[Music] Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, August 14, 2025 meeting of the Lakeville Planning Board. It is 6:34 and we're meeting this evening at the Lakeville Police Station at 323 Bedford Street. We do have Lake Cam recording
this evening. Is anyone else recording for the record? Hearing none, we're going to jump right in and take agenda item number five out of order. Uh it's the storm water bylaw review. We do have
with us remotely our interim town planner. Unfortunately, there are some issues going on, so we can't see her, but we can hear her. And she's going to present some of the edits to the storm water management bylaw.
um that she's been working on and just kind of go through those items that that we have in the works right now. So, welcome Michaela. Oh, and just for the record, we do have a we do have a quorum this evening. We're waiting on Jack and Dan to arrive. We have uh David, myself,
and John this evening, as well as our associate planning board member, Donna, and our clerk, Kathy. So, welcome Michaela. Unfortunately, we can't see you. Um, >> I know. I'm so sorry about the technical difficulty and uh hopefully we'll get
that cleared up for any future meetings. Um, but thank you guys for having me and um as Michelle said, I just want to go over some of the storm water management um changes that we um have made to the mile. Um so we're on a little bit of a time crunch. We're going to just kind of
dive in. Um so there's three things that I wanted to kind of go over with the board. Uh the first one being the authority for the storm water management. Um so in the past past edition um we had the select board. So we've taken them off as the authority
and right now we have the um authority mainly with the planning board. Um so if site plan subdivision special permit um then the storm water management application would go in conjunction with those to the planning board. If none of
those are needed, but a conservation commission application is needed, then the storm water management um application would go to conservation. Um and then if there is no other permit that is needed um then they would come before the planning board for a just a
storm water management application just by itself. So the only time it would go to conservation is if planning board is not needed at all and conservation is. Um and then in the bylaw we have it that the planning board right now would still
be the administration as far as like adopting amending um the rules and regulation. You um you guys would oversee the enforcement fees. Um so all of those um authoritative powers would rest with the planning board. So, as you can see, the planning board does hold most of the authority for the bylaw
still. Um, so I was going to, excuse me, I was going to kind of go through all of the changes we had made first and then, um, if we want, we can kind of go back through them if we have time. Um, so for
fee, so there's kind of two options we can go for, um, charging a fee. We could all option one is we could always charge a storm water fee separately. So regardless of any other application that any board is seeing, they would always
have to pay a storm water fee. So you pay your site plan application fee and then you still pay your storm water application fee as well. Um there's pros and cons to to that. Um you know, you're going to get your cost recovery and
you're giving it that clear, you know, application program. Um the con is there's an increased fee for applicants and it can kind of feel like you're duplicating your fees. Number two is that you only charge the storm water fee if it's the only um application or
review needed. So if the application needs site plan, special permit, anything else, they wouldn't pay for an additional storm water fee application. Um again, pros and cons. You're avoiding that doubling charge. It's a little more economically developmentfriendly.
Um the con is obviously you're not getting as much in your fees for application. Um I did speak with Serpent about this. Um their recommendation um was that since most of you know most
1acre projects will require site plan review. They kind of recommended that for right now we don't charge a separate storm water fee when the project is already paying for another one. Um, so you know these fees that we see the oop, I'm sorry about that. The $100 500 those
would only really be if there was no other application needed. Um, so again something that you know we can absolutely discuss. Um, there's merits to to both options. Um, and then the next change that we
made was the process. Um so the process now is the public hearing um within the applicable rules for site plan review or subdivision application. Um the reason being is it will make it if the if the storm water um application is tied to a
site plan review application it just it merges the timelines together whereas um the previous bylaw um that you all had seen um it was within 21 days. So the difference being you would the planning board would have had to
open the hearing for the stormwater management application within 21 days of receipt of it. Um that may not line up with being able to get the site plan review application um to the newspaper notify you know all the things that you need to
do for site plan review. So the thought process was this would kind of give the planning board more time so that you guys could hold the hearing. um jointly with you know both of the application the site plan application and the storm water application. You wouldn't have to
be tied down to oh no we have 21 days to open the storm water management application and then 2 weeks later you're opening the site plan application. Um obviously that happens. People have done special permit or you know site plan and then realized oh wait we need a special permit halfway through
the process. So, it's not impossible to have two different applications for the same project as you all are well aware. Um, but you know, I think having a similar timeline just kind of makes it a little bit easier. Um, and so those were
some of the big notes. Um, I didn't want to rush it, but I know we're under a little bit of a time crunch and I wanted to make sure that the board had more than enough time to ask any questions. Um, so I will kind of hand it back over to the board at this point.
>> All right. Thank you, Michaela. >> Um, hi Dan. Hi Jack. Uh, we just had a couple members show up. Michaela, um, >> hi everyone. >> Hi there. How are you? >> Good. And apologies about the technical difficulties. I swear I'm a person and not a black box.
>> Well, I I wouldn't have known that there was any technical difficulties going on, so we're good to go. Yeah. Um, >> okay. Good. Then I won't say anything anymore. >> Michelle, this is M. I'm sorry, Michaela. This is uh Dan Wilgga with the planning board.
>> Hi, Dan. She's kind of gone over the items that she's worked on, the authority, the fees. She gave us the options um >> uh regarding the fees. I guess that's something that we should, you know, >> talk about >> primarily discuss >> uh what direction to go in for the fees.
>> Yep. And um >> okay, >> in addition to I'll just throw this out. In addition to choosing whether you want option one or two, the actual fee numbers that I have there listed, the 100 500, those um were you know looked at from a lot of various other towns,
but >> the actual numbers also can be amended and changed if the planning board doesn't feel those are in line with what you guys were thinking. >> Okay. So, does anyone have any questions, comments? >> Yeah, I kind of like the Carver
uh approach to it, >> right? >> Where you're not doubling up. >> Yeah, I would I would agree. I Yeah, only when it's its own application because you're already I mean, I guess it's already been wrapped in and and I mean I don't >> Yeah. And I mean, we've been reviewing,
you know, doing the peer review for storm water all along with site plan review. It does and I know also town council has brought it up that you know you can't >> charge more than you know what your >> right your cost is you can't really profit from it so it does make sense to to
>> do it that way I think >> so I think are we all in agreement >> yes >> absolutely >> okay >> it's a good model >> okay um now what about the fees um themselves she uh she did kind of give
us we have a breakdown of all these um what the other towns do. >> Yep. >> Ashland, Brewster, Carver, Dartmouth, Spencer, and Westwood. Um [Music]
>> so, so these fees would be only if it was by itself, right? These are the fees if Yeah. Right. Yeah. So >> yeah, I I >> I kind of agree with the the $100 per acre minimum 300. Uh if you're a larger
project, yeah, you got you got more to to review. So and there's more. Yeah, that was that was kind of the thought process was like a commercial or industrial site is obviously going to have far greater storm water management review >> than for example like a single family
home that you know may trigger storm water review. Um that's probably not going to be an indepth >> um you know multi-day review >> and that's and that's only when the when that's the only only permit. Right.
They're they're trying to get to so >> and that's not going to happen very often. >> No. I Yeah. And I don't know when it would. >> Yeah. I mean, if you're just if if on a uh typical residential lot here, which
is an acre and 3/4, then you know, if you're doing just a little quarter of it, so you're not disturbing very much, then >> you probably fall below below even needing the permit because,
>> right, if it's an acre. >> Yeah. trying I'm trying to think of the items for the single family ADU cuz ADU they're always going have to go through site plan review now. >> So they're always going to get that. So it just be like if they were what if they were adding a driveway or altering their driveway that would trigger the storm water review storm water
management >> only if >> these would be I would more like a modification like especially for like subdivision if you're modifying the subdivision um because obviously if a residential subdivision they would need to come before you for a subdivision application you know form C. But this
would be if if you're modifying the the um subdivision greatly um or like a commercial or industrial site, if you're adding to it or um putting in, you know, larger parking areas, um it may trigger that application.
>> Okay. Yeah. But an an ADU probably doesn't, >> right? >> Because you we're already they're already paying they're already coming for site plan review anyways for new new ADUs. Anyways, um I mean again I'm fine but I I don't know when when they would I'm trying to think
of like an like a recent even like I think in our bylaws with the commercial site they changed their parking for so much they have to come back to site plan review so it be under 1500 ft. So I guess yeah we I think it's not a problem to keep it in. I don't see I don't think we'll see a lot of >> these fees without it. So, >> um, but that's good to keep it in so
that just at least there's >> something there for when it if it when and if it does come, >> right? >> I agree with you. The chances of a single family needing to come for a storm water uh permit and not, >> you know, needing anything else is probably very slim. But, um, even in
Carver, um, because that, you know, obviously that's the example um, option two there, they do still list out, you know, single family and residential. So if for whatever reason it were to happen, it's in place that you would have an application fee. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. No, I agree with that. >> And we're happy with these fee numbers. >> Yeah. I mean, >> so I mean Carver's similar style to our town. You just
>> sizing and everything. So I think um >> the pricing there is is fair. Um I'm trying to think of >> it's not Brain Tree prices and it's not Westwood prices. So it's right in the middle. So um
>> um >> yeah, the only one would be like I guess the the residential subdivision, right? The 500 cuz that you mean so that's >> that what could be two houses. >> Mhm. And you're going to make them I mean you're making a single family pay one but if the subdivision has to be divided against two houses then you're
talking about 250 right. So I understand the multif family we don't really have a lot of those. No. And like >> does it make sense to just leave it as the one to two per disturbed acre with a minimum of three then? Like do we do we need a tier
>> for residential still >> single versus? If you want, we could do like a residential subdivision of or multif family and do, you know, one to five houses and do, you know, 250 for the fee and
then do residential subdivision or multif family. Anything above five is 500 if if that is something >> or even like three, you know what I mean? Like more more than I was just thinking more than two houses, right? So that way if it's, you know, so it's not, you know,
>> two and a half times that, you know, >> so currently I think it's for our application fees. It's 250 per lot, right? >> Or is it >> I thought >> that's for an ANR. >> For an ANR? >> Yeah. >> Mhm. Not sure what
>> I know. I can't remember off the top of my head, but to have something that's maybe in line with that. Oh, >> yeah. Maybe like for Yeah. Multi family 150 per >> So, not to belver this, but what is what
is No, no, no. I'm just What is considered multifamily >> at at this moment? >> Well, that's >> cuz that's it. You know, I I think of you know, >> triple decker. >> I mean, we have very few here. >> 40R and 40B >> you want.
>> Yeah. >> Currently. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But then John's right. We've had we've seen subdivisions where it's two. >> So yeah, could we Yeah. Could we could we do it like residential subdivision? You know, one 100 per house up to 500 max.
