e e good evening it being just a little over 7 o'clock let's open the Kingston zoning board of appeals for February 19 2025 can I get a second can I get uh all in favor I all
very good first on the agenda is um public hearing for is it Palmer am I saying it right FL flammer okay uh Mr flammer for uh special permit to an addition to existing non-conforming two family
structure do you have the hearing reading for that lane um it's right on the it's right on the thing public hearing will be held at Town Hall uh William flammer seeks a special permit per section 8.1 a
.5 from the zoning board of appeals 23 sorry to construct an adap an adapted addition to the existing dwelling um I'll make a has this has been open no this this is new this is being refreshed as new all right so I'll make a motion
to open the hearing can I get a second second all in favor hi very good just do a rehash we we've already had you here once you got a mic yeah uh just uh seeking a a special permit to uh expand the existing
structure uh 24 by 30 uh 20 uh 26 by 24 with a 6 by 12T mro um primarily for accessible reasons um make first po living space um and uh
entrance with a handicap lift to you at the rear of the building and uh that's pretty much it yeah yep I think all we asked for you we had to change some paperwork we just had to change some paperwork because it was written up wrong correct um you have plenty of
parking you were just going to put parking spot on it we we yeah we print it off we just need one for the file she's going need one of most most importantly perfect take a look if you want um you got the paperwork all saying it's two family
yeah I heard that came through and then your sewer butement I saw I saw that came through too that being said since we did see this already once we were just fixing the paperwork Bob do you have anything no I not at all Doug not a lane nothing
anyone from the public anyone on Zoom want to speak for or against this no hands up that being said I make a motion to approve the special permit I
second it all in favor I I perfect thank and we'll give you application to join we need another member thank you for the cookout once you finish the construction I'll be by for the cookout
once you there you go take it easy all right thank you take care next up on the hearing is going to be Grand View who are not [Music] here they didn't tell
us I'm actually very surprised if they're not here to be honest we do the next one I'm gonna do it wait for second or do we need to wait until 7:15 actually uh actually she was
705 yeah I don't know if you want to skip her and then go to the last one yeah but you said I have to do 715 for the last one yeah so do you want to call the first one and continue it I guess I guess I G to wait see if she got any emails or anything that we don't know
about um just wait for her to come back she FYI guys the street through her her street chipped in and paid to Asphalt the front of her house oh my brother's part of that street they they all
chipped in like 500 bucks a piece nice to Asphalt the front of her house what um for her so just FYI if that if that helps we'll find out if they show um what's going on with s [Music]
lison um yes we'll take a brief recess till 7:15 and go from there thank you oh can I get a motion I made a motion can I get a second second all in favor very [Music]
good it being 7:20 I'd like to uh make a motion to take um the meeting out of uh recess I got second all in favor and Mara m is here she'll be on the board now she's available um that being said next up on
the hearing is three Grand View three grand Grand View AV do you want to read that real quick let me continue yeah public hearing will be held at Town Hall um applicant Susan Larson three grand viw
AV must seek a special permit from the zoning board of appeals per section 4. 2.a non-conforming structure use or lot subsection 4A in order to remove the roof on a non-conforming structure on a nonconforming lot and build a second
floor for living space um I guess is the applicant here the applicant is not here okay so I I guess I would it's already been open so we see I'll make a motion to continue yep how many on March the first the
first one Mar yeah how many on that two so far what about the second one after that one let's move to that one I think be probably safer 319 so I'll make a motion to continue this hearing until March 19th
can I get a second second all in favor I I perfect next on the docket is kushin Farms you yourself go on that
side thank you [Music] accusing himself Lane you like to read it public hearing will be held at Town Hall um to hear the petition of kushman farms LLC 33 kushman Drive Kingston Mass
to request a comprehensive permit under mgl chapter 40b to allow construction of three apartment buildings proposed to build 162 units of rental housing on approximately 11 acres
of land located off Mar and drive and kushman drive in Kingston um it's already been open so oh yes it's been open so all right uh what we left off
was we'd ask the applicant if we could um if they would consider um withdrawing without prejudice because of lack of water um to the board members want to continue to hear um because we were kind
of in limbo we wanted to have Town Council present to let us know if it's something we need to move on because again the town has no has a moratorium on water and it's indefinite so I figure before we hear
from you we'd hear from Our Town Council uh attorney preventure did I say that right you did Mr chairman thank you sorry uh hear from you first and see what makes sense going forward so I I think um in general you
you have a number of different options you you've asked the applicant if they would be inclined to withdraw the petition you can see if they want to move forward um you can close this hearing if there is no interest in moving forward and you want to take a vote based on the availability of water
