the planning board not being involved in that determination of restriping existing parking lots if it's
not changing like the pavement then uh I think that's I think that's where we should be. >> Go ahead Lucia. Um, so I guess my question would be in this case it seems like they're going from what are full-size spots to compact
spaces. Is that something that the town would then require them to label as compact parking spaces or how does that work? >> I don't think as to my knowledge we have no
uh zoning we have no zoning bylaws related to that. So, um, Matthew, like, uh, unless I'm wrong, unless somebody knows different information, Matthew, go ahead. >> They're required to be grouped together and have signage that indicates they're compact to address that. Um, I I'd also
in in the past site plans, the parallel plan that's labeled approved by planning board June 2016, um, was also labeled as, I think, 9 by8 and and the the requirement for zoning is 8 by 22. in practice, uh, like in, um, in
general, I don't have an objection with the proposal as long as it's actually meeting the zoning guidelines and bylaws of the town. Um, but I I don't know if the existing plan actually does based on what we've we've seen. So, I don't know how we want to
couch any motion on that. >> Andrew, go ahead. Go ahead. >> I I just I do have the plan. I'm I'm happy to pull it up and and share. Um, I think really the purpose of of why we're why we're here is to kind of talk through again kind of the like you said,
Rob, the the process. Um, and ultimately again would be happy to work with town staff. So again, Aneri and John on again any additional signage for the again compact spaces or we could review the um
sizing of that that parallel space with them. But just to be respectful of the again the board's the board's time and really the the the client's resources at this point because we have been in front of you a handful of times. Um again, if you would consider a a condition of the
determination that again we could work with town staff to to kind of rectify some of those additional items or detail that you may need. Yeah, I I think for the board it comes down to like this is a in my opinion this is like a zoning enforcement
officer uh and town staff would provide guidance. This isn't um that is correct Rob. um zoning inspector or building inspector will play his role in this matter when it comes to signage
um when they apply for building permit if it's required for restriping. >> Yeah. So I I think that's all we we basically need to come to a collective. We need to come to there's going to be a I I think we probably make a a motion. Um
>> chair before you do that u and >> I'm not they both joined us at 707. >> Thank you. All right. Let let me just uh let me read um the recommendation and so in 1.2 two uh of our of our guidance. Let me
read read the recommendation here. Uh in the principal planner's opinion, restriping the parking lot without changing pavement boundaries or expanding the asphalt has generally been interpreted as not rising to the level of a site plan application and the current proposal could be considered dimminimous.
Um, and then it goes on to under section 210-124 of the zoning hopping and zoning bylaw, standard park spaces are required to be 9 ft by 18 feet while compact spaces may be 8 ft x 16 ft if appropriately designated and grouped. The proposed free striking shows seven
new near stalls at approximately 8 ft by 10 8 ft 10 in wide which is slightly below the standard width but within the compact space dimensions. If the board agrees that these stalls can be designated as compact spaces and the overall rest striping does not alter site layout or increase impervious area, the pose the proposal may reasonably be
uh treated as deminimous. If the board believes the dimensional deviation requires further review or formal approval, it may be class uh instead of classify the proposal as a minor site plan amendment under 210-134. So that's that's all that's all we need
to determine is uh like as a board do we feel like restriping an existing parking lot is uh dimminimous as as determined here uh and all prior like this is something that typically would be handled by the zoning enforcement
officer to make sure they uh adhere to the zoning guidelines of the town um zoning bylaws. Uh that' be my opinion. But if if people feel strongly we we can um
we can discuss. Go ahead, Lucia. >> I think there might be someone for public comment if you're taking that. Someone has their hand up. >> Is uh is that uh is your name Punky? would you like to make just state your name and address and then uh go ahead.
>> Hi um my name is Nancy Draw and I'm speaking as the chair of the commission on disability. Um I was just I'm not quite sure of the this um the plan of the parking lot that you're talking about. Is that like the one like where Starbucks is in the uni bank? I I was
just wondering what are you talking about um repaving the whole um area and removing handicap spots or or adding more handicap spots or making them smaller or what is the plan that you're um speaking
about >> it? This is in regards to the parking lot at Starbucks. Uh uh so the land owner has come before us as a planning board uh a few times. Uh
with a proposal to add four parking spaces. Uh that plan has altered several times over the courses of these discussions. Now the plan is is not to add any parking spaces but to
fundamentally uh alter the layout of the parking spaces. So there'd be no change in the pavement dimensions. It would be uh probably using some type of uh seal coat to cover existing parking lot stripes and restripe parking lot areas.