>> Sure. >> Do you know what I'm saying? So that you're only if it's only if it's two houses that have to do it, then you're only each house is only >> five00. It's 500 per lot. Oh, okay. So that is in line. >> Okay. All right. That's fine then. >> All right. >> We can leave it. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. So wait. So, we're leaving it at 500 or we're doing the 100 per house, 500 max. >> 500 max, right? >> Yeah, I think that's Yeah, I think I Are you fine with that, Michelle? >> For the residential subdivision,
100 per lot up to a 500 max. >> Um, I mean, I get I I'm tempted to leave it as is because single family is at 100 and then residential subdivision. So I guess that's where to me maybe a subdivision
is different than a multif family >> because a multif family family will tend to be much larger of a project. >> Right. We're not doesn't m if you leave it this way the multif family is already in there. So I was just saying trying to alleviate something for like a a two two house subdivision that's going to have to pay $500 versus
>> right >> in multif family really doesn't apply to us but just now. Um, yeah. I mean, whatever you guys think. >> I think it's it's better. So, >> so yeah, do the >> what John had suggested the 100 up to
500. >> Okay. >> Cuz I think that's a safe really really it's a safe area to be in especially for the size of this town and everything. >> Right. Two and $3 subdivisions I would have to pay. >> Right.
>> Trying to like keep it fair, I guess. >> Yeah. I I would say it's it's fair. Um >> what do you think? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I I agree. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we have the fees tied down. >> We have a consensus there.
>> The choice of Carver. Um has has everybody had a chance to look through the bylaw and and the changes to the >> Yes. >> language. Anybody have? >> Yep. Um I went through it. Um, I think
there was it was more sort of a formality of Yeah, I I can't remember what page it was on. I wrote it down in my book here. Um, other than that, I thought um cuz we've gone through this a few times now. Um, everything else looked good. I can't
remember where it was though. >> Yeah, I didn't I didn't >> And Michaela, all of the changes that you made are in the the bold red underline. Is that correct? Yeah, the track changes. Yeah. Um, so the only the last thing was just
the timeline or the the process, I guess I should say. Um, again, we kind of changed it from it being the planning board has to hear it within 21 days of receipt to now it's um following like the site plan,
>> right? That makes sense to me because >> that's >> Yeah. What's the schedule on site plan review? That's the same 21 days. >> Same 21 days. >> No, >> we changed it at the last town meeting to 30. I don't think it's been approved yet, though. >> Oh, okay. So, it has to change it to 30.
>> Can be tight sometimes. >> What? 30 now? >> It's 30 days. Yeah. >> Okay. >> You know, I would say make it the same. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You know, change the 21 to to >> Well, so if it says concurrent with rather than the 21 days, it would be the
30 days then. Or should we should we explicitly say but if it was a separate one I think you'd want it 30 >> the 30. Okay. So yeah we should say call out the 30 days then. >> Okay. So take out you know um applicable rules for site plan and just
specifically say that the planning board will hold a public hearing within 30 days. >> Yeah. That's what our >> Right. And it still says, you know, for it to work concurrently with other permits, which >> yes, >> ideally >> it'll be at the same time with site plan
review. >> Does that make sense, Kathy? I want you to I want you to weigh in on this, too, because you go >> Yeah. 30 days. If you look at if someone put an application in yesterday, we wouldn't get them until September and beyond 21 days, right? >> Yeah. Absolutely.
>> Yeah. And that was part of the the reason was I the 21D is just that's a little tricky with you know having to >> well we sometimes have >> yeah we sometimes have three weeks in between our meetings depending on how the months go right but sometimes we get a three week well not two weeks so
>> I'm all set on changes the changes were made I was looking at a previous version so we're good >> oh really >> okay >> so we're good >> yeah so and I had sent Michaela a couple changes of my
own. Um, and actually I didn't even check to see if this was a different version or not, but I think it's the same. There was one instance there where I had um left the previous town I had borrowed some of their bylaw language from and I
did change that but >> um I will go through and make sure. >> Okay. And then >> any other communities? >> I think my only there was a couple instances where it just said planning board or board. And I think just to keep it consistent, keep it as planning board
or or its agent because ideally we're going to use peer review for this. >> And >> yeah, >> hopefully we'll have a full-time planner to take on the bulk of >> uh the work as well. >> Stay consistent. >> Yep. Um, okay. And then,
um, let me just see. >> Um, I know the Kathy, I want to make sure that I get from you, um, regarding the application. Um, I didn't list out on the application all
of the, um, supporting documentation that would need to be included. It spells it out in the bylaw. um the you know the storm water management um you know the actual document and feeds and any other variances that are
going with the property that's in the bylaw but I can include that in the actual application if that seems like that would be easier. >> Yeah. So, I'm wondering if the board should change their site plan
application to have a storm water management permit application required to be submitted at the same time. >> That makes sense, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, that everything will come in together, >> one packet. And so then I was talking to
Michaela about this earlier regarding like a decision and it's it really makes sense to have it as a site plan review and uh storm water condition and decision as well because it just seems like there's
so much overlap. might as well just make it a new because if it's required for every >> Yeah. Maybe just like certain conditions that would go with that like kind of have it broken down but within the same >> Right. Exactly.
If the board thinks so I mean that sounds good if we have a combined application. >> Mhm. >> Then a combined condition decision. >> Yep. >> Okay. That's good because actually that'll cut down. I'm glad I'm glad you said that. That makes >> definitely cut down on the back and forth.
>> Yeah, cut down on that. >> Will it be a combined application or will it be like a requirement of the site plan review >> requirement of the site plan review? >> All right. Because every time site plan review happens, it'll trigger >> right the storm water management. But then if they're storm water management
storm water management permit if if applicable, right? >> Yeah, that's what I mean. Yeah. Yes. >> So, should we still have a site a a storm water >> management application just for those standalone? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll use >> Yeah. >> just for the standalone versus
>> Yeah, I think that would >> site plan review. So, then you'll have two different forms, but mainly you'll just use that site plan review with the storm water. >> But the required uh list of items should still be in this one, >> right? Yeah, I think so because that'll stay consistent with what we've done
with the other applications. Yeah. >> And the required documents are still within the storm water bylaw. So even if they're not filling out the application, you they would still have to reference the storm water bylaw and it and it goes through what is required for that application, >> right? And that's what we did with the
other forms. We basically just took it out of the bylaw, put it into the form. So it was right in front of them. So they, you know, no excuse for missing >> an item. So >> all right. >> So we have application fees.
>> Fees >> y >> language. Uh there was just the one the only question that I still had was in regards to um enforcement, you know, um how that's going to play out because, you know, if
we don't have a plan, what is that process going to look like? So I think that's my last >> mean that doesn't that doesn't fall into building commissioner then. >> So he's already in charge of the non
storm storm water discharge and obviously enforcement of a number of other things. So that's where I don't know what the recommended you know procedure for that would be. >> Yeah. And that was that was a kind of a
question that I had. um with one of the other job through the decision when I was coming up with the conditions um you know applicant will submit the complete operation and maintenance plan. Um right now I have it going to the town planner.
Um, and I if you want I can stop sharing and I can try and bring up the decision, but I know we are under a tight time crunch, so maybe best not to fumble around, but um, do we want it to go to the town plan or does it make more sense to go to more like a DPW to the town
engineer? Um, >> what to go to them? >> That's why I was saying the building commissioner cuz he's already >> their storm water. Oh, so they typically submit it for site plan review with their site plan. So I think that should still stay the way that it is.
>> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Um Yeah. So I think it's just it's enforcement I think for me is the last >> item at this point now. >> Yeah. >> Um >> is that something we should revisit again? >> So I think I think I'd like to see a
clean draft of everything. >> Send it over to town council. ask her that question >> and then hopefully we can have something else, you know, get something back from her and >> put it on our next meeting. >> Yep. Y
>> yeah. Does that work for you, Michaela? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Great. Well, thank you so much for joining us this evening. >> No, thank you for having me >> and >> nice meeting you on the phone. >> Nice meeting you. Nice to meet you all and um hopefully we'll get it figured
out for next time and um but yeah, in the meantime, if you guys have any questions about anything, please feel free to email me or let me know. But otherwise, have a wonderful rest of your meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Take care. >> All right, moving on. We have agenda
item number one, a public hearing for site plan review, 28 Precinct Street, continued to this evening upon the application for site plan review and approval submitted by Andrew Sukforth on behalf of the town of Lakeville for the construction of a 17,040 square foot 6 bay fire station with access from
Bedford Street. It will include on-site parking, storm water management system, utility connections, title 5 system, and appertain slate features. Possible vote. So, welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening members of the Lakeville planning board. Once again, my
name is Spencer Linds with Corporation. Uh with me is uh people Brian closed tonight. I apologize. >> So uh want to just take this first few moments uh to uh just sort of highlight
what work has been done since the last meeting. Uh no plan revisions have been made, but uh it was clear after the last meeting that there was a few lingering comments that could probably use some uh a greater burden of proof uh a little bit more evidence uh to support the
claims that were made and to have Chief O'Brien's presence here to just clarify some of these things because he is the foregoing expert here on fire departments. So we're thankful that he's here. So, uh, one of the big, uh, sticking points last meeting was turning
movements and grading and how they interact on site, especially at the front of the site with access for the fire apparatus. So, I just wanted to highlight this um, really quickly. So, I've provided two different uh, diagrams to the board here that show the turning
movements uh, for an oversized apparatus. This is a larger apparatus than what is used in the town of Reiko. want to be very >> I can't see >> I don't know how to best >> Is this better? >> Thank you.
>> Sorry. So sorry. So, uh what was previously done last time? I'll just go over it quickly again. Uh we did some turning movements. We had a lot of questions from the planning board based on turning movements. And so what we've done is taken a conservative fire apparatus and we've modeled the fire
apparatus's ability to pull into the site from both the northbound and southbound directions, pull onto the site, turn around safely, and be able to back in. Uh so we've clearly shown that on these diagrams. You can see that the
fire apparatus is able to pull in, pull sort of uh diagonally across the apron and across the uh access drive and back into the bay. This center bay I believe chief is the uh where the large apparatus will be housed. So
>> uh uh yeah, >> are you able to hear this? >> The really reason why I came here now that we're on the uh I think >> you have >> Yes, sir. >> You have to come up and do this. You're going to have to come up and state your name for the record.
>> Sorry, I know everyone else can hear, but no trouble. >> It's okay. >> I just uh don't know. The last time I was at a town meeting, it was a while ago. We voted on a fire truck. >> Mhm. >> And the fire truck was too big for the
fire house. >> It's not too big. It's just tight. >> And sir, can you state your name for the record? >> George Robinson. George Bedford Street. Thank you. >> Uh, so how did you describe the truck that you
used in there? >> How did I describe >> to to turn a uh conservative fire truck or something? >> Yes, we So what I did is I have the the parameters dimensions of the fire trucks that are used in the town of Lakeville.