um one thing I would note is that it's it's not really a moratorium in so far that you haven't declared some kind of emergency generally it's that up against the limit of the D permitting for taking withdrawals from the approved Wells that you have so there's just no more water
capacity available I think if you also if you wanted to hear from the water department um they could explain it I think better than I can just because they're the subject matter experts on that so in general I think you have a number of options um I think that the only thing I would caution you against
doing is that if you want to have the applicant you know move through the process partak in any per R you but you think you know that the water issue is going to predominate um you may make a decision to say we don't need to go forward with all that we could simply resolve this because we feel the water
issue is unresolvable at this time if that's the way the board is inclined you could also theoretically if you wanted to um allow this to move forward with the understanding that the applicant would not be able to receive any permit for a Municipal Water connection until such time as water becomes available to
serve it so I think You' got a some pretty broad latitude to handle it as you feel appropriately I I think in these circumstances it's always constructive to engage with an applicant to engage with the members of the public to bring in the water department and to see where everybody's at on the status of
this do we need to bring in the water department because we've we we heard from the water department directly um on on a another 40b not even three to four months ago and they basically told us exactly what you're saying we knew this but we want it
confirm from Town Council that we have disability yeah no I think you can and when I say bring in the water department that's also just part of being transparent with the applicant I know that you've heard it it's no question that we're involved in an appeal before the housing appeals Committee in which
the availability of Municipal Water and the feasibility of a connection for a project is directly at issue um so I know that that's all you know pretty familiar to all of you I just wanted to say In fairness to the applicant if they wanted to hear it um if you wanted to have the water department come in and explain it to the extent that that may
influence any decision they might make about how they want to proceed here or if they want to press it in a certain fashion you could certainly do that um but ultimately it's you know it's your decision in the way I let out I don't think you are required in this circumstances to specifically do
anything if you would like to though I think that you can pursue any of the Avenues I laid out if you have any further questions anybody on the board have any questions for I do go ahead are you saying the strike that if the applicant wants
to go forward knowing um about the current lack of water are you saying that they may not do
so I'm saying that it's your decision so even if the applicant wants to go forward if you feel that because there is no available water connection that the project cannot be approved because it would lack a critical infrastructural element and because you do not have a
time frame as I understand it um I haven't spoken with the water department you know in the last I think three to four days about it but unless something's changed within that time frame and we have an anticipated window my understanding is that it's going to be years before there's going to be the
development of additional Wells because they need to be cited explored and then approved by the Department of Environmental Protection um so if you feel that that's an appropriate basis to deny it I think you would be well within your rights to go down that Avenue it's not me telling you to do it one way or
the other um I think if you wanted to try to explore a scenario in which you could approve the project in general but state that it's conditioned on Municipal Water connection becoming available due to an increase in capacity you could look at doing that as well we're in
chapter 40b does it say does it lay out as uh give the town the right when a current water connection is not available but will be available in
the future to deny a 40b project that is willing to accept that as a condition so chapter 40b generally doesn't speak in that level of specificity okay so let me interrupt you there so it's not a
statutory uh authorization that the town has it is your opinion that the town may deny a 40b applicant that is willing to accept as a condition of their
comprehensive permit you know that they must have a a water supply it that's your it's your opinion that we can just deny it uh on that basis we wey that because there is
not currently water available that's just your legal opinion it's not a statutory requirement is that correct no okay so if you trying could if I don't mean to interrupt I don't want to talk over you but what I was
going to say before you jumped in is that chapter 40b also allows the executive office of Housing and livable communities what was formerly dhcd it empowers them to promulgate regulations that govern applications under chapter 40b one of the regulations that has been
promulgated specifically addresses the availability of Municipal infrastructure and whether a town is going to and how it would have to make a claim that the project is predicated upon Municipal infrastructure and whether it's not feasible for the project to exist
without that so no it's not an explicit statutory basis but the statute allows the executive agency to promulgate regulations that in turn govern how the town and the zoning board can make a claim or respond to an application if
the board is inclin to feel that a denial is appropriate under these circumstances what in what regulation are you referring to in particular let me just make sure and that would be the