I don't think it changes the dimensions of the handicap space. Andrew, do you have any comment on that? >> Yeah, again, it doesn't change the the size of the current handicap, and we'd be adding an additional accessible space
next to the one um that's currently there for um in front of Starbucks. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. That would be um that would be really great if you could add another spot because I know the parking down there is really, you know, difficult anyway.
um for just regular customers that without handicap placards, but if there are more than two people who have handicap placards and then um if you had changed it, I wasn't sure. I heard maybe you were going to change the size of so somebody had a wheelchair accessible
van, how would they get the um wheelchair out? So, it sounds like you've got it all under control and you're not going to um make the spaces any smaller. So, that's what I was concerned about. But, thank you. All right. Is there any other comments
or questions for the board or uh things they'd like to bring up for discussion? I'll entertain a motion and then we can uh we can I can we can ask for discussion about the motion, I guess. So, I move that I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board make the determination that the proposed
restriping of existing parking spaces in addition of one ADA compliant parking space at 85 to 89 West Main Street represent a dimminimous change to the previously approved site plan as the work occurs within the existing
paved footprint, maintains or improves ADA compliance, and any stall with variations remain within complex base standards. The board further authorizes the applicant to withdraw the current minor site plan application without prejudice. >> So moved with the addition that the
applicant work with town staff to ensure uh proper zoning uh and bylaw compliance. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Thanks Matthew. Thanks Michael. Uh roll
call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. >> Alise Mosowski. >> Yes. Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Uh, Michael King, >> yes. >> Uh, Vicas South Prai,
>> uh, I just joined late. Am I still allowed to vote? >> Uh, I think so. >> Okay, it's a yes. >> All right, Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
All right. Thank you very much, Andrew. Good luck. Um, thank you. Do you want us to hang on to with request the withdrawal for the >> do we uh what do we need to do in that
regards on >> um Andrew you can send me an email requesting a withdrawal of your application and then we can move forward that. So I don't think so you required to be present at that time. >> So >> I don't know that the board has to do anything.
>> Yeah. So it's just you send an email and it's going to be without >> I I just know that we're on the the agenda for for later this evening. So would we need to continue that that hearing and then send the withdrawal brist? >> Yes. Uh you are on the agenda if board
decide as a minor side so we can continue. But >> do we need to close that public hearing? I uh >> I think so. Yeah. >> Wait.
>> Or if we have any. >> Yep. We need to post. >> All right. >> Matthew wants >> Matthew. Matthew, go ahead. >> Yeah, Rob. I think following on what Andrew was asking though is like do we have to should we be waiting for them to
formally withdraw it before we close it though? And so should we continue it tonight and close it >> on the next meeting? >> So um after we receive formal email from him, we don't need to um close it out in the next. It's going to be voided. But for tonight, we need to
continue that. >> All right. So let's let's do that now. Uh while while he's on the So we're going to jump to >> next >> next item here. Item two on our agenda. So, I'd like to entertain a motion to
continue the public hearing for 8589 West Main Street to uh December 1st. >> Yes. >> And extend the decision deadline to December 8th.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. Actually, is this is already due to by December 11th, but I guess we have the motion in place. Um, yes.
>> Elise Mayoski, >> yes. >> Yeah. Uh, Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Vicas Southrati, >> sorry. Yes. >> All right. Peter Mimo,
>> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. and Rob Benson is ES. >> All right. >> Thanks, Andrew. >> Thank you all. >> All right. Moving on to agenda item
three, uh 66 Fruit Street, uh Pine Street, Pine Field Athletic Facility. So, for everyone that could make it, we went on a sitewalk on Saturday. Uh I think that was beneficial. I know I've been to those fields uh a number of
times over the years. Um but it was good to see uh the proposed uh project plan uh and walk the grounds. So appreciate every uh uh the applicant and the abutters uh for being in attendance with us.
Uh maybe from the applicant's point of view, is there anything new you'd like to kick off our discussion with tonight? >> Yeah, thank you. Uh so John Lewis is director of parks and recreation. Um the speaking on behalf of the I guess the application for the parks and recck
department. Um so we have included a couple additional materials. The first one is um you guys had asked us for the operational hours of the facility that we are currently doing and planning on doing. So I included those hours uh the seasonal dates and times that we use the
facility. Um in addition on July 22nd uh this past summer uh at one of our park and w commission meetings this um this project was um the main topic and long story short uh the easement was
discussed and I was instructed by the park and rec commission to touch base with the town manager and seek legal counsel uh to review the easement. Um, and I submitted that letter uh that is dated August 7th from Harrington and
Heap uh specifically Anthony Riley who reviewed the easement and uh weighed in ultimately saying that we parks and recreation can move forward with the project and it does not interfere with JB Sawmill's access. Um, so I just
wanted to point that out. And in addition, um, you know, the the first planning board and the site walkthrough, obviously we haven't really discussed the designs yet, but I'd like to revisit a few, um, a few points. One being the the waiver of the, um, EV charger. Um,
that wasn't really discussed. Um, and really I'm here just to answer any questions that the board might have about the design. Um but in terms of new materials, those are those have been submitted. >> All right. Thanks, John. Um I know we
don't have our peerreview report back. Uh this is a um and I'll just kick off my my uh my uh opinion because this this is unusual for us as a planning board.
Um, I read the letter from our town council and and that's obviously it's great that it's uh legally allowed, but I have concerns of the safety of the situation. I don't know about the rest of the board
and I think that's the main um thing I'd like to hear from the board members about the safety. I I've had kids that play have played at that little league field. I've had my parents, my wife's parents, who are now
in their 80s, go from park uh wherever we park to little league fields. And I I I want to see the I think as a town, we need more recreation, active recreation
areas, and I want to see this happen, but I I have concerns about the safety of the situation. So, anyone on the board, does anyone want to add any um any opinions? I'm not really sure how to I figured there was no better place than just to rip off the band-aid and give my
opinion to start. >> I can go next or Matthew, you can go next or you want to go. Um so, yeah, I kind of agree with what Rob said. Just looking at the decision criteria, I think the crux of my concern is kind of an INJ. I worry
about the parking situation where, you know, wild little kid like my son who's 5 years old will just, you know, run across the easement if trucks are going by. So, that's kind of my main concern as well. >> Thanks, Michael. Uh, Matthew, go ahead.