>> So you should be using the parameters of the biggest truck that you have. Correct. Is that the truck? >> I used a bigger truck. Bigger truck. Okay. >> Yep. All right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's the new one, right? >> So the what's required is is that the
turning radius is the clearances the access has to be meet the the most restricted vehicle which would be our ladder truck. What Spencer is communicating is that he exceeded the the specifications of that ladder truck. He he and that that provides some flexibility down the road.
>> Correct. So the so the model done here, the turning movements that I modeled here are a much larger vehicle. I wouldn't say much larger, a larger vehicle than what is currently used as the largest vehicle in the town of Lakeville. So it provides essentially a factor of safety, a level of
conservative design work that we try to bake into the design itself. >> And that that add lends credibility to the project. There's there's people in this audience right now who have provided the specifications to our vehicles and the people in this audience have complied with their with the engineering of their site plans based on the information that I've given them.
Spencer has actually exceeded those restrictions and and and and done something even more restrictive. >> Okay. I I just got confused because the way you stated it sound like you coming up with a conservative size truck when the issue should be biggest thing that
uh >> he was aggressive. We have I should rephrase that as an overdesign. >> Awesome. >> Yeah, he was very aggressive. >> Bigger is better. >> Yeah, a bit of an overdesign. Really? >> Yeah. And I appreciate the fact that you did that. >> Yeah. So, so we modeled that, right? And
and it's really a two-fold problem, right? Because it's one thing for the vehicle to access it in 2D, right? we were able to make the turning movements, but the other thing that sort of gets implicated is the grading onto the site, the firetruck's ability to go up the
ramp or up the approach apron onto the concrete apron and actually into the station. And so there was a lot of questions about the grading uh in the last meeting and so I want to further clarify that as well. So from Bedford Street, Bedford Street exists at about
elevation 87 and up from 87, the station exists at elevation 90.5. So we're going up 3 and 1/2 ft in about 100 ft, a little less than that, but essentially what I need to provide as an engineer
first of all is a flat a relatively flat approach into the station across the apron. So the apron is graded out at roughly 2%. And so what that means is out of the station there's a 6 ft drop
over 30 ft which is 2%. And so this gives the fire apparatus an immediate flat access point entry point into the station. Uh cold weather, icy weather, wet weather, any weather, this gives you flat access immediately into the
station. And so from there, the the problem then becomes how do we get up from the road to the apron, right? Because we only dropped 6 ft and 30 ft. We have another maybe 70 ft to go before we get back down to the roadway. And so what we did was I ran an analysis of how
far back I could put the fire station from the roadway in order to provide a 5% pitch up from the roadway to the front of the apron. So, if this makes sense, you have the crown of the roadway and then you have 5% up into the approach apron, 2% across the approach
apron into the fire station, right? And so, what is the significance of 5%. Well, 5% is what ADA accessibility is for reference. So, what you would expect a wheelchair to be able to access into a building in any condition in this is the uh grading that's provided for fire
apparatus, right? So, this is what we view as a very conservative design, but there's even more that goes into it, right? Because when you're a fire apparatus and you're extremely long and you're going up at 5%, the front of your firetruck is going to be higher than the back of your fire truck. And so then you
have to think about the bottoming out of the fire truck pulling in from Bedford Street. And so what we did was we saw how tall the fire truck actually sits off of the roadway. And we ran an analysis saying that, okay, if I'm a firet truck and I'm pitching at 5% and
I'm angled at 5%. And my roadway was sitting down here, we'll call it elevation 87, right? My fire truck is going to drop 1 ft over 20 ft and have that much less clearance to clear the roadway at Bedford Street. And so the
fire apparatus sit more than 50 or sit more than a foot off the roadway, right? And so that means a further analysis was done to make sure the firetruck wasn't actually bottoming out at Bedford Street or bottoming out at the uh approach apron branch. So that was just another
one of the thoughts that came into it. Another one of the thoughts that we worked out with MEP was the fire truck is now sitting a foot higher at the front of it and needing to end and needing to have that extra foot of clearance into the actual garage bay itself, which is something we also coordinated with. So, I just want to
just paint the picture of how fundamentally we thought about this grading, how conservatively we designed this grading and how much thought was put into the placement of the station far back from the roadway, the grading up to the station, the pitch of the apron, the pitch of the um, you know, approach pavement, uh, the elevation of
Bedford Street, the elevation of the station, balancing cut and fill, making sure we weren't spending too much money on earth work. All of these things were balanced uh, to to come up with this this design. We spent a year and a half with the fire station committee perfecting this location coordinating
this with the fire department making sure not just the fire department but everybody who's driving this apparatus were able to provide input and tell us you know what they thought about the design what they thought about access what they thought about the ability to maneuver the site and so we provided
grading as such. Now, I spent a lot of uh time uh you know talking about the grading up into the station from Bedford Street. The grading out back behind the station is a lot more simple. You basically just have access of the fire apparatus around the back here. It is
relatively flat and basically pitched in the center towards catch basins to the north and south and then you get some overland flow making its way directly into the basin. We have gone through extensive peer review for not just the storm water on site but for the grading
on site for all of the catchments on site for our implications with erosion controls for our implications with uh any possible pollutants that would leave the site. We're in an outstanding resource water district. We are in um we're in uh you know just a very
protected natural resource. We have gone through all of the peerreview requirements put forth in front of us from the conservation commission. This has gone through NHSP review. This has gone through mass DOT review now. And so that's what I want to get into next. Mass DOT review. We've received Sorry,
can I interrupt too much? Yeah. So I'm hyper hyper uh paranoid that anything will go wrong with this project. I've lobbyed for it so hard >> that that I know that I'll own something like a design flaw, things like that.
>> I, you know, I I have to thank the planning board for their scrutiny because between the last meeting and this meeting, my understanding of all this work that he's done and all these engineers and all the peer review and independent parties and all this work, I never really had my head around it. I just sat there nervous about the
outcome. I sat there like like I hope I don't screw this up. Lel deserves a station. It's got to be right. So when you guys you guys did what you did like the end result is now now I'm comfortable like I I was very uncomfortable because I just didn't I didn't have like all this work was done
and I I really didn't consume it properly. I didn't have my understanding wasn't where it should be and so it's difficult for me to sit before you and be confident and but now I'm confident now I feel that you know I'm like holy cow a lot's gone into this. Um, and and I I appreciate I just wanted to
interrupt and say that I appreciate all the all the time you guys have taken in the in the past few weeks to to bring my my comfort level up because you know I am a customer. These are customers in the room and we want it to be right. >> Y it's more of an operational uh question than than anything else. But
>> isn't the idea uh with the doors on both sides that you'd pull the trucks around and enter from the back? Yeah, it's but it's it's also nice to know that you have the the engineering to to to just stay in the front of the hatch, but preferably that the trucks are going to
swing through and make the wide sweeps. That's that's less wear and tear on the pavement, less wear and tear on the trucks. It's just a it's an easier movement. Um we're not typically in a rush coming back to the station, >> right? Right. >> So, yeah, but it's it's good to have that option, you know, 20 years down the road, 30 years down the road, we're
making repar repairs to to pavement or, you know, there's something going on on, you know, that our our access to the to the camp is is blocked. Now, we know that that we've engineered a solution in the front. We can we >> I I just kind of mostly wanted to make it clear that that really the the way
this thing will operate is is by >> entering from the back and and pulling straight through. That's that's the purpose. That's the purpose of of the design being set up the way it is. >> Yeah. My initial concern for the the grading was not coming back to the station. It was leaving the station in
the icy conditions and and that that piece of equipment coming down >> onto Bedford Street. That was my more >> that was that was my only concern with that. >> And and I get it. And and and they put, you know, 5% between for all that stretch is it's >> Yeah.
>> Three and a half, right? Yeah. I mean that's ADA accessibility requirements. You know we're talking about you know this is a very standard grade provided for human access generally across the world. This is this is a very common design standard. >> We do uh EVOC training which is like uh
>> it's basically an NFPA certification to operate emergency vehicles. >> So the the guys are trained to deal with snowy conditions and things like that. And what he's successfully made me comfortable with was the fact that I can back into that station without the rear
end of the truck kicking up. And that's that's that's what I was nervous about. And now I'm not nervous anymore. >> So, um, there was a lot of discourse. Oh, I'm sorry. >> No. No, you're good. >> Yeah, I'm good. I'm good. I I just wanted to >> No, your understanding is correct.
>> Yeah. So there was a lot of discourse uh last meeting about a lot of the mass DOT writeaway stuff. Um thankfully uh very soon after the meeting we did receive our first round of mass DOT comments. Uh we have not officially responded to those yet. We need to basically take
some time to make sure we're providing the best response. But uh sort of the meat and potatoes of this uh planning board's sort of uh comments as they relate to mass DOT scope items was one signage and two you know is it safe? right? Is it safe for a fire apparatus
to pull out of this fire station? So, what we've done since then to also um you know go through our own scope and our own commitments with Mass Dot was conduct an actual traffic study out here in the last couple weeks. So, this was done last week. Um we had folks from Park Corporation out here looking at the
speed of vehicles coming down Bedford Street, the actual site distance that we had to see those vehicles coming down Bedford Street. We took a look at um you know traffic data. We took a look at uh speed data. We took a look at uh accident data that had occurred across
Bedford Street over the last five years. So dating back all the way to 2020. So uh basically like a month or two precoid and then you know as we sort of came out of CO and traffic sort of recovered. So we have a really good data set here. And so ultimately the the finding that we
sort of um you know concurred with our initial assessment of not meeting a a uh an emergency beacon was that we found that we far exceed the limits or the the minimum expectations for what sight distance should be under ASHTO requirements. And so basically the way
this was calculated is we took a look at speed. We took a look at crash data and we took a look at how much sight distance we actually have and what speed cars are actually driving on Bedford Street versus what speed they are supposed to be driving, right? We know this is a long straight drag and it's
easy to go fast. And so we took a look at that data, right? And we said based on this data, based on the speeds that we're seeing, based on the data that we're seeing, what do we expect to be a reasonable spike reasonable sight distance, right? You have your time to react. You have your time to actually sort of perceive the danger. you have
your time to actually stop uh with your vehicle. And so that was determined to be, I believe, 480 ft coming from the south and 555 ft coming from the north. And so what we found in our own sight distance analysis was that we have greater than 800 ft of stopping sight
distance. So this far exceeds the minimums required of us to to actually have a fire apparatus pull safely out into Bedford Street. And so we did make two recommendation two recommendations and two things that'll end up on the plans that go to mascot uh based off of
this uh report. One of them is to do just basically what we would call vista pruning to clear back the outer sort of limbs and branches that may further distract from sight distance. This is one thing that I mentioned in last meeting. This is one thing that will
very much end up on the plans now as a result of the mast's comments. And so we're going to trim back these branches to make sure we have the best sight distance possible. And then in addition, one of the things that was brought up was signage. We will have signage on either side of the station that
basically cautions drivers to, you know, the approaching fire station that they're going to see, right? And so I don't know the exact numbers for what was provided in uh the report in terms of where those signs will sit on uh the rightway. And that'll likely be more of
a mass DOP conversation that we have in order to determine the best possible location for the signs. But those signs will be provided per ASHTTO design requirements. And so we'll have that additional layer of protection, layer of visibility, layer of safety going into
the approach, the exiting uh you know sort of from the fire station. And Chief Brian, I don't know if you want to just mention uh the protocols that um your folks have when they're pulling out of the station, especially given your existing conditions. >> Uh in my in my experience throughout my
career, uh my previous fire station had traffic light. It created more accidents than it prevented. >> Uh people aren't used to stopping at a a traffic light in front of a fire station. So, uh when it's tripped, they run the light uh or one person stops, the other people don't, and they crash.