regulation that gives the town the authority to prohibit a 40b applicant from moving forward um because we the town currently doesn't have a water
supply so the the regulations of that were promulgated formerly under the Department of Housing and Community Development are located in the Massachusetts code of regulations it's 760 CMR 56.00 and the following a tiny bit slower so I could
write that down 60 7 60 oh 760 it's 760 CMR which stands for the code of Massachusetts regulations 56.00 no sub that's it that is the general that is the
general citation to it as as you can imagine there are a number of subparts to each of those is that the regulation that is currently on appeal that the involved that the town
is there's a current appeal where the town has taken this position correct yes that governs proceedings in essentially all comprehensive permit applications there is a subpart that deals with the local hearing before the zoning board as well as a subpart that
deals with the regulation of the appell process before the housing appeals committee I understand that I asked you what is the status of the the current appeal it's before the committee before the housing court before not before the
housing court before the housing appeals committee the committee it's an administrative agency okay and how long has that been pending what does this have to do with I'm just curious as to when we reasonably expect a decision in this in what in in the case that he
said is did we deny it just for water you denied it for water that's the issue in the case that was one of the pieces I know but it's one of the issues on appeal in the case I know what this has to do with this I'm asking him questions about the advice that he's giving us and if it
where it is in state law that gives us the right St law and ask one of appeals because I understood that the very issue that this very issue that affects kushman Farms is one of the issues
that's on appeal that will be ruled upon correct yes in in the in the abstract yes now that may play out according to the particulars will obviously be governed by the facts that exist in this application and the other one will be by the other I don't think it's necessarily
true that one has to rise or fall with the other but in the broad outlines yes there was an issue and that there's another 40b application in which it was predicated upon a connection to Municipal Water and there is not enough water capacity within the town to supply
the water needs of that proposed project and it was denied by the town it was allowed to go forward on the merits But ultimately denied correct no it had more wrong with it than that if you really if you really want to go off topic that 40b had multiple issues with
it and had multiple bites of the apple and that was one of the pieces of it I'm just I'm just trying to understand the cushion we did approve another 40b after that and they went to Wells after they knew they had no water I'm aware of that one okay I just
want to make sure that's on the record too that we did approve another 40b after that one I'm just trying to focus on kushman farms and no you're not you just went off topic no excuse me and and you know I understand what our Town Council says
did I was understood that kushman Farms Council was going to be available she's here I want to ask their opinion too okay oh is that thank you thank you those are my questions of Our Town Council B no
question um oh what would be the um so the options that we have you're saying that we could ask them to withdraw without prejudice obviously they could refile at any time if we deny it what is the waiting period for them to be able
to refile this same application um I have to go through and check so I mean I guess it depends right it's what is the nature of the denial are they going to exercise a right to appeal you know it depends too are they going if there's an appeal that's pursued that's going to affect the time
frame in which they would try to come back to you there's also a process by which they could exercise the right to an appeal and challenge any denial it would go to the housing appeals committee if things change there's also always the possibility of a remand um
where you know the applicant the developer and their Council would enter into discussions with my office um there have been a number of occasions where because things before the housing appeals committee can take enough time the underlying facts can change and they
can wind up in an appeal coming back to you that would look like them essentially just refiling an application it wouldn't look any different on your end but it wouldn't technically be a new application so I I hate to give you a classic lawyer answer but the answer is
kind of it depends yeah and then the other question that I have is if we only deny it because of the water I mean you know we haven't really dove into this but there's a lot of
other issues with this that I see such as traffic and density should if we don't site those do we lose that kind of reason that we're denying it as our denial I mean how in detail do
we need to get do we need to waste everybody's time and money to do traffic studies and you know density like impact to get to the ultimate rejection here so that we preserve the town preserves its denial of everything not
just the water issue I think that point we have to itemize the denial good that's a good point so in general when you pass upon any application you would want to identify everything that you think
should be a problem now appeals before the housing appeals committee are considered denovo proceedings they take place without any deference to the board's decision unlike say a different kind of zoning application where you might wind up in Superior Fort or land Fort that said as a practical matter I
think you know from the perspective of economy you would likely want to vet everything but this is also why you know in every case in a 40b development application we encourage a dialogue with the applicant to see what they're interested in presenting if if there's a