>> Thanks. There's proposed plans on page five and six that had the parking lot on the same side of the easement as the fields. I was wondering if the applicant might be able to talk to why those were uh rejected for the final proposal.
>> Yeah, thank you Matthew. I forgot to mention that that I did include um some of the al alternate designs. Um in the first meeting I've said that we've gone through many design plans. U one of them is the wooded parking lot. Um the the main concern with that one was the other
abutters um that it would be too close to their house and they wouldn't have the barrier between the ball field and the parking lot in their house. Uh in addition, there'd be a number of tree clearings that would have to happen. Um the the grading was a little bit tricky
as well. Uh so those main concerns um ultimately led to the decision to move to the parking lot um on the other side of the easement. Um so >> through the chair um John would you be able to show us the plan just just to go
through that once again? uh >> for yeah an area I know we have um in our site packet I mean our packet of information we have all the plans but uh if someone can bring up >> can you see my screen everyone >> let me see the shared folder now
>> okay so let me just pull pull that up Okay. >> Can you see my screen? >> It's okay. >> Yeah. There we go. So, so that's one design. Um, and that
that parking lot has just turned 90 degrees essentially. Um, the reason why we didn't go with that one is we wanted to leave more space potentially down the line to the south of that parking lot for potent building um later tennis courts, pickle ball courts, things of
that nature, a smaller facility. Um, so ultimately we did not go with that design. And >> yep, the you can also see the walking path there as well was the original location. Um that was one of the first changes we made based on the feedback we
got from the set. >> I'm just want to look at the current design which is more what we are going for. So just I apologize. I don't know why it's take taking too long. Oh, this is the already.
>> Isn't everything in this file though? >> Um, in the share folder. Yes, this is the application the one park and drag. Oh, okay. Here we go. Submitted. the design they ended up.
>> So here is the current design. >> Yes. >> Yes, that's so John just wanted to reconfirm. My understanding is that there's a fence uh around the field just to protect a 6 ft fence is what my understanding the first one. Am I right?
>> Correct. Um yeah, where the driveway the easement is, there's a sixft fence in addition to a 3-ft timber rail fence as well. So two layers of fencing. >> Two layers of fencing. Okay. So that way so the crowd can't stand outside it and we should be good with that. and the
right now the parking lot whatever we're trying to see that I mean I'm just trying to understand where in the section is the easement is what falling off that the trucks would >> so essentially where the cursor is on the middle of the screen >> right so there and then if she goes and
if you go south >> yep that's the easement exactly right um so you made a point there that people can stand right where she's pointing the answer to that question is no we're we're not permitting fans to stand on on the outside of that fence, they'd have to be on the inside of the park. Um,
thank you. >> But there's a six foot fence and and again the three-foot timber rail fence there, >> right? Because the reason why I was more stressing out than the fence because I know the game very well. So that actually protects both the both the sides. I mean, if the trucks running around, not hitting the ball or the
people trying to catch the ball and not falling off under the running truck. So that's well protected. That's uh good. The only concern is the easement what we are looking at it. I mean if that can be padded as something like a crossroad or something then that should slow down some uh trucks that's how I would look
at it but again yeah and all this any any other wood being uh I mean we're clearing any area the trees or anything or we are leaving it like that around the field. >> Um so in general you know we're we're going to do some cleanup. Uh we're going
to repair the fence that's currently there on the south side of the project on the Fruit Street side. Um, so whatever clearing would have to happen to repair that fence, but in general, we're not clearing any fences around the ball field. The main clearing would have to be in the parking lot. >> Okay.
>> Thanks, John. That's all. Um, I'm good. So, no concerns for me. >> Lucia, go ahead. Um, I echo the safety concerns and in addition, provision J also talks about
the convenience of the parking areas and in walking the site. It just it's incredibly inconvenient. um for a variety of different types of residents. When you're talking about parking to where you don't see the fields, going
upstairs, going downstairs, crossing uh a driveway, going upstairs, going all the way around a field in order to get to the stands on the other side of the field. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of feet. I don't know how many. Maybe um John knows the number. But, uh,
in terms of convenient, I I think it's a very inconvenient parking area. Um, and so I don't know that provision J is something that I think has been addressed. >> Um, >> thanks.
>> Yeah. Okay, >> Matthew, go ahead. >> Thanks. Um down the down the hill from this where the parking lot connects there's the existing soccer field soccer pitches um and the Butters had posted a video that shows that those it it's very
difficult to park there right now. What's the plan for parking there if we were to build the parking space as proposed? >> So that this parking lot would be used for that's called Victory Field there at the bottom of the soccer field as well. So that would help mitigate the issue
that we have right now. Um, you know, we've installed the no parking sides on the right hand side of it. Um, which I I think have helped. Um, but by creating this project really helps solve the parking lot uh the illegal parking issue
that we have. >> Did that answer your question? >> Yes. Thank you. So we it'd be encouraging people to park in that lot versus what's really hard right now to find space along that area that's not >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Do board wants to review the other
option old concept which John submitted this morning. >> Yeah. Yeah, if we could go through this f this this present uh in the >> the different uh proposals over the course of uh this project I think would
be helpful. >> So, yep, this is the first concept. >> Yep. the first one where they didn't like it because they it limited future pickle ball or tennis court uh ability to build future tennis courts or pickle ball courts.