It happens. It happens. We ended up disabling the light because it was so such a problem. >> Um, and because of that, we the problems there, we were stopping at the end of the ramp looking up and down the road. So, we didn't alter alter the way we did business. And if we had a light out
here, um, it would be the same thing. People wouldn't stop at it because they're not used to stopping at it. It's it's only one that it only cycle eight times a day versus how many times does the light cycle down at the the intersection over there. Um, so it's kind of gratifying to see that they they found they came to the same conclusion
as as my observations telling me that the light would create more problems than it would prevent. >> I hope that makes sense. >> Yep. >> So, >> can I ask you a question? >> Just a just a moment, please. I'm sorry. >> Just let the board. >> We're just going to have the and then
we'll do a public comment. Um so regarding the traffic study, thank you very much um for putting the effort into doing this because you know this does help. Um but I do have some questions with regards to how this traffic study
was done with regards to uh the speech. So what time on Friday morning was this done? Uh >> because it was done on the in the morning because I saw the traffic study done probably around 10 or 10:30 in the
morning on Friday driving through town and I said, "Oh, they're doing the traffic study." >> But why aren't they doing the traffic study during heavy volume >> and and again this isn't for it's for the safety of the speed limit and it's
more mass DT than anything. So, so >> that's what my concern is because these folks I I want to make sure that they're safe more than anything. >> Understood. Absolutely. So, um it's not necessarily just based on the data. There is a factor of safety that you
apply to this and there's a calculation through ASHTO that I believe they mentioned in the report that gets applied to the observations. Right? So obviously if you don't do it in the absolute perfect moment where the most cars are speeding the most, you won't get the best peak data set. So you apply
a safety factor from the data that you observe in order to assume a more conservative sight distance, right? And so that's why you see not they they recommend the minimum of 425 ft, but we calculate a minimum from southbound where you're slower starting out at 480
ft. And then when you're really speeding up, you know, instead of the minimum 425 ft, we calculate 555 ft. Right. >> Cuz my concern is, sorry to interrupt, but my concern is more so not going from uh south to north. It's mostly
>> Yes. from the south coming down and and that hill. I mean, it's it's just a grade, but >> people come very fast into town. >> Understood. And so, yeah, that's that's sort of what I'm I'm I'm I'm uh trying to highlight is that it's not just based on your observation. It's based on some
safety factor being applied to what you're observing so that you can assume for the, you know, worst case scenario, terrible driver, not paying attention type of sight distance, right? So you can see that the minimum recommended site distance is 425 and that's prior to
any calculation sort of being made right and so that's why we made the calculation based on a safety factor based on what we observed as well to assume a very conservative site distance okay which is why we came up with 555 ft and then we have more than that we have
far more than that far more than is calculable which is why we don't specify an exact number because we have we know we have more than 800 ft we don't know how much more it is but 800 far exceeds is what would be required. >> Okay. And the the other quick thing is
uh the crash data summary that actually was very surprising looking at that. I actually thought there would be a lot more. So I >> also surprised as well. >> Um so that was very helpful and you know the way that it is currently set up right now um with the traffic study and
your explanation does satisfy um my concerns. So thank you. >> Great. Thank you. I mean, I would think that the current location of the fire station in relation to the road, the curves, because when those people are up and around that curve, they don't know
that a brand new firetruck is pulling out. >> And so, I think this location is better. >> Oh, yeah. >> Far more. >> Yeah. Safety wise, that scary. >> I can't tell you how many near misses we've had down there. There's no signage and it's a blind curve. And you you've all gone to the town hall and pulled out
the normal one. We're actually pulling off closer to that line. We're actually in a in a more preparious spot. >> Yeah, that's what you, the chief and I talked about when I was down there. I think this location is better. This is v virtually a straight road compared to down there. And some of these guys are
whipping right down there and they do they do a broad front side that truck any truck. >> Absolutely. Me um George Robinson again. >> Hold on one second. John, did you have any >> Oh, I was just gonna say I I feel like doing I feel like people are going
faster when it's not rush hour. I feel like there's more volume on rush hour. People actually have being paced by going slower, but I think it's I think it's the the midday and the like the now time where people are flying more and I'm surprised you didn't you know I mean the you get more we are next to the police station so people are kind of >> slowing their approaches. So
>> do you feel like you're >> No, I feel I'm I'm fine with it. >> We didn't factor the police station. >> Yeah. But I didn't you would think right the police station the sign people anyways on >> it's not local anymore. >> Yeah I in in in your in your
communications with MSDOT though. Uh I I think maybe some consideration actually should be given to taking our 40 mph sign which is down here in front of the cemetery and moving it
>> north of the fire station. I think that would be that would that would be something that would be >> worthwhile to see and it's just a >> starting by the fuel >> could argue against that. No. >> Yeah. Understood. Yes. >> So if there's some some way that you can pass that on to Mass.
>> Absolutely. >> That would be that's think that's something we're going to advocate for. >> I would love to highlight that for a second because one thing that we do with Mass Dot whenever we're replying to their comments and you do this with a peer reviewer as well. Do you have a pre-application meeting to make sure that hey, here's all my comments. You
know, do am I answering this to your satisfaction? Am I am I providing the enough design standard necessary to your satisfaction to answer these comments? And so that's where we'll have the opportunity to have a discourse with Mass DOT and see if that is a viable
option to move the speed limit signs up. Um and and that's a conversation that chief will be a part of and that's you know entirely in mass DOT's jurisdiction but >> I know it's completely under theirs but if there's somewhere along the way that somebody says >> you know hey this is a this is a simple
sort of thing >> to do. >> Unfortunately Mass operates at more of a snail's pace. So that discourse hasn't happened yet but it is going to happen. >> Did you say you're going to put up signs alerting the folks that there's a new fire station in the exit entrances? >> Correct.
And part of our discourse with uh Mass D will be assessing what the best location away from the fire station will be for those signs. >> Good. >> Okay. And then just to note um because actually one of my concerns had been about the meeting room and the parking
and there was a gate there. And so Kathy actually shared with me that um >> there is no gate. I goofed. >> Well well she also shared that that's okay. I'm glad that's the case. But even if even if it became necessary to add a gate because we have, you know,
>> the soccer fields. >> Yeah. Players, parents, overflow, parking in there. >> Um, it makes more sense now that she shared with me that it's not intended to be a public meeting space. It's more for >> you may need to add a slide. I I guess
the clarification I would make is this is where town meetings are held. This is where they continue to get held. I'm sure there will be a a meeting where the public are invited to the fire station many multiple times and I'll let Chief O'Brien speak to that. But it's not that it's not that there won't be public
meetings over there. It's not that you know planning board's not going to move over to the station. >> So one of the things that we don't want to do is restrict access to the to the parking lot for call back reasons. We don't want to we can't restrict you know if we have a fire all of a sudden everybody's running back to the station. The back lots designed in a way that it
provides shelter for our that back ramp is almost a training area. So the the flow of traffic, they've designed it in a way that's going to protect our firefighters who are out there training. It keeps the it keeps the traffic away from them while they're pulling lines and and doing things. So it's it's
really a smart design. Um and what we do know is we know what our our folks drive and we know who belongs there. And so we know when there's a public meeting, if there's a public meeting there, um that there's going to be cars that we don't recognize. But on a Sunday morning when the soccer game's going on, uh and it
says, you know, guests or guests of the fire station, authorized vehicles only and something like that, um we know who doesn't belong there and that's something that can be addressed on, you know, addressed. >> I think that's the biggest concern is any overflow any big events here. They all go in the park.
>> Yeah. There's no perfect solution because the paramount 90% of the time it's it's beneficial to the town to public safety to have the lot unimpeded. Nothing to slow down, nothing to mate because these guys as soon as they're out of their vehicle, they're going in the the trucks. That's how we operate. We have three or four people on duty and
we need 17 in the fire. So, most of them are coming from home. And so, we want an unimpeded uh access to the parking lot, jump out of their vehicles, run to the trucks, and off they go. Right. And I, you know, a malfunctioning gate or a power loss or something like that is something I I I think it would be more
detrimental to than dealing with some some soccer parents that are partnering. I can I can address that, you know, and and during the rest of the week and all the time that, you know, we're going to have plenty of spaces for for meetings to be held. We're going to have plenty of spaces for our firefighters to to park. Um we're going to have plenty of
spaces for all that. And if we have a problem with with people overflowing in the lot, we'll address it and we'll have signage. >> Yeah. to discourage it >> fire department employees only and visitors, >> but it's serving the greater good. There's no perfect solution. The the location serves the town because it's
central >> and uh it it suits the needs response time wise >> and but it's a detriment because we're so close to recreational thing where there's lots of traffic, but it's a it's only during limited times that that happens and we can deal with it. We we'll figure out a way to deal with it.
>> But we're trying to serve the greater good, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. >> I hear you. All right. So, >> actually, you're in a better uh >> public comment >> zone. You're you're in a a much better zone right now because uh I was here before the train station
right on Route 18. >> And the real traffic jams happened on Route 79 and Route 105. And this little section of 18 actually doesn't experience the traffic, the train traffic that everybody else
experiences >> uh on Main Street and uh Route 179. >> There's just there's a whole laundry list of reasons why this is a better site and I I think a lot of it's common sense and I don't really but but just like you said that we're busier up north. where where the traffic, you
know, where it's just such a better better location to serve the town and and and uh and it's just served the greater good for public safety. It's um I'm pretty excited about it. >> So, does that replace the old fire station or >> do we have to? >> Uh no, we're not going have to. I I
don't think we want to pay for >> and and there's I believe there's currently a building >> there is >> um reuse uh >> committee or something. >> Yeah. Yeah. They met for the first time, I guess, >> recently. And did anyone else do you have more question? Any more questions?