concern by them that the board is going to be unfairly asking them to go through a lot of work I think you would want to know about it before saying we're going to move forward it's puts the casee in a different posture if the applicant is understanding that they're going to make
a basic showing that they feel that the development meets the applicable criteria under chapter 40b and the regulations that implement it and the the board is choosing to limit this and streamline this because it has an issue that clearly disposes of the case
because it can't see a way around it or a way for the applicant to mitigate the issues that are presented by the problem particularly he the lack of Water Service all right thank you any else all right uh attorney for uh
kishman farms uh would you like to speak uh yes thank you Mr chair members of the board of appeal my name is tanyaa Trevis I'm with mioni shanesy and mudy here on behalf of kushman farms LLC and its principal Rick Lincoln um I
understand your focus uh here tonight has been on the water moratorium um uh but I want to emphasize that that's not a valid reason for the board to decline the review of the project and to allow the process to proceed um the board has
the authority to wave local water department rules or as your Town Council has said could potentially condition the project on its ability to connect to a water supply if that condition is applied equally to all developments but
as noted in my January 21st letter uh to the board Kingston's possible inadequacies of the water supply do not justify the denial of a comprehensive permit where the entire town would benefit from various needed improvements in water infrastructure to which the
town has been derel this time right so for that reason um I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant requesting that the hearing process proceed um applicant would request that
the board confirm the peer reviewers uh that have been selected and had provided uh to the board when its prior secretary was in office um they had specifically selected pgb engineering for the site
civil and Howard Stein s Hudson for the traffic uh the applicant also would request um that a proposal from those peer reviewers be provided so the applicant is aware of the anticipated costs I do note that one of the board
members was concerned about cost of traffic studies and the like and just remind them that um the applicant Bears the cost of the peer reviewer um the applicant is willing to agree in writing to extend the time for the hearing
beyond the statutory 180 day Mark however if the board would not be willing to proceed with a hearing in in a timely manner going forward or if the board continues to focus on the water moratorium as a basis for not approving
the project we're prepared to file an appeal with the HAC we figure that either way uh Town Council want to rebuttal I don't I don't disagree with anything I I think procedurally as I
indicated you you have the right they seem willing to go forward if you want to hear out what they have and you can continue to exchange information about what the costs of peer review are and they want to move through the process I don't think there's any reason you would say we're not going to hear you out um
it's part of vetting the application and rendering a decision on all the aspects of it that you might have any concerns with so I I think if the applicant wants to move forward through the process acknowledging that there is an issue with the capacity of the town's water system to provide service to it um
that's their choice I think you have the application before you they're willing to extend the time frame for it I don't think there's any issue with moving forward and it's really just a question for the discretion of the board and how you want to proceed very good guess I'll pull the board Mara
what's your feeling I think we should move forward and hear the application on the merits before prejudging uh uh the application well I'm opposed to the project because
of the water traffic which has been brought up before from the neighborhood and I just the location of the of the of the uh project to to where it is it just to me it just
doesn't fit so I'm opposed to it all Al together to you go for a denial I move to a denial yes Lan I uh I think that we should go forward with I mean the applicant has heard
that the town is against this that you know initially based on their presentation based on the questions that we asked we might not be in favor of this at this point if they want to prove us otherwise they should have the chance to they applied they're the applicant
they should go through the process they're paying for it it might be a waste of time but I think that it's a cleaner we get a very detailed if we reject It ultimately we get a detailed rejection and they can go and appeal
that instead of just one issue of water my feeling is we can reject it not just on water but on the face value we have right in front of us at the presenting we have issues that we would already take as Bob would say we we
already know there's GNA be a traffic issue even without traffic study we already know there's going to be a density issue and then they would just approve it to the we noo so they would just do their own studies they're going to do their they're going to probably appeal no
matter what we they do on this project we know this this is going to be a giant headache it has conservation issues it has density issues it has traffic issues it has the ability it it wants to have an egress and two egresses one opening
up basically we close the road right next to it and they want to open up basically their own Road right next to it parallel to it so we already know that's a problem we won't have two egresses because we're gonna we're gonna I I agree I don't see how they're going to convince this board to approve the