>> And the crossing of the easement. >> Yep. Correct. >> Um >> here it looks like it just kind of alters the the pathway from the parking lot to the fields.
>> Correct. Yep. And this is the the we call in the quotations the wooded parking lot um where the abutters and the and the tree clearing was the main issue um with this with this proposal. It also I believe is a smaller parking size as well u in
terms of number of spots. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Is there another one near? I think there might be two more. >> This is a similar variation of the other one. >> Yeah. So, there's really two main locations. It's it's it's where we
currently are looking. Maybe a different rotation of it or this wooded parking lot. Those are the two that the park and rec commission um Gail Associates myself uh basically decided between and like you said Robert of different variations. So again same location we asked if we
could move it uh you know farther away from the abutters or change the size of it to to at least look at other options. Um, you know, besides the location not being good, it it also didn't meet the need for the amount of parking spaces
that we that we would want. >> Thanks, Lee. Go ahead. >> Can I do you mind if I just touch base on this one? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Because there's there's a lot of questions of like, you know, building two two fields on on each side with separate locations. Um, you know, this
illustration based on the survey and design showed that there's not enough room there to do a ball field and a parking lot. Um, so this ultimately was scrapped altogether, but the park and recck commission wanted to at least see if this was an option.
>> All right. Um, I I just want to say I appreciate all the thought and planning that has gone into all of these different plans, but after walking the site over the weekend, my main concerns were that the distance
from the parking lot up to the fields is pretty far. Um, I have an 8-year-old, an almost six-year-old, and a one and a halfyear-old. And I've been to some little league games. I see the kind of um stuff that moms bring to the games,
and people usually come with younger children or like seats that they're carrying themselves or sometimes coolers if they're like the snack mom. Um, so walking all the way from the parking lot up to the top, it seems like a lot if
you're trekking all that stuff. So I have a concern about safety of walking. I had a concern about people who might be bringing strollers or wagons. I think I mentioned that they'd have to walk up that driveway. Um, and then my other
concern is that I, and I see this happen all over town, um, parents will get lazy and they will drive up there and just drop off and they'll drop off their stuff. They'll drop off their kid before they circle
back if they have to park too far away. And I feel like that's gonna create a traffic obstruction and a problem on that shared driveway right there with the trucks and with other people. Um I just I see it happen. I see it
happening. >> So you think people could potentially queue up queue form a queue of sorts in that easement is what you're alluding to waiting for a game to end or waiting for to be pick up pick somebody up. Yes. I
mean, it happens at Marathon Elementary daily. I see it at Rhythm Dance every day when I take my daughter. I see it at almost all my kids activities. So, parents, especially in the winter, parents just want to wait in their car
for their kid to be done. >> Uh I I agree with you, Elise, because I personally did the same in other towns when I went to go there. So, when the parking was not difficult. Uh, so yes, >> I especially think at little league age where the parents want to be in sight of
their children. Um, uh, >> well, yeah, if you have equipment, too, right? I mean, you're going to drive it up close so you can drop heavy things off and not have to, you know, carry them from a mile away upstairs, too. So, anyone else on the board have any
thoughts they want to uh share? Like like I said, we don't have the um the peerreview report back. I think one of the things in that was to cover safety. Uh and do you want to talk about
what what they might cover on the safety front in that report? >> So I talked to a peer corporation who was who is doing peer review for this project. Somehow they missed the site plan part. So they only provided comments on storm water. They're going to review the site plan elements and I
mentioned uh concerns board race during last hearing and the sidewalk regarding parking EV charges and other site plan criteria. So they're going to focus on that and provide their comments to us.
>> All right, Matthew, go ahead. >> Thanks. Um I'm I think we've got some questions about the the people walking back and forth. I wonder if there's an option to mix the two parking lots. Um because it does seem like there's an issue with people
at the football field, the soccer field uh that's already there. Um I don't know what that does to the overall cost or or or plan if there was both the a wooded lot for the new stuff and a lot for the football field soccer field. Um
I I I do have a question from the DPW comments and the peer review though which talk about um I think DPW suggested like was it twice a year and then the the peer review suggested was it every 30 days um vac like sweeping or or or vacuuming the the semi the
permeable um material. Um, in terms of the maintenance cost and all that, is that something that the town's expecting, I guess, or or what's are we concerned with the budget for that given the TPW's comment?