Sir, did you have a question? >> No. >> No. Okay. >> You're the police chief of Meritus. Is that right? >> So, you're the police chief of Meritus. You're the I'm being funny. >> All right. So, anyways, Kathy and I
looked through a standard set of conditions. We basically, I think, cut down about half of them. um >> like the one that this one with the markup. >> Yes. Yeah. Mine just looks different cuz prior to the um edits. So I don't know
if we want to go through these one by one. >> Um Yep. >> Okay. So we were basically getting rid of I don't know if >> Oh yeah. >> Is it is it going to look any different than you >> see what's crossed out? >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So we got rid of two
and three and five. And uh six is staying. Seven is staying >> 8 8 9 10. >> So eight I had we had questions because
um as far as like review like should we do an asbuilt review just to make sure everything's built by the uh contractor to the specifications shown on the plan. >> Asbuilts are already mandated within our specs and within the plans. very very heavily.
>> Okay. So, you do plan on doing with the >> the contractor will have to do it. >> Okay. So, they'll submit it to you and you'll do it. >> Yeah. They I mean they will provide us and the owner the >> everything just stepping away from the project and being aj >> like I require as built as well for fire
alarm systems, fire protections. It's part of it's standard for all the projects. >> Yeah. This is Yeah. Very standard for projects of ours. We do a lot of fire stations. Very standard for station. If your engineer is doing these reviews, I don't know if um number eight is necessary then
cuz these are milestones that we would send peer review out to to make sure that the construction is going >> but these but these condition even if they told us we don't have to do anything about it just notifying us that they're doing this. >> Yeah. You know, the the other thing you
have to realize that's different from >> most of our projects >> is that this project goes out to bid. >> Mhm. >> And >> and it is out to bid currently. Yeah. >> Is it out to bid now? >> It is out to bid. Agenda window closes tomorrow.
>> Okay. So, uh, having a little bit better control, you know, or a little little more control over that contractor who's >> working to a to a low bid.
>> Okay. So, we're just asking for notification prior to these items then. Okay. So, we're good with eight. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, 9 and 10 are staying in. 11, 12, 13 are all coming out. Um, then the standard ones regarding the
SWIP and I saw that was also in conservations conditions. Um, the elicit discharge statement that's also in conservations conditions because they did the storm water. >> Yeah, the elicit discharge statement was provided as part of this application. >> Okay. Um, uh, number 16 goes away.
Uh 17. I know you're not showing any signs, but just a standard condition. All signs shall comply with the Lakefield sign bylaw. Of course, you as emergency services, you do have a certain exception to >> Yeah, there's going to Yeah, there's going to be a construction sign. >> I'm not looking to upset anybody over.
Holy moly. >> I'm like 18 though. >> Yeah. So, we're leaving in Oh, I know. 18. We're going to make sure the fire department access requirements shall be met. >> That's great. That's how you cheat. >> Yes. Uh we'll leave in 19
20 um so 21. Did we delete? >> Oh yeah. 22 is deleted. 23. I just saw that there was something.
>> I didn't know if there was another one. >> Delete 22. 2 20. And then make a new 23. Well, yeah. Loading. >> So, this was a suggestion because that was I don't know. >> Loading drugs. >> Yeah, but that was when we thought there was a loading
private law, right? >> I haven't I haven't seen it. >> It's okay. It's okay. I'll ask if I don't understand. >> So, really, so what we're going to do, we'll we'll cut this down, send it to town council, and just ask her if this is good for a town project because this is something new we haven't done. Okay.
Um, and then you'll just get a copy of the conditions. >> Do we want to take out 23 like not put it in? >> I don't think we need it. >> I don't think I as long as it's understood already cuz this is >> Mhm. You don't have a loading job for like food and stuff uniform >> and and and like you said the the
concern was if there was a gate. >> Yeah. It wasn't the we had original concern was that if you had a big meeting room and they would have a town meeting, but it was a private >> confined parking lot, there's not enough public, there's not enough parking the amount of people that could be in the room. But if the lot's open and it's
just restricted, but it's open for when when you have to use it, I don't think we need to have that note in there. >> Right. Okay. Yeah. So, we don't I don't think we need 23, Kathy. >> Um put more of a hindrance on the on the building. >> And then we're leaving 24 25 26. Oh,
>> 27. Um, which is kind of >> even that's a little redundant, but can't hurt to leave it in, I guess. Um, since the owner is the town. >> Yep. >> Um, 28 we're getting rid of.
29 and 30 stay. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we'll cut that down, send it over to Amy, have her review it, get back to us, and then we should be able to close it out. Should I back flip our cartwheel? >> If you can, I want to see that.
>> I think we should. >> So, we'll leave it open though, just in case there is because if we close the public hearing, you're not supposed to have a chance to respond any longer. So, we can leave it open, get that draft, we'll get it over to you, >> and the next meeting will literally just
be closing the hearing, approving the conditions along with the site plan. >> That should be it. I got one question or comment. Anything that we've done here uh so far and and particularly in these conditions
are in compliance with your bidding documents that are out. >> Absolutely. Yeah. No, absolutely. Our our uh specs go far and beyond the conditions that you could come up with right now. We have a very vetted
>> say that they're going to say I didn't. I'm not I'm not welcoming a challenge, but we have we we've done uh dozens of fire stations at this point and have sort of vetted out our specs for drainage utilities, water utilities, sewer utilities, excavation support,
excavation, site preparation, road controls, all these things because we get feedback from contractors who request change orders all the time or who find problems in plans and we basically create an ironclad set of specs that are already out to bid, already in the hands of contractors.
These are supposed to protect the town. They're supposed to protect us. They're supposed to protect everybody involved with the project to make sure that this gets carried out per the design. So, the standard conditions are great. They are perfect for what the planning board needs them for. We put out a set of specs that go far beyond uh a lot of
those. >> Okay. So, >> yeah. No, I would I would expect that. I mean, the the the one that that I see that gets tripped up uh often is is the uh the road cleaning getting done periodically because yeah,
>> often times it isn't. >> That's in our operation and maintenance manual that was approved by the conservation commission street sweeping scope. >> The practices in in town is that uh Franklin's crew comes out pretty frequently to the town hall, too. Not frequently, but >> yeah. But see that's that's that's within
>> town operations and you know contractor >> okay >> is isible for that and we're and we're making the project responsible for it but I want to make sure that yeah >> he knows that >> it's in there. >> I don't know what the specific spec section is but the contractor is
required for all modes of erosion control and dust control on site at all times. So you know watering the site you know all these things. I'm sorry. I don't want to interrupt you, but we got to we got to move this along. >> Moving on. >> So, the thing is
>> we >> we can continue this to September 11th and hopefully close it out then because we're we're foregoing our second meeting in August. >> Going to be here September 11th. >> Oh, yeah. >> You It should be okay. >> Like I said, we're just closing it out
and >> we'll let you know if there's any questions or issues beforehand. The other thing that Kathy suggested is if we have to because of a time frame, we could potentially do a Zoom meeting. >> Absolutely. >> Um maybe on September 4th, which is the
first Thursday >> if necessary. >> Whatever you guys need. >> Do you prefer a Zoom meeting to get it done on the 4th or >> if it's not too much of a burden on you guys? That'd be great. >> Okay. So, so let's Someone want to make a motion to continue to 94? >> I'll make a motion to continue 28
Precinct Street to uh September 4th. Exactly. Good. >> Motion in a second. All in favor? >> I >> I motion carries. This is We'll see you September 4th via Zoom and we'll get that over. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate everything you got and I apologize for all the people waiting for.
>> Thank you, Chief. Appreciate it. Have a good night. >> All right. Um, moving on. On agenda item number two, public hearing for definitive subdivision modification to Golfer's Way, 44, Clear Pond Road, map 059, block 001,
lot 50 upon the application for modification to the definitive subdivision entitled Golfers Golfer's Way to move the roadway requiring an additional waiver, possible vote. >> So, >> hello everyone. >> Hold on one second. I do have to I got
to read the notice now. Um, the public notice. The Lakeville Planning Board will conduct a public hearing pursuant to master law chapter 41 section 81t on Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 7 p.m. at the Lakeville Police Station, 323 Bedford Street to consider a request to modify the definitive subdivision plan
GERES Way, which was approved on September 28th, 2023. The modification proposes to move the roadway and requires a waiver that was not nec necessary on the original application. The location of the land is 44 Clear Pond Road, map 59, block one, lot 50 and
is owned by Derek A. and Maline J. Masky, trustees of Webster Raily Trust. The application and assorted documents can be viewed in the planning department by appointment. Can someone >> I'll make a motion to open the public hearing for 44 Clare Pawn Road. >> A motion and a second. All in favor? I
>> hearing is open. Hello. >> Hello everyone, Madam Chair President. How you doing? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. Uh yeah. So I like we met the last time it was just to modify the uh the actual calacet road itself and uh I believe did you get anything from the
chief? >> Okay. Wait. He was he was okay with it because of different things I guess. >> Okay. Yeah. He says Michelle has my approval. >> Yeah. >> Shot and sweep. >> Okay. Yep. Um, and I think we did have
peer review already reviewed it, but uh, when we spoke with town council, she wanted you to resubmit so that we had a set of plans that show the waiver waivers request >> request for waiver. Correct. >> Okay. Um, but in looking at the plan, where is the waiver?
>> That's what I didn't see. >> I don't know. I I wasn't sure. I didn't know I was supposed to bring in anything to to explain that, I guess. Well, cuz the plan So, we got the new sheets, right? But I didn't see on the sheets. Did So, we didn't get like a
cover page, was it? Was there changes made to the cover page? >> So, I looked at that. It was on the original title page, but I didn't see another title page. >> Okay. So, typically, you know, what you do is, you know, list the waiverss requested on the title page. So, maybe you just need to submit that one more
>> page because I think >> No. >> Yeah. What's What's the for the record, what's the waiver? uh just the the width across the ceilac itself. >> I forget how many feet it's actually going to be. >> I want to say it went from what 140 down to
>> looks like it's one what is it? >> 116. >> Yeah. But she's not doing >> I think you don't see a number. says 44 radius. >> Yeah, unfortunately I don't have bigger
plan so I can't read that page. So I've got this here and I apologize because I wasn't didn't know I had to bring something for that. Yeah, you've got an inside radius.
Well, then you show a a roadway width of 20. So that would be 120 to the outside, >> right? Correct. >> Okay. So I can I can I can see it. >> Okay.
So We did have peer review. Check this over already. Right, Kathy? Uh, I thought I had got to listen. I just sent that to her. >> Oh, you just Okay. All right. So, so >> she got the original from before,
though. >> She got the like the sketch, >> but not the actual. >> And I thought she got this one, too, cuz sent her right to her. Oh, is she? >> Yeah. If you if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. >> How you doing? Hi.
Um, for the for the record, Liz, as PE professional project manager from Apex and um I did take a look at um this design >> and I also took a look at the re the
proposed revision to the culde-sac um briefly. I never went into much detail with it. Um, I didn't see a big issue about reducing the width >> Mhm. >> of the culde-sac as long as it was okay
with a fire engine. >> Mhm. >> Which it appears it was, >> um, but I haven't I haven't really produced any letters yet. Um, I don't see any real engineering issues with the proposed changes.