project maybe Marshall will I I mean you seem like you're in favor I just I'm willing to hear the applicant and judge the project on the merits not based on one hearing where a lot of neighbors
appeared and raised concerns about the traffic as I understand 40b and the statute is that we cannot hold a developer responsible to cure
existing deficiencies in the town's infrastructure that includes we can we can't allow them to add we can't allow them again we not even having a traffic study done yet you are pre judging
everything I I I would respect Paul I think we had a traffic study done when we had a road a street paralleled you can see it right there project that has to have a project study done it's not they're going to do it before us or
they're going to do it before the appeal board so and then on top of it we've seen it more than once because they've actually changed it from the original plan again so we've seen it twice let them finish
let's get some peer review done let's really hash these issues out that you are raising that our consultant will address and let their consultant and come back to us again I there's one of them that will
never be able to hash out According To You Paul only takes three votes on this board according to the attorney according to the water department who we heard for I don't see the water as the main
issue here because that could eventually be fixed the traffic and the density will never be fixed in that area you have a school right there you have I mean they need to reduce the amount of people yeah it's they're opening up different roads it's it's not my point
is we can deny it not just for water we can easily on on its face value tonight if you want to hear them talk tonight and at the end of this meeting on its face value we could deny it for water density we don't even need to trust traffic we know both sides are are are aggressively bad with a school being
right there on a street that's barely wide enough where you have Wetlands on both side of the street going up to Cancun I think the road's only 30 feet wide and you can't go any wider without going into Wetlands I mean if you want to hear it tonight it's not going to be much change
from the last time we heard them I think they just want just want the peer review tonight are you what are you planning to present tonight if we allowed you to go forward uh we
have sorry we have um one of our Consultants on tonight to um explain the revised plans um they had been submitted in January of this year um there has been no hearing regarding those plans
there's been no presentation um no discussion on it so I think it's a little premature to say that it has issues when there's been no discussion all right I I would say we need to let them present tonight yeah
and then right I I don't I didn't get you want to hear tonight well I I I'm inclined to make a motion did you get to continue we have no plans here so yeah no one sent us Revis we hav had a chance to review it
I left them at home because my understanding is that we're just talking about the legal issues tonight if if we were in a position to deny it I would like to have uh duck in road
to get all the subjects and say I I don't want to say let's just deny it for the water or the traffic but I think there are other issues that if it's going to continue um and we want to deny it for specific reasons we should get
those specific reasons uh documented which which ones I think we are so if if they if we want to continue this thing and they want to do a peer review so we can study it or what they want to review that's fine um but
I I I just don't see it fitting at all in that space it's up to you we don't have any copies none of none of were brought to us so we filed the revised plans on January 17th um I'm not sure we still require
when you guys show up to have seven copies available for us and the board I'm sure other boards have the same thing you come show up seven printed copies set out we're not your we don't we're not a printing company we're not Staples so we're supposed to have seven
copies of all your revised stuff at every meeting usually the week prior so we can review for the meeting okay so at this point could we ask the board to confirm the peer reviewers that have been selected by the applicants and
to get a proposal from those peer reviewers so that we're aware of the anticipated costs and I'd also propose that um there is an agreement um in writing uh to extend the time for the hearing beond the 100 day 180 Day
statutory mark because that date is come and gone I think it was back in April of 2024 that expired uh no we no we have emails from you guys we won't let continue guys without emails continuing it we I even asked not even a week ago
for another another one I haven't been party or seen any of those we've been sending you emails at at each continuation asking requesting continuations of them who were they going to
I can check my email but it did say April 31st of 2025 we've been requesting them every [Music] time with every continuation okay so right now um according to your records
and I would appreciate a copy of that um whatever the applicant had signed agreeing to the extension of time so you're running till April 25th or what did you say April what of 2025 April April 21st of 2025 but okay I'm not
exact on the exact dat but I know it was April 2025 jeie do you have the names of the the peer review they wanted yes PG pgb and what was the other one Howard Stein Hudson for traffic correct yes so we'll require from you
um a check um somewhere between probably 5 to 7,000 I would think at least for you know money we can retain because we have to reach out to them and see if they'll even take
them um so just have a backup name per chance because we've had problems before where people just like we're not going to take it so has the board reached out to either one yet because they've been in the hopper now for over a year I