>> Yeah. So, that is a consideration. I'm sorry. Was that a question for me? >> John, you might be the best one to answer it. >> Got it. Okay. Um, yeah. So, it was a consideration and I think depending on where this project went, um, we have two options. one, stick with the proposed
pavement plan and come up with a way to budget that. Um, or two, change the type of payment that we wouldn't have to do as much street cleaning. Um, but the maintenance budget would fall under parks and recreation and our revolving fund, which would be um funded by our user fees. So, we would have to take
that into consideration if that's if that's needed. Um, so it really depends on where this project goes. Matthew, do you have another comment or? >> Yeah, similarly on the suggestions for the EV ready, there was a suggestion to pre-install the piping so that if we
increase the electrical uh being delivered to the field or we the conduits already be there, especially if we're already doing leveling and putting the pavement in place, what does that do to the plan that you have and and is that practical?
Uh well, the planning board and what I'm going through right now is phase one of this of this project. Phase two is the funding and the additional funding that that is needed. Um so we have an allocated budget that it does not meet the need for this project. Um
I have a CPC meeting tomorrow. This will be highly discussed. Uh and and a lot of my ask for FY27 CPC funds will depend on what the planning board here decides. So, if if if this is a requirement, that would obviously be an additional cost that I would have to ask for that we
currently do not have um scoped out from from from Gail. So, they would have to go back and and come up with additional figures that I would have to ask for. Um so, it could create a a big barrier,
but obviously understand So, I I'm not sure what to what to uh what to advise at this point. I agree with Lucia's comment of pointing out specifically in like our packet of information. Uh it's 3.7.1 on our agenda. Item J. Parking area
should be designed so they that they are safe and convenient and do not detract from the use and enjoyment of proposed structures. Parking area should be designed to facilitate facilitate safe pedestrian access to the structures and other on-site facilities. Uh I think that's to boil it down like I don't want to
speak for the board but the EV thing um EV having EV ready spaces or EV spaces that's a different question. The permeable pavement is a different question. But I think the most important question is the safety to come up with a plan
that the board deems safe. And I don't feel this is a safe uh plan. Um just cuz I I if people park in the parking lot then you're going to have uh k like a a lot
of people crossing that easement and if people don't use the parking lot you're going to have a almost a worse situation of just congestion on that what amounts to a driveway um that could also lead to its own safety issues uh without like a proper turnaround. Um,
I I I I want the the fields to happen, but I don't know how else to advise at this point other than that's my opinion, >> Matthew. Go ahead. >> Would it be practical just past the ADA spots to put a turnaround and a drop off
area? So, recognizing that people are going to drive up and down anyway, there'd be a broader area. Um, I don't know that there's a significant change in the traffic if people are dropping people off versus driving up and out during different transitions
>> again. I'm sorry. Is that for me? >> Yeah, John. Uh, has there been any consideration of actually having like a turnaround or or designated drop off area closer to the fields with this proposal? Yes. >> Right now, uh I think the concern is
people would just pull in >> to the handicap bear spots, drop people off and then try to do either a three-point turn if or if there's enough space, turn around. But, uh was that discussed or considered a real turn around? >> It it was discussed, but not in the area
that you're talking about. I think we want to avoid that upper area as much as possible, especi especially because it is the entrance to that the sawmill business. Uh where we did discuss it is where that small current parking lot is. If you guys were on the site through site walk through on Saturday down where
the porter potty is, there's that sort of round turnabout that we originally had discussed of narrowing that to make it just just a driveway. But this discussion happened where maybe we utilize that area as some sort of
turning uh drop off area and it would significantly cut down the walk from the parking lot as well. So it was discussed, it was not designed um but that is something we could pursue. So, we're we're kind of at an unusual um
point in our uh I'd say just reviewing a project plan. Um we don't have the peerreview report. We have safety uh at least some of us have stated some safety concerns or overall concerns. So,
without the peer review, we can't like really go through our process to get to a vote. But um I think the general or some of us uh I don't want to speak for everybody but some have raised concerns about the safety of this plan. So I'm
not sure how to advise you as the applicant on Nest uh we can we can discuss the permeable PA and and EV to give you like clear uh direction on what the board would be okay with on those two topics. Um but the safety thing uh I
can take a straw pole if people are feel comfortable with this proposal or not. Uh so those are the things I can do. I can take a straw poll uh if people feel this is a safe like from a safety point of view is this a um a plan they would support uh item J
like as I mentioned and 3.7.1 of our agenda. I can uh discuss the if they would be willing to wave and do a straw vote on straw poll for EV ready in this uh EV ready spaces. And I also can do
kind of a some type of straw poll on um the permeable pavement and uh what was mentioned by the zoning enforcement off uh I mean the DPW about street uh sweeping and and what that entails.
John, would you like us to go through th those steps? >> Um, I I think certainly the EV charger, the permeable pavement. Um, that would be helpful. Um, if you want to wait for the peer review, my understanding is that there's another meeting in
December, early December. Um, I'm happy to, you know, come back to that meeting. We can discuss the safety aspects. Um, but I would I would if if you're up for it though to vote on those those things would help me at least amen
for CPC funding. Correct. >> All right, let's let's talk about EV uh EV ready spaces. So, we're just going to do a straw poll. So, we we have eight members of our board here. So, um, we typically nine, but Parker is absent tonight, but, uh, he'd still be able to
vote when it actually came to it. So, I want to take a straw poll. Um, if you'd be fundamentally, would you be willing to wave EV ready spaces for this project? Yes or no? Willing to wave that
requirement. U, Matthew, >> based on what? the desire for the town to have these fields. It's >> No, I don't think it's appropriate for us to wave a wave a bylaw requirement just because it's the town versus a
private entity. >> Okay, Elise Mosowski, >> I echo what Matthew said. I I disagree. >> All right, Lucia Lopez. >> Um, I also disagree. and the pictures
that were submitted had a lot of Teslas in them. So that'd be part of my reasoning. >> All right, Michael King. >> I would be willing to wave the EV one. >> Vicas Prati Matthew says, so I disagree.