>> Okay. And it really is the minor change. It's just whether or not this board wants to approve that waiver that you know we wanted to see it >> and it includes the whole parking lot and everything's you know so it's all pocketable once you get to that point anyway. So the roads kind of basically
blend right into the pocket lot. >> Okay. >> So can we approve plans with him adding the sheet with the waiver on it >> a title sheet or no? I mean, you can make that a condition
that he has to supply that >> title sheet >> before we sign it. Right. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Waves already presented >> missing the sheet. >> And it's really a subdivision that this is a minor change to >> uh we've already conditioned and decisioned. >> Yeah. Have to, you know, indicate what
waiver it is that you're looking for. >> Okay. >> So, not changing any of these sheets. These sheets can be approved. We just need it. We need it was on if if the waiverss were originally on the cover sheet. >> Yeah. We'd like to see it added to the cover sheet. be resubmitted. >> Resubitted >> when we go to st when we go to sign it >> with that add added waiver.
>> Okay. So I can have the engineer just get that added page make sure it's updated and correct. >> Yep. With what's you know what the waiver is requested so we could conditionally approve the >> I appreciate to the move forward. Right.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Good. Yeah. >> Okay. So >> Michelle. >> Yes. Before you do, just public. I don't want >> Oh, right. >> Does anyone here have any questions, comments, concerns? Come on up. >> I'm here because I got a letter. >> Okay.
>> Come on up to the microphone. >> These little flat things. Uh I'm here because I got a letter talking about altering uh golfer's way. Golfer's Way is the entrance into the golf course from Clear Point Road. >> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. So, so it was a pre, it did come before planning board. >> So, what you're telling me is you want to do something with the golf way. No big deal to me. >> Correct. >> Okay. But, uh, I never I I used to drive by. I still drive by. Um, apparently the
entrance at Route 18. Is that your place? >> No. >> Oh, it is. >> I'm off of Clifton Road. >> All right. >> Right across from the Cliff. >> They're doing something over there. I mean, if you if I walk in, I could probably wind up walking into the golf course. Right now, I have plastic golf course.
>> Dave Mor, >> is that something totally different? >> Totally different. >> It is. >> But you can keep that. >> All right. Well, uh, so apparently the reason why we got the letter, myself and probably neighbors of ours is, uh, that
if we abut the golf course and anything that you do, you would notify us. >> Correct. >> Right. Yes, >> that's all I wanted to add. >> Okay, >> get to come back next time. >> Yeah. So, it was a minor modification to
a previously approved subdivision plan. >> Did anyone else have a question? Come come up, please. >> Can we get some of those? Should we get >> Yeah, you don't need any, right? >> We need more people to hear. If you could state your cassette 46
road, >> I just want to know um the speed bumps that are on golfers way. Are they going to stay there or are they going to be removed? >> I don't believe there's any speed bumps remaining on the >> They will be removed. >> They will.
>> Yeah, there are. I mean, forgive me because we reviewed this >> a racket of noise a long time ago, but >> they're so will be up to Matt Ch. This will be up to the town standards, this road. So it won't be basically private anymore. It'll be whatever the town requires. >> So the speed bumps will be removed.
>> Yes. >> How much wider is the the road going to get? >> Uh this is my last one. Uh the road actually I believe it's going to be narrow on it. It's pretty wide now. It's going to be narrow with a sidewalk on one side. >> So there'll be no taking of any property.
>> Oh, okay. Your house is actually right here. Yeah. About 46 and this is 44. Keep that last one if you want. >> Oh, thanks. Well, the speed bumps go away a little. >> Okay. >> Give me some restful restful afternoon. >> I didn't know which way you're going
with that. I know one of them was the answer. >> Yeah. >> I'm a school bus driver and I take a nap in the afternoon. >> I used to try to. >> You have anything in the back of your truck and your head on it? >> Sure. Especially the guys that are supposed to be at work, but they have
their >> work trucks with them. They're telling their wives are at work. You know, I've done that. >> The noise the noise I the noise I get where I live is is the guys that get out of their car and and curse the speed bump and are looking to see if their car
is still in one piece. >> You can tell who the bad golf is, right? And and for the folks in the audience too, if you want copies of these plans, they are up on our website. Um or you can inquire at the >> Well, it's in the agenda packet.
>> In the agenda packet on the website. >> Yeah. For this evening's meeting. >> Yep. >> So, speed bumps are going. >> No propertyy's going to be taken. >> The streets actually have to narrow it. >> They're going to add a sidewalk. Sidewalk. >> Yeah. So, it's going to narrow down the roadway. >> Wow. >> Life is good.
>> That's all I got. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any more questions? Come on up. >> Ray Zus, >> I just wanted what are they doing with this uh proposed easement of the drainage? >> Is it there's a drainage that comes off
of a >> No, if if I may. Yep. >> So, the the drainage is to pick up the the drainage from the from the parking lot which used to go right in here. >> Give me some way. Uh >> is it you know where that there's a there's a buildup of uh cinder blocks.
There's a tree that's actually >> Oh, that's that's right here. >> Oh, that's over here. >> Yeah, that's right up there. >> Okay. So, these Oh, right. >> And that drainage goes here. Then it does go here. Then it's going to end up over there. >> So, this is kind of down where those boats are stored. >> Boats are right right there. Yep. >> This is actually the parking lot.
>> Oh. Oh, I see. So, nothing up here. >> Nothing up there. Oh, >> and the only reason we needed to move was because of the utility pole for the solar three phase was smack in the middle of the road. >> Yeah. So effective that drainage thing
>> comes off. >> Y >> satisfied. Okay. Did you have a question? >> Come on up. >> Just state your name, please, for the record. >> My name is Kurtis. I live at 29. Thank
you. Um I just wanted to know the culde-sac um is is it going to lead to hardcourt for reservoir? It's only going to go in and out so people aren't going to be able to come down and get to >> another. It's going to go right around that keel tree that's in the middle to
the island. >> That's right where it's going to go. >> Okay. >> And then it ends right there. Then it goes in the parking lot. >> And so is Reservoir Street still going to be gated off? >> Still. Yep. Nothing to do with that. That's staying gated off. And nobody's going. The the hardcourt entrance is not going to be opened up. >> No. No.
>> Because my property that's all that too. >> She's on the left side coming in. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, just it's just so >> No. And I know you probably can see it, but >> it's the culp. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any other questions?
>> Okay. So, at this point, >> would you like to make a motion to approve the condition? >> I'll make a motion to approve the uh the revised site plans for 44 Clare Pond Road with
conditions. >> Oh, subdivision. >> Subdivision. Sorry. >> Subdivision. >> Second. >> Well, with the Yeah. with conditions. Yeah. stated that we produce a updated sheet with >> including the >> revised waiver. >> Okay,
>> second. >> We have a motion. Is that good, Kathy? >> All right. Motion and Jack seconded. All in favor? >> I >> I motion carries. >> Oh, yes. And let's close the public hearing. >> Make a motion to close the public hearing for 44, Clare Pondro.
>> Motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Public hearing is closed. Thank you. >> Well said. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Moving on. Public hearing for site plan review 19 Main Street continued to this evening upon the application for site
plan review submitted by CD Denitz Realy Inc. for the construction of a proposed mixed use retail and business development comprised of two buildings and associated site improvements. This one as well. >> Yeah, that's always the big draw.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> And if if it makes sense for you to because there's less people, if you want to >> move the board, >> you move the board up closer this way. >> Yeah. Pull pull it back out. Okay.
>> Leave it this way here. >> How's it? >> Okay. >> All right. And Liz, you're also here for this item. >> Yes, I am. >> If you'd like to come up. So, you've gone through some uh peer review. We've
had multiple uh revisions and reviews. >> Yep. Yep. We did um we did uh we got the first set of plans and we did a review on that and we issued a letter I believe
in the spring I want to say May. Then we got a second set of plans and we issued a letter in July and I learned out yesterday that there was a third set of plans that was submitted
and we were not under contract to review a third time. So, we did not do a review of that set. >> Oh, okay. >> So, I can comment on the second letter. >> Okay. >> Some of the big items that were remaining and and we can talk about how
or if they were addressed. >> Um, >> let me introduce myself. I'm Lauren Silva from Silver Engineering. >> Nice to meet you. >> Hi. I've never met her. >> So, so that's why. All right. So this
one's dated July 28th from Silva Engineering. So this is basically in response to your >> Yeah. >> review. Okay. So do you still have some remaining? >> Yeah. Maybe if we can I mean some of the comments weren't
um such hot ticket items. I'd say no big deal. Um my my biggest concern from the last review I did was um
the se the groundwater separation between the subsurface system and um yes the bottom of the subsurface system and the groundwater elevation beneath it. um
applicant did some uh groundwater mounting calculations and I didn't agree with some of the variables that were used in it. Um based upon when I ran the calcs using typical USGS um
recommended variables, I got a much different value than what the applicant reported. >> And just what um what number are you on? Um, let's see. I don't have my glasses, so
[Music] that one. Um, one of them it is number six. uh E and then that refers to additional
comments on the last page in the second one of those additional comments A and B. So page four of 11 has six E on it. It's the very last comment. And then on the last page under additional comments, uh,
comment number two. >> On the last page under additional comments, >> which letter are we referring to? >> Um, I am referring to July 3rd. >> You're referring to your letter? Yes. Not our response. >> Yes. I have not received your response.
>> You never received the response. >> That's excuse me. That's not true. I think Kathy, did you send it to me? I did. >> Yesterday. We we submitted that response back in uh July 28th. >> Um we also were not under contract to do three.
>> No one asked anything. >> Okay. >> Nobody asked anything about >> your your questions. >> What you're doing is you're >> you're going to her comments. You didn't even ask me to talk about where we went from the beginning of this project to where we are now. >> Sir, I I I don't like the tone. You have
to watch yourself. We're dealing with our peer review right now. She's going over her concerns with us and we'll go we'll go from there. Thank you. All right. So, I'm sorry. >> You said So, I have the
number six E. >> Yeah. >> And then what did you say the la on the last page? on the last page um number 2 A and 2B basically um you didn't agree with the specific
>> okay so so it is different than what I'm looking at cuz I don't see the two >> what what is the date on your letter >> this is the July 28th >> res the response letter >> okay
okay So what was the number that it was referenced when you say two B 2 A and and 2B under additional comments? >> Additional comments. >> You just have under additional is just a
response to comment 24. Um, I can share my letter with the board. >> Yeah, if you don't mind. Unfortunately, we don't have that one. >> So, this was my notes on the side.