understand no we have we don't have any money from you so we're not going to do anything until we have money in the in the kitty from you guys no I understand that but typically the board will confirm whether or not the peer reviewers that have been selected are acceptable and we usually have we have
usually have a list but it's not the good old days where people would just take just anything now it's it is tough it's not as easy as it used to be where we'll reach out like I said you going to send a check that means you're actually going forward with it she'll Reach Out confirm if they're still doing what they're doing and they're willing to
take this on and then we can move for forward from there okay so it's my understanding that typically the municipality provides a proposal from those peer reviewers so that the applicant is aware of the anticipated
costs so but you just want a flat check for between five and $7,000 to cover whatever because again we have to know you have to some skin in the game so we're not we're not footing the bill and we're going to reach out to them we put it in a you know we put it in an account
holding for you and we'll reach out and we'll say you know we'll ask them analysis either way if they're not available you're GNA have to pick the next one down the line that you guys feel you could use okay so the board doesn't have a preference one way or another which one
we select you no it's up to you guys we just give you the list of who we have and then you guys get to pick from the list all right sha that being said [Music] um well there's no reason to continue forward because we don't have any paperwork you said you had paperwork but
it was at home I think I have the revised plans that's yeah that's the thing we don't know um I believe I Pi them up from jie yeah I do not have however the letter that the applicant's attorney sent to the board on January
uary 21st of 2025 I'd like a copy of that yeah I I would too unless it's in my email but I don't remember I don't remember seeing seeing that I I mean I think that we're split here though because Mara and I are
willing to go forward you and Bob the problem with the split is we have to have a majority that's it simple majority to approve a comprehensive permit I mean I don't think we have to have I mean a Time fail this isn't like a vote but we're just I'm that's what
I'm saying we we either way you have took a vote it say split but I think Lane's point is if you voted tonight the Deni we would go forward because your motion would fail right that's what I was saying okay thank you we need simp
majority so we have to always assume there's five members on the board and one's basically zeroed out and then we could never make a simple majority well is Kevin on this he is he is but he's not here tonight for this vote okay but we got a but you'd have to do the M on
this too catch up to what's going on not a lot here but not a lot of substance that being said what kind of how far of a timeline out do you guys need need to get everything um we would probably need at
least a few weeks to get the new set of plans um into uh an actual engineering set we've been revising them kind of based on comments at previous meetings um which have been the most recent ones that we provided kind of uh changing
things to kind of better suit the concerns we were seeing uh so we need some time to go for it and actually get it into a proper form for a peer review if the board doesn't mind could we get two minutes of what your revisions are I
just I would like to know yeah because I want to actually see before we before we get something and moves our minds on it I could see something weird there on on there yes um because maybe you you might need to based on what you say tweak it
again uh so what we've done in the most recent revision is the instead of going all the way down um Thomas Street it goes up now near the first building to the uh to Copper Beach directly going that way and can you two things are you
able to bring it up on a map or we gota we gotta be able to show it to the public so you got to show me what you what you're saying on that map I have nothing in front of me so you you speaking I can kind of see it the little side jet but we have the public here that needs to see it um so I need you to
kind of show me what's going on on that on your map as you speak so bring it closer to you or do you have the mic back there please thank you and while while we're waiting is the applicant willing to reduce the amount of
um of units yeah so to be clear all right this the original application is proposed concern the construction of three three-story apartment buildings comprises 162 units of rental housing
the project has been amended all right so instead of three three-story buildings the project now proposes two four story buildings with 18 fewer units than originally contemplated yeah the reduction in the number of buildings
will allow for 120 feet of woods to remain untouched so that'll act as a buffer between the project and the ab butter and the height of the four story buildings will be shorter than the Treetops of the wood very good show your
pictures see uh so previously the uh Road ran all the way down here um up to meet kushman um instead we've cut it now so at the first building it comes up this is a oneway up in this direction uh
it's still a 20ft wide Road and there's a lane blocked off for a fire lane just to make sure there's enough room for a fire truck to access the site um going with this route we um were able to avoid any of the Wetland impacts
on this side um there you're going into an existing Street correct and it wasn't going into that before no well there was no Road there before so it and I'm bad at math 162 minus 18 that that's a lot
of people on that one little road- 14 right you said one 148 so we have the traffic but it's it's only on that one road or does it go out to Maran still it still goes out to Maran as well yes Maran is um both ways so all the traffic