>> Okay, Peter Mimo, >> I would not be inclined to wave it. We we spent an awful lot of time with the very transitory sort of parking situation Starbucks and we're sort of we're one to do it there. I would imagine there'd be a lot permit type parking here for more longer term. So,
no, I'm not willing to at this point. No. >> Amna Dwan. >> No, not waving. >> All right. Um I think it comes down to like from my point of view, I probably would I would
say yes, I would. But um the town doesn't have unlimited budgets to build their uh own projects but uh the board as a whole would all right uh the next thing
uh basically permeable pavement. Uh so I think our DPW director and one of the uh documents in our packet of information says that there would need to be continual street clean uh clearing or
um or even recommended uh asphalt that's not per permeable. But um both have pros and cons. asphalt uh obviously rainwater doesn't doesn't absorb into the ground the same as
permeable uh a permeable surface. So I think we need to advise like would we be okay with a per uh would we prefer an asphalt solution or a per like I don't even know how to phrase this to be
honest a permeable pavement solution uh assuming the cost can be handled one way or another. Um so that's how I'll phrase it. Would you prefer pavement or permeable solution Matthew? I mean, we've always
been encouraging permeable solutions, ones that have less impact on the surrounding environment. So, I I think this really comes down to the budget of parks and wreck and how they can plan it. But like from a design point of view, I think permeable is a better
option. >> Yeah. Okay. Ely Moloski, >> for this particular project, I feel like I'm kind of indifferent. >> Let's add that as an answer. Like cuz I I feel the same way. I think um it
ultimately comes down like this is more of a budgeting and like if the storm water uh runoff can handle it. I uh so Elise is kind of indifferent. Lucia. >> Um,
I don't know if indifferent is the right word, but I'm I'm unsure because it does seem like DPW prefers non-permeable. We do generally, you know, want permeable surfaces, but there would need to be
something in place to ensure that it's being cared for properly. And this would be out of I'm assuming if not parks and recreck's budget than the town's overall budget. So that would need to be accounted for. >> Okay. Appreciate that, Michael.
>> I mean, I would air towards permeable just to mitigate some of the rainwater issues we've seen. I don't think it would be super costly to sweep it or power wash it twice a year either, but I guess we can defer the parks and wreck
for that. Vicas Pratti. >> So I just want to say that you know we just have to whether it's town or private uh the rules are the rules and I would just follow that whatever. >> Okay. Peter Peter Mimo
>> uh permeable >> omn >> um quick question before I vote this is this um field it's going to generate revenue correct >> there is going to be usage fees for uh
for these fields yes >> okay so then I mean I would can't I don't know can't I'm assuming that some of the usage fees could go towards maintenance so I Oh, go for permeable. >> All right. I am um
I am of the mindset that it would be uh if you think about it, whatever it costs to have pavement versus permeable and the maintenance. I think it has really a permeable would uh alleviate storm water concerns. But if if the report came back
and there's no storm water concerns, I would do whatever is cost the most cost effective for the town. Um I think for this it I think people the board is generally leading towards a permeable pavement solution and just the town the in your future discussions figuring out
a plan to cover the cost for a permeable solution. So I I think that's the guidance I would uh I would give. >> Thank you. uh through the chair. >> Go ahead Vic. Uh >> Am point out here. So on the cost that some kind of a fee would be usage fee.
Any idea how much it is or maybe John? Um and how is it regulated? >> Yeah. So I don't have the per hour cost of what it would be but um it would be in line with what we charge at other fields. Um and the revenue used uh the
revenue gained from these user fees would be directly to cover the maintenance of the grass. Um and you know the permanent pavement essentially whatever it cost to run this facility in terms of maintenance. Um that's how we
would calculate the cost. Um revenue gained from here wouldn't be used for other facilities or other other programs. it would be reinvested directly into this property. >> Got it. Um maybe a kind of a I'm just trying to understand. You said it's per
hour cost. So if they can hire it hourly basis, >> correct? >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. I think it'd be good to take a a straw poll uh from the board just to
bas in terms of the safety of this proposal like I think it's kind of binary. Do you think this would you feel com comfortable with the safety of this proposal considering uh
um the current design? So I think that's is how I'd like to phrase it. Let's let's go through our our members here. Matthew, what do you think? >> I think it solves problems that the field currently has. I don't know that
it's necessarily the best option, but looking at the again the video that's in the folder, right? It it highlights how bad the parking is in the football the soccer fields right now, um adding more spaces
is definitely an improvement. Uh, you know, Elise raises some good points though and having a way of mitigating that I think would make this a lot easier. >> Okay, Elise, I think you stated your position,
but if you could just restate it. >> Um, I do not think that the way it currently is proposed is safe. >> I think it is not safe currently. Okay, Lucia, >> I agree with Elise.