So, two. So, I maybe I'll just read it out for the board. Um, >> so it's A and B. >> Yep. Okay. So two, we have the following comments regarding the values utilized in mounting analysis supplemental of the
drainage report. A the applicant used a specific yield value of 26 to perform the analysis. The USGS recommends using a specific yield value between 15 and 20 unless the applicant has sight specific lab data to support otherwise. The soils within the footprint of the proposed
subsurface system are classified as medium sand and sandy lom. Therefore, using the maximum specific yield value of 20 is appropriate for the site. The applicant should revise the submission to address the comment and resubmit it for review. Uh B. The applicant has used a value of 20 ft for the initial
saturated thickness which is based on a mass DP well completion report for a neighboring property. The initial saturated thickness can change drastically over a small area. The applicant must use a soil log on site with an ESHGW to determine the initial saturated thickness. The on-site soil
log submitted show that the deepest test pit was dug to elevation 85.8 ft and the test pit with the highest ESHGW was at elevation 97.3. Therefore, the initial saturated thickness used in these calculations
should be 11.5. The applicant should revise the submissions to address the comment and resubmit it for review. Okay. So, >> do you have a response to additional comment to A and B?
>> I guess I'm uh looking at what was uh Apex comment two. >> So, I believe on your response that was number 25, right? >> Am I reading that one right? Let me see. Is it?
>> Yeah. 25. I don't have it. I have additional comments to 24. >> Am I missing the page? >> I'm just looking at comments additional comments. >> Uh that last page.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. And I think his their responses were groundwater mounting calculations have been revised using a specific yield of >> of20. And then the groundwater mounting calculations have been revised using an initial saturated thickness of 11.5 ft as requested.
>> That's correct. >> 10 levels. >> Okay. >> Six, right? >> You refer to them as uh comment two, not 25. So, um, how let me drop that back.
>> I think because I think that might you might have missing the five on there, >> but because it was page 4 to 23, >> it's on the signature page. >> So, the very last comments of my >> Mhm. >> July 3rd letter,
>> right? Like, >> but you call this 2 A and B. >> It's one and two A and B. We respond to the apex comment 25, >> which would have been your last comment. >> Yes. Okay. >> So, he responded that he changed it, I
guess. >> Well, she didn't have it sequential, so we just added the sequential. >> Okay. Um, >> there was one other >> the storm water uh the pollution plan. We asked that to
be a conditional um >> the SWIP. >> Yeah, the SWIP to make that a condition of uh uh approval that we do that prior to the start of construction >> because there's a lot of variables that we don't know who's doing the work and
so forth to be able to make it. We provided a draft. >> Okay. >> And yeah, it is one of our conditions anyway. Yeah. As well as the dis the illicit discharge. Um there was a comment that was about um
accidental uh adding a guardrail >> and so um we uh had addressed that item before that item had been closed. So in here, everything that was um
uh anything that was still open from the second review uh is shown in this letter here with an how we addressed each one of those. And there weren't many. There were just a few. Um >> okay. So I just want to go back really
quick to the uh six was it 6E. >> 6E >> because that's the one that you said >> 6E. Um if if those um if those groundwater monding mounding calculations were revised as I
requested in that comment on the last page then 6E is not an issue. >> Okay. So it does say that they were revised. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. We made some adjustments in order to address that. We moved some of the drainage uh from the front to behind
that first building in order to have less flow in there, less mounding in that area. Um so we made the adjustments in order to address the comments that you had raised there about that separation. >> Um there was one other
kind of big issue that I had from this second letter. >> Okay. Um 6B. So that's on the page before >> says >> 6D B. >> Okay.
>> Um so the way when I last reviewed the the design, they have the subsurface system and the the drainage pipes lead leading into the subsurface system coming are coming from multiple locations. one of
which was a trench drain at the um exit of the driveway. Um during the hundredyear storm, the system is designed to flow out. Water will rise up in the subsurface system, go above the
stone elevation and then and then the elevation goes up according to the response of the trench drain. Now, I guess my concern about that is during higher storm events, if that water is going out the trench
drain, that means all of the runoff that would be would have been captured in the trench drain is bypassing it. >> Okay. So, going out to the road basically. >> Yeah. >> And captured by the road drain that's there. The mass mass DOT drain that's
there. We're talking about extreme events where the water is going everywhere at that point. So it's basically a soft failure in other words. So it's allowing for that water to still be controlled.
It's not being controlled on site at that point because it's beyond the capacity of the site to be able to handle that additional flood. >> It is important to note that Lakefall has had many issues with flooding all over town and very frequently. So it I think we've even I think I heard a
member from conservation saying that we've had a recent 100red-year storm. So >> yeah, another thing >> is there something that you suggest to uh correct it >> poss I I don't know how the changes that
were done to the the subsurface system but based upon the bounding calculations might affect it but maybe some type of outlet control structure because I modifying that a little bit where you're discharging lower as the water fills up in the subsurface system
>> um >> like a dedicated structure just to to discharge it, not to allow not to have water just flow out the inlet pipe. Um that could be an option.
>> Can I can I jump because you didn't make a response we did >> on that. So can I can I read that? Yeah. >> So his response the details illustrating the elevations in the subsurface system have been revised sheet 10. The peak elevation within each subsurface system does not do it does not exceed the top of the chamber.
>> That's correct. >> Oh, okay. >> That's how because we we diverted a lot of the water to to behind the building system and lodge that in order to make sure that we could address that comment >> that the chamber.
>> Okay. >> Were there any other concerns? Just double checking. Can I ask can I ask one question you sir? Um on on some of these you say that additional comments below in the section below are those just you're just talking about referring to like they're answered later on in the
>> Yeah. In other words if it was uh it was actually answered in another >> comment. That's I didn't know if we were looking for something else. That's >> No. So I was like is there no we were we were trying to be uh >> uh try to address every comment and we felt like we did. Yep. And uh
>> um >> sites sites like these are always difficult because they they don't have the benefit of having a nice wet land to to discharge to. Early in my career I you know used to cringe when you had a site that had a wetland on it and I
learned over the years that those were the best sites for design. >> Okay. >> Yes. Speaking of storm. >> Yeah. Did you have any other >> um those were the just the two big items that were remaining from my second
letter that I felt like could be deal breakers. But if the system's been revised the there were and there were um a number of uh suggested uh conditions of
approval that I was uh uh was going to present to you this evening. um which were number one is that we had presented to you architecturally what >> the buildings would look like style-wise. Yeah. >> But that um on the conditions of
approval that we would provide the architectural plans uh to the planning board just for them to for you to confirm that it was done in the in the way that we had presented it to you. >> The phototric plans would be provided to the planning board at that same time. Mhm. >> Um the approval of the septic design is
with the board of health right now. Um we thought it might have been already done, but he was still uh completing his final review. A fourth one we said was the final uh the SWIP would would be provided prior to construction
>> and then obviously mass dot permits will be secured prior to construction that we can't go to them until such time as we have your blessing to go forward. >> That's standard. >> Okay. So, I have those as well as So, did you indicate a snow storage location on your plans?
>> Yeah, we had snow storage shown on the plan. >> I They said there was sever. >> Are you able to say that? >> Indicated because I did look now that you have guard rails in certain areas. I just want to make sure that the snow storage area was designated. >> There's there there are a number of
areas that were shown for that, but um [Applause] I do think I saw them. >> You did? Okay. >> What's the call? I guess. So, >> I mean, maybe I missed it, but I didn't.
>> Oh, wait. So we have like different areas like this snow storage and there are different areas of the site in which we've identified >> uh where snow >> there's no guardrails there or >> um the only one where the guard rail was uh
was added was is that on this front side? Is that what we were talking about in the area? >> Yeah, I think I think that was the area. Yeah, that wasn't that wasn't this that's not where the snow started. >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay, I see that now. >> All right.
>> Oh, is all in the top in the top elbow of it, too. >> Okay. >> Up here. >> Oh, yeah. >> He has a few spots. >> Yeah. >> All right. What? >> They blend in. >> And then So, you only have the you have two dumpsters, but it's only on one side of the building. Is that
correct? It's only on one side of the parking lot. >> We had dumpster enclosure on this side over here. >> Okay. Um planting plan.
I know you state proposed landscaping mixture of small shrubs, grasses, and flowers. We do like to see what those are. And we h our open space committee has a list of recommended plantings that are in line with um you know non-invasives
uh native to this area etc. Um are you able to share that with them? >> Yeah, we should uh >> look for that. >> Yeah. So in other words, I would say that could be one that could be added >> okay >> separately to it. That would be the landscape plan uh would be subject to
review at that time too. >> Right. So, >> I'm trying to get to the point where I can actually get into mass DOT and stop to get >> because that process seems to be taking longer and longer than these days. You can see I'm out of but we're finding that it's very slow. I got a couple big
projects in Bridgewater on 18. I got a True Value that's trying to get in there where >> being held up with mass stop. >> Yeah. >> Now, what about signage? >> Signage, we're showing uh project sign here. >> Okay. Okay. >> And that's assigned for for both tenant
spaces there. >> Okay. So, we do like to see what the signage is going to be. Make sure it's conforming to our sign bylaw. We could condition it. >> Yeah. Anyway, so >> um so I mean I don't I don't know if I feel comfortable closing it with with
conditioning these these items unless the board is because we we haven't seen the plantings, the building elevations. I know we saw something originally, but we want to have that filed with it. We want to have the lighting plan. make sure there's no light trespass because even this is, you know, a business zone, mixed use zone, there's still
residential across the street. We want to make sure because there's been issues on Main Street existing uh like from other businesses in the area. So, we do want to see that lighting plan, >> architectural elevations, >> right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, yeah. So, the building elevations,
the lighting, the planting, those are the bigger ones. We can condition for the SWIP, the signage. >> That's um the mass dot filing. Um, >> it's a bit better to continue, wouldn't it? >> I don't know if you showed an actual
sign detail or not. >> Yeah, I didn't see one except for the, you know, the >> because the sign detail would have probably like all the uh different businesses >> four businesses that would be there. >> I'm sorry. >> Would the sign detail have like the four
businesses that would be occupying the front end of the space? >> Yeah. Uh but I see I see your point in terms of uh you seeing the detail of it because we do have we have this activity going on back here. How how we would sign that? Um >> I was sign.