coming into the site would be from Maran drive and then traffic out of the site 60% would be up through copper Beach and 40% is through Maran drive so you know copper Beach is blocked off and it's a dead end Road correct correct and it used to be a holy two-sided Road from
one side of Kingston to the other correct and the town voted the town of Kingston voted to block that road because of a traffic issue that went from one side of Kingston to the other side of Kingston because the mall and the dump is on one side of Kingston and
half if not three quarters of Kingston is on the other side yeah the road here would still have the gate access with key fobs so only residents would be able to access it and delivery drivers um basically anyone with access to the key fobs but
no oh so it would go from so it'd be a gate right here at this entrance and a gate right here at this [Music] entrance okay Gates always keep people out just say
continue um so that um as son said we reduced the building to so that we could have the buffer here um even with the forer building the Treetops here are still higher than the tops of the buildings so
they are blocked off still from the residential view um with that as well all of the daily trips that were coming back through copper Beach have now been routed out this way um since it or rather the um trips that were
uh going to be yep sorry coming back in this way are now going to be all coming in through Maran drive as this is only an exit for residents and it's only two ways for um a fire truck wait so you enter on one and you exit on another you can enter and exit both here this is
only an exit here so not is there there's a gate there and it's also a oneway to prevent traffic from reenter and that side is the entrance of mar and drive through the Dog Daycare Center
um it is there are two lots there um and we'd be requesting an easement through there I mean guys on that property we have a pns agreement for that so you don't have control of the site yet not yet wow we have lack of control
site I mean it's parking for people park there for the uh commuter rail too now yeah that's still private property I know but they pay I mean I'm just saying it's just to me a big big wish another question I have you guys
say that the height of the buildings don't go over the height of the trees we have a variance in town that says can't go higher than 35 feet what is the height of the buildings the proposed buildings um I don't think I have that on here I would have to double check
what right there that goes way up on a hill yeah say four stories of 10 feet roughly would be without Foundation 40t I guess Foundation maybe 40 plus a residential neighborhood of houses that are probably 25 feet
tall you don't have the height you said I don't have a height with me now hi uh can I speak this is Brick Lincoln oh hello yes go ahead hi um so those buildings are actually the same height slightly less you know than the four stories that were just built built over
at the uh the mall Mall's a the mall is a completely different Zone that is a complete you're talking apples and right in bananas those it's two different worlds okay right but I'm just saying it's it's
equivalent height you know for to to what is that number I I don't have it offand no we did those are like 50 plus feet yeah i' I'd say well if it's 50 I'd say probably like 6 62 ft 64 ft uh and
then on the easement that is considered uh sight control so the the purchase and sale agreement um and I've actually paid annual fees on that thing so that that is considered site control and in Mass housing's eyes and it is kind of in
between the Doggy Daycare and uh the parking lot over there kind of splits the property line there she owns both of those properties um so that's it very good continue thank
you um with that um we maintained um a lot of the parking to have a parking ratio of 1.8 um which is more than um what would be required of the site so 1.8 parking spots per unit or how many uh per unit
per unit and how many the units have what one bedrooms two bedrooms um there are um so we have um 130 units with two bedrooms and 14 units with three bedrooms now I'm guessing the both of those buildings have to be
sprinkled um that I believe might be a better question for Rick I think he um has been I'm guessing that's fire code fire code would require them to both be sprinkled since they're basically giant apartment buildings yeah they they are spr fully sprinklered
if you guys were an ever to get water what what size main would you have to bring in through the through the road and is the road to it adequate to size for fire suppressor don't you need to have like a 6 in main to that uh I
believe it's an 8 inch main um and there is the appropriate um sizing on the street and I'm sure two water and then you think you think the streets adequate yeah what they there is a um I believe two pressure lines on this side and then they probably want us to tie in on both
ends to Loop it but uh it should be adequate what's there L you can continue but it seem like you're slow no I'm good I just wanted kind of an overview of what they are proposing I still think that it's way too many units so as our Town Council
suggested that we try and talk with you and come up with some type of resolution to reduce this to a lot less units if I was going to even consider approving
it that was just my comment I agree Mar would a reduction in the number of units um make the project uneconomic uh that would probably the best question for Rick who has looked at those numbers um
we we get that yeah it's all in the Pro fora there um and I will say the density on that project was already less than Mass housing's typical standard for multif family you typically see 20 plus you
know units per up Upland acre you know and that that's far less and we have far more open space than I've done in most of my other developments so that's why we kind of like the site um to begin with and we don't think there are any health