>> Okay. Uh, Michael King. >> Yeah, I said that when I first spoke. Just based on the the decision criteria, uh, points I and J, I don't think it uh, meets that criteria. So, I would say it's not safe and vote against it. Now, >> uh, Vic,
>> not safe. Peter, >> I echo Matt's position. I say safe >> all right. I am of the camp that I don't think this is a uh
the best plan for the town. um that is I would say it's not a safe plan. So that would leave one two three four five uh not safe I think and
three that were okay with it. Um that's I think where we are as a board. >> May I ask a follow-up question? >> Sure. If we hypothetically move the parking lot so they wouldn't have to cross over
the easement, is that the main concern? The two main safety concerns I have are crossing of the easement and then cars either queuing on the easement or
parking on the easement as just like so my I have I have twin boys that are 15. So, they're past little league age, but EMC Park, every um time there's little league games for years. People park along the driveway.
They've put so many signs. Uh they find they started towing cars back when my boy boys would play and like all you would have to do is park over at Marathon School and it's it's it's way closer than than this situation and people didn't know. Um
and like I think there'd be those situations. I think there'd be people crossing the easement, but I think the bigger concern would be people not even wanting to cross the easement. So, they're going to try to find a way that's not authorized to park or quue in
that. And um that that like I can I'm not only speaking for myself, but that would be my my take. Matthew, go ahead. >> Rob, what do you mean by queueing? You mean just standing there waiting for things to happen? Just I mean if you >> No, I mean I mean that the par the parent or
uh boyfriend, girlfriend, whatever, husband, wife would be picking somebody up. So whether it's a parent or picking picking a kid up or an adult up, they would basically stay in their car and
be within view visibility of the fields. So the other person that's playing would know that they're there. So they would stay in their car and just the car would be in some way in the easement. >> So you're concern but you're I there's nothing that prevents cars from being in
the easement. I think the concern is whether they're stopping or or parking. >> They're going to they're going to queue there and wait. That's that's what my >> queuing for what I'm asking. So, if they have a parking lot next to the field to the practice ends,
>> so if there's a parking lot in the wooded area there that goes closer to the the others, the the houses that are there, um, etc., like, you're still going to have cars coming up and down the road. So, there's going to be cars queuing to get into the parking lot and then to leave. Is is that follow your
objection or is it just you don't want somebody standing there? >> So, so my now my boys are in high school. So, if I go to Hopkin High School to pick them up at the end of the school day, there's a queue of cars to to get to the main entrance. Queue of
cars waiting to pick up their son or daughter. That's my fundamental concern. There'll be a queue of cars when a sporting event will end, whether it's baseball or cricket, and they'll be there
um narrowing that easement. So, cars will be coming up to add more traffic there and but there'll be cars stationary for a period of time. It could be 2 minutes, it could be 10 minutes, but um not it's not just crossing the road. My concern is both.
But if there was there were a parking lot that were on that side, it'd be less likely that there'd be a lot of cars just waiting there, right? They'd go to the parking lot and wait. >> Yeah. Especially Especially if they had visibility. It's I think for a parent with like a a sevenyear-old to a 12y
old, the visibility is a big thing. People want to be able to see. They want their kid to be able to see them so they know to come to the car when the practice. >> I mean, if you know where the the parking lot is, you just say come to the parking lot and look like the Fruit Street Fields just on the other side, right? The parking lot's all in one
area. You can't see anything in the far side of the the the the grass fields. >> Well, in that scenario, people in the parking lot, they park their car and the parent walks to the side of the field. >> Elise, go ahead. um through the chair just to respond to
John's question. If the parking lot did not cross the easement and it were close to the field, I think in my opinion the safety my safety issues would be eliminated or at least much lower.
>> Lucia, go ahead. So, one of the things that I I think maybe I understand differently is when we're talking about the pictures that have been submitted um and people parking where they shouldn't be parking. I believe at least one of the pictures that was submitted shows
what I thought when I went there for soccer was a parking lot where the gate is that we walked past to get to where the proposed parking lot will be. So that we used as a parking lot and it looked from the picture that I saw that that was fairly empty to where
people who parked along the no parking side could have parked there but chose to park along the no parking side because it's closer to the field. So even though there's space that's right there that's available because there were spots open, they choose to park as
close to the fields as they can get. And so I think if you have enough parking that's close to the fields that isn't going to then encourage people to, you know, park along the side of the easement, I think that would solve some of those problems. Um, personally, I
think that the lot at the end is close enough that I often parked there rather than parking where you're not supposed to park. Um, so I'm not sure why that's not happening um, based on the pictures that we got, but I don't know that a parking lot, as Matthew suggested, where
it's proposed would solve that problem. Because if there's already space down there for people to park, and they're choosing not to park there and are instead parking along the easement, putting a parking lot farther away, I don't think is going to encourage people to park in that parking lot and not park
along the no parking ement side. Thanks, Lucia. >> John, at this point, is there any other guidance we can provide that would be helpful? >> No, I think this is this is helpful. Um, you know, my next steps will be to have
a discussion with the parking park and rec commission. Um, I know a member is on right now, so we'll see where this goes. And then um yeah, I guess wait to hear from the peer review as well, but
I I I hear the concerns of the board. Thank you. >> All right. Uh Aneri, do we need to uh continue this uh to our next meeting? >> Yes. >> Do we need to continue a decision deadline or just the >> public hearing?
>> Just a public hearing. We are good for decision deadline. >> All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing. for 66 Fruit Street, Pine Street Field, Pine Fields, um to December 1st.
>> Does that work for the applicant? >> Uh that's a Monday. Yes. Yes, it does. Thank you. >> So moved. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Malowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez,
>> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. Vic Prati. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> And Robinson is a yes. >> All right. Thanks. I hope there's a I
hope there's a a silver uh I don't know what the right term is, but uh there's a plan to be had that is perfect. >> Thank you. >> All right. Good. Thanks, John. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Item three, uh, maybe it's four. No. Yeah, four on our agenda. Uh, new public hearing, 11 North Mil Street, Scenic Road hearing. >> Who's going to I need We need to open the public hearing. Matthew, do you have
something first or? >> No, I was going to move to open the new public hearing 11. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Mil Street Scenic Road hearing GTKW LLC. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Uh, roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Uh, Lisa Mosowski,
>> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Vic Southprati, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson says, yes. All right. Who do we have the applicant on?
>> Uh, so yes, we have Chuck here to represent 11 North Mil Street. >> All right. Uh, Mr. Joseph, would you like to give us an overview of what you want to want to get done here? >> Sure. Uh, it's um we we want to connect to the electric line underground to the
pole that's in front of the lot. There's a stone wall. I think I forwarded some photographs. I don't know if you guys have gotten them or not. Um it's it's pretty much moving like four stones, connecting it, and then moving them back. Um it's not an elaborate stone wall. It's one that's deteriorated over
many years, but there are some stones there and and it's a scenic road, so this is what's required. All right. Uh Aneri, do you have any uh uh from a town staff point of view, do you have any um additional commentary?
Nope. Not on this. >> Does anyone on the board have any questions or uh comments before we get going? >> Just to the chair, in light of the condition of the stones, how realistic is it that they will be restored to their original condition? Are there any concerns that they can't be? I'm just
curious. Uh uh I looking at the pictures I think it's like a free play stone stone wall. I don't like I I don't think there's any at least my expectation is it's not like going to be a picture perfect carbon
copy. But as long as the stones are put back to continue the stone wall like that's would be my expectation and if anyone thinks differently now we can discuss. All right. Uh, does anybody does um does anybody want
me to read Do I need to read the I don't need to read the decision criteria? Do I hear? >> No, that's fine. >> All right. Is everybody good with the decision criteria? And I'll go right into uh read the proposed findings and the proposed conditions. >> Sounds good to me.
>> All right. Section 4.8 Eight. Uh, proposed findings. Let me put put this directly in front of me. Uh, the proposed project involves the temporary removal and replacement of approximately 5 ft of existing stone wall to allow installation of electrical connection for a new single family home.
The proposed work conforms to the provisions of chapter 160 and that all applicable criteria and standards set forth in section 160-6 have been satisfied. Uh, proposed conditions. The applicant shall provide photographs in the area of the alteration after work has been
completed. These photographs should be submitted to the principal planner for review and approval. 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 should be kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until work is
considered complete. The applicant shall reconstruct the stone wall to match its original height, alignment, and appearance. Original stones shall be reused to the maximum extent practicable. However, if the replacement stones are needed, they shall be similar in size, shape, and character to the exist existing stones to ensure a
consistent appearance. All right. I'm gonna um I'd like to I'd like to uh this is a little different than just re uh I think this is a little different than John used to do it, but uh just
bear with me. Uh I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud by the chair. So moved. >> Second. >> Thanks, Matthew. Thanks, Michael. Uh, roll call vote. Matthew Rona,
>> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Vicas Southrati, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes.
>> And Robert Benson is a yes. All right. Uh this is the overall approval or denial of the plan. So I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approve the scenic road permit which with the following conditions as they were previously read aloud by the
chair. >> I move that the board approve the scenic road permit with the conditions as they were previously read allowed by the chair. >> Second. >> Thanks Matthew. Thanks Peter. All right. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona. >> Yes. Alis Mayowski,
>> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Vicas Southrati, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> And Rob Benson is a yes.
All right, Chuck. Good luck. >> Thank you. Thank you very much to the board. >> Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion to close the the public hearing for 11 North Mil Street Scenic Road hearing. So move. >> So move. Second.
>> Michael. Thanks, Matthew. Roll call vote. Matthew Rona, >> yes. >> Elise Mowski, >> yes. >> Lucia Lopez, >> yes. >> Michael King, >> yes. >> Vic Prati, >> yes. >> Peter Mimo, >> yes. >> Amna Dwan, >> yes. >> And Robert Benson is yes.
All right. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening. >> So move. Second. >> Okay. Who moved? Who second? >> I think Michael first. Yeah. >> All right. Roll call vote. Matthewa.
>> Yes. >> Elise Mosowski. >> Yes. >> Lucia Lopez. >> Yes. >> Michael King. >> Yes. >> Vicas South. >> Yes. >> Peter Mimo? >> Yes. >> Amna Dwan? >> Yes. >> And Robert Benson is yes.
All right. Thanks everybody. Thank you.