and safety reasons out there although pending peerreview um to uh support a denial of the project well you have a major health and safety one you don't have any water they kind of fit into both categories almost
perfectly um Mara anything else no I mean in in just keeping with Lane's request for an overview of what we could expect to see on the revised plan um as long as that's what we're doing
right now soliciting just a general overview pending uh the actual the receipt of the plans correct Y no I have no more questions very good public you're welcome to speak because we did open
this hearing to listen to it come up speak speak your name your address into the mic please David Kennedy 13 Coppa Beach Drive now I understand these red these are probably the buildings correct correct so there's a building here
that's red currently I believe there's actually no the house is up here I didn't know what this building here was going to be do you know what that little building is because before they were all on this side there was nothing on this side let me ask quick do you know what that building is the amend
building like who's just the community building they might have like a space there for you know community events or that sort of thing in it whose property are you going out to like do you own that um I believe Rick can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we have a pns
agreement for that one too for where the road is so the two houses in between that road you have you have a purchase and sale agreement for the for this one here
okay okay anyone else from the public want to speak before against Doug donda 14 copper Beach Drive um once again I'm concerned about access on the Copper Beach Drive uh with the amount of traffic and with the wetlands
on both sides of kushman um and I don't see how this is going to work in a neighborhood with kids with all this traffic it just looks like you're adding more of the problems to with all the other problems you
have and for just seeing this for the first time in 10 minutes I'm sure I'll have a lot more questions when I have more time to digest it thank you anyone else
good Keith hon number one Coppa Beach Drive I know I took a look at some of the the other plans and there was um elevant number one down at the beginning right near kushman and there was plans to put a a throughway through to the uh easement or the UST that goes to the
school and the other plans that I saw there was a uh going to be another easement coming down here to the uh to the development do you you know anything about that that was that was on one of the plans all right talk to the board please I can ask her do you have any any
IDE who correct use the microphone please you guys both need a mic all right um there is uh here an access currently to the school where there's a walkway um on the old version we were proposing to add a sidewalk here to connect it on this version We propos to add sidewalk to the
street to connect it okay but I I saw one plan that was going to continue this erress the development you know anything about that I don't think we were ever proposing that so I'm I'm not sure what you saw the road is big enough to add a
sidewalk to it yes within the RightWay the road already is 20 feet wide which is sufficient um traffic standards for a two-way Road um and the RightWay is big enough to have a 5 foot sidewalk which is a typical ada8 sidewalk okay the
other question I have what this road right here this erress it's like a one you're saying yes and where what number coer Copper Beach does that go in between 16 and 18 yeah okay so 16 sold you of
for 16 is selling you a piece of their land that would be better for for Rick Mr Lincoln Rick has the information on that thank you anyone else anyone on Zoom wants to speak
[Music] for very good so we need to make a continuing um a date you assume two weeks but you're probably GNA need I guess two weeks for your next presentation after
you've heard the little bit of feedback you got now and then right after that you're going to get hit with all your um your peer review yeah I assume we're probably going to need more than two weeks to get everything prepared um what a month two months um I would
say if we want to go a month and then if we need more time we can uh request so continuance um we have one on the 19th so far right no have two we have two and [Music] two do you want to be the first one in
April when when's the first meeting in April April April 2 is it April 2 or 3rd April 2nd so Wednesday all right April 2nd um Second and 16th to
Wednesday so do we want to make a motion does that seem too soon make a motion I'll leave that up all right and then since we're going to be even farther out we'll probably request another continuation letter because
you're going to be pushing out 45 days out of the 180 days so if you can get to send us another letter continuing with time um who wants to make a motion to continue to April 2 I I'll make a motion to continue this
meeting um for kushman drive to April 2nd Wednesday April second 7 PM all second all in favor I I all right please have the plans here the week prior in
paper not digitized that way we can have it in hand if you have an extra one we'll give it to the public because they're also available to the public too so Mr chair can I just clarify do you want two foot by three foot plans for everyone or do you want 11 by 17 or what
what what exactly what's we don't need the massive ones but I mean I mean 11 by 17 works for me yeah yeah yeah as long as we can get to see down to what you some of the nitty-gritty stuff I don't want to use a monocle to look at those things if you have it electronically too if you could
send it oh it should be sent electronically but I'm just saying for the meeting we should have it in paper and then at least distribute that to yeah electronic for me too we'll do all right thanks um anything else on the
meeting all right motion to Jour a second moot second all in favor I I thank you thank you thank you I just