>> Yeah. So what I'll do is we'll provide you um that sign detail. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um was there a um was it prohibited where we had two buildings to have two separate signs or not? It's supposed to
be one um site. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. One joint. I'm drawing a blank on the name of It's a common directory sign. One common directory sign, but then you can have the signal sign on the building. >> Yeah. >> What direction are like pointing? >> Well, the reason why I say that is
because we have the four tenant spaces here, but we have multiple bays in the back, you know. So, I don't know if that um so what we could have is maybe the general name for this here and then
maybe have a separate uh tenant sign say like in an island here so that once you got to this area here you would you'd be able to uh find which one applies based on that address. >> So those will all be like private businesses, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. So,
>> all right. So, we'll get you that. We'll get you if you put it on the building. I don't know. >> I don't know if it >> You said you weren't going to sign in the back. I'm sorry. >> You know what? I It was more as a rental for for general contractors. Okay. You know, more of like storage opposed to
other business. >> So, they're just going to be like one, two, three, four. >> Exactly. >> They may put their name on front if they want, but to be on the building >> if they want, but I'm not going to advertise it. whoever the first front, >> but we still need to be able to identify
them by address and have them >> in that back area there. Yeah. >> So, we'd be calling the back building an actual location on the front side. >> Okay. Yeah, that's fine. But then to do one out back, I think just number it. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we'll get you the detail on that. So,
>> you can have one building just have a separate standalone sign is not it's kind of this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um >> Okay. And yeah, so the lighting plan just make sure that it shows the light trespass, you know, doesn't go past the the >> Yeah, that was the architect was
supposed to be doing that. So by getting his elevations, then we'll be getting the photometric from him at the same time. >> Okay. Um, so as you've seen earlier, we don't like to close them unless you know because then it prevents you from speaking if we still have questions that remain. So I'd like to keep it open. You
can get those to us. We'll draw up a set of conditions. do it all the next meeting, right? >> Done at the next meeting as long, you know, get those items so we can review it and then hopefully we can tie it up and close it. >> That works for everybody else, right?
>> No questions in the audience. >> Yeah. The only ones here. >> The only Jonah, did you have any following? >> You're so quiet. I don't mean to like overlook you. If you have any questions, speak up. So, um, >> so you do >> September 11th. So yeah, September 11th
is our next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. So >> trying to remember. >> Yeah. So like I said, if there's So as long as you can submit it, we can work on conditions. When we have a draft of the conditions, we can send it to you.
>> The architectural elevations prior to that and so forth. So I can have >> Okay. >> All right. So we'll go for the uh for the 11th. Was that >> Did we already see them once? >> Did I have some kind? >> I think we saw some uh images from the first meeting, but it was a while ago.
>> What we have here is we had um >> similar similar to this type of architecture is what we said, >> right? But we need something to file. >> But what you want it to be is now specific to >> what's the real thing. Yes. >> Yep. So, we want to see that. We want to
see the lighting plan. >> We had we had just that. That's okay. the signage detail and then the rest was to make sure that it was going to be able to get approved if you guys spent the funds to take care of and do all the other >> We were trying to hold off on Yeah, of course. >> No. Um,
>> civil engineers are cheap, but the architect >> I never I never made any money. >> Nothing is cheap. >> All right. So does so September 11th it does like if it doesn't >> if it doesn't work I'll jump to you the >> follow we'll put you on for that one and
you have the option to continue but again >> but but hopefully if you don't have any like so when we'll draft the conditions we can send it over to you can review and then if you have any >> concerns and you want to continue if not then we can just close it out and issue the set of conditions at that point. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right.
Okay. And the uh when you talked about on the landscape plan the >> Oh, yeah. So, the trees um do you have So, I know Open Space Committee has a list of planting native species. >> They keep it a secret. >> Oh. >> Huh. Will you share that secret?
>> I'm going to try to find that secret. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> So, that we Yep. So, the planting, the lighting, >> the building elevations, condition for the SWIP, we want to see the sign condition for the mass dot filings and permit. stand those two are standard,
>> right? And so and and we do want to make sure that you can upkeep the plants if they die and take care of them and all that sort of thing. So we'll have like a a standard condition about that if >> Absolutely. >> All right. So uh you want to make >> I'll make a motion to continue 19 Main Street to September 11th, 2025.
>> Second. >> Motion in a second. All in favor? >> I I >> What time was that to time specific? >> Um it would be likely 7:00 unless I feel like 6:30. We might as well just like change it to I I know sometimes we have trouble.
>> But it's fine. Yeah, 6:30 is fine. >> It seems like >> we do public hearings at 7:00, but we do some of our other >> stuff before. >> Yeah. >> But if we tell them 6:30, then we can start it at 6:30 and hopefully get it done sooner, too. >> Put at the top of the runtime anyway.
>> Yeah, that's what they tell me all the time. >> Hey, last time I was good, though. I went right to the top of the class. Three continuations. >> Yeah. Sometimes. So, we'll say 6:30. >> 6:30. >> And then >> we weren't specific with the other two. >> Yeah. >> But, um, >> so so we're saying what time?
>> 6:30. >> 6:30. >> Okay. That's good. >> Okay. >> We don't Yeah. >> Very good. >> Very good. >> All right. We'll see you then. >> Well, thank you so much. >> Thank you, Mr. Sola. Appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Agenda item number four,
public hearing definitive subdivision 92 Holland Road continued to this evening upon the application of LMB realy trust for approval of a definitive subdivision plan submitted by Zenith Consulting Engineers for a two lot subdivision assessor's map 12 block 2 lot 26 possible vote we do have a request from
the applicant for continuation to September 11th would someone like to make that motion >> make a motion to continue 92 to Holland Road to September 11th 2025 >> second >> motion and second all in favor 6:30 30. >> All right. 6:30. >> 6. Yes. 6:30. >> I didn't say a time. I just left it
open. >> Whatever time you want. >> Okay. >> All right. Motion in a second. All in favor. >> I. Motion carries. And agenda item number six, discuss placeholders for fall town meeting. Possible vote. So,
right now we have placeholders for fall town meeting. Potentially storm water bylaw. Hopefully. >> Yeah. Um, OSRD Serpent can help us get that tied up and accessory apartment getting uh removing that in its entirety. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah.
>> So, at this point, would someone like to make a motion to send a memo to the select board requesting placeholders for those three items? Is there anything unless there's Am I missing something? Are those the three, right? That's it. >> Yeah, that's it. >> I feel like I'm missing something, but >> Okay.
>> All right. We got a motion. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I. Motion carries. >> Kathy, can you get that memo? Awesome. All right. Uh, agenda item number seven, review the following zoning board of appeals petitions. We have a Ericson
Group, 20 Wisteria Street. I didn't see anything in the packet. Was it Did I miss something? The Wisteria. >> Yeah, >> it was like the Yeah, mine was Clark Road. It was the first one. Maybe >> Murphy. Yeah, it's the first one. this
area requesting a special permit for the minimum lot size proposed project remove existing single family home and construct new single family home 28 by 30 ft see attached narrative >> so that was a demo >> yeah but so there's a bunch of these so it's basically raise and rebuild
typically we don't make comments on the residential that >> right >> unless there's something specific to it um is there any >> any questions comments concerns from the board on this Got it. >> Anything that you want to note, Kathy?
>> Uh, no, not on this one. >> Okay. >> Uh, then >> so we'll we'll just do it all in one. Okay. Uh, because there's a b there's a bunch of these. So, the next one is Seven Helen. >> That one. >> No, that one was withdrawn. >> Oh. All right. Seven Helen Street was
withdrawn >> cave. >> All right. The next one I do have the 42 clock. Um which one is this? >> This one is an article six non-conforming uses. Intent is to raise the existing
structure, install a new foundation, constructing a new 911T house with a small front porch that meet all current building codes. This will increase the current footprint by 474 square foot. We will be maintaining the front non-conforming setback but increasing the length.
Um, once again, I mean, this is Clark Shores. I mean, they probably I'm sure they're going to have to go through water health this and um >> um it was something with the well here. I
didn't see >> Well, that's why these things these a lot of these clock shows houses, they don't >> they need to be looked at well, all that. So John, >> so I don't know if this board's interesting in sending any comments.
Once again, it's residential. We typically don't unless there's something specific. >> Yeah, collect yours >> cuz just so we don't usually comment on the residential that go to ZBA unless it has something that pertains to planning board perview that we've seen or looked
at or something we've, you know, had experience with. Uh, we do typically send comments for commercial developments because we look at those more. So, >> thank you. >> So, 42 Clark. No. >> Nope. >> Okay. Uh, the next
>> I mean, I like seeing I like seeing some of the older stuff that deserve to be torn down, right? >> Torn down and replaced. >> Yeah. Yep. All right. The next one is D. Sonia Properties 74 Lakeside AB. This is
another I believe it's re raise and rebuilt. >> Elevate the existing dwelling. >> I know. Yeah, I said elevate, but I think they meant raise. >> Yeah. >> Construct an addition. >> No, that was the one that was right on the water with the sun room, right? >> Mhm. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, wait. So, >> properties. >> Hold on. Multiple properties. Oh, is this the one that is something across the street as well? >> Yeah, >> I think one side.
Yeah. elevate the existing room and reconstruct sun room and construct an addition. Yeah. So they're changing the set back by like they're reducing it by like 1 foot 1.9 ft. >> Yeah.
>> So So elevate like they're literally lifting it. This is not a raise. I thought it was like a I thought it was another raisin. It was like no typo or something. Okay. >> No, I looked the house up on GIS.
It's weird because their drawings like show the new addition but don't show the Oh, you can see this is very light. >> And this will go to conservation too >> if there's any wetlands. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> So, I don't know if it's >> it's
any wetlands. I mean, it's >> actually right on the >> endangered species that >> Do you know if it's going to >> I'm sorry. >> Do you know if it's going to con? >> I don't know.
>> Yeah. So, what they're doing is they're they're raising it elevation 61.3. >> Yeah. >> They're tearing the sun room down, redoing that and the found and they're putting a new foundation that's going to meet FEMA requirements >> cuz they were on pers, right? Sun room. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And they're putting an addition in away
from the water. >> Yep. >> Mhm. Which >> And they're putting a new septic in, too. >> Yeah. Which would make sense given, >> right? >> You know, everything. So, okay. >> Any comments? >> Nope. >> Good luck. >> Okay. So, the next one is the 135
>> Staple Shores. >> Yeah. And >> that is this one side. Okay. New deck on Sonet. >> Yeah, I didn't have anything on this
one. >> Oh, yeah. And they have a reduced lot coverage percentage, which I thought was good. >> Yeah. >> So, >> yeah, I didn't have anything on this one. >> Yep. Okay. Um, >> next one is a Justine's way. This is the
only one that I thought of because we know that there were concerns from a budding subdivision regarding drainage. of water onto other properties, right? >> And yes, >> um >> Able,
>> I mean, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 2400 foot accessory barn with a 600 foot overhang. Please see the accompanying plan for section 6.3 special permit from the zoning board of appeals. A special permit is needed for accessory structures larger than
allowed by the section. So, I feel as though this is probably a location that this bylaw really should be uh applied to because of the location. This is large and we like I said, we there's already existing drainage issues. So, maybe this is one that we want to send a
comment back >> that we're aware of drainage issues onto neighboring properties >> from but I don't know if it's specific to this. I can't say it's specific to this number of Justine's Way, but I just know that there are water issues.
>> Yeah, I'm trying to remember where it was because what didn't we address something like six months ago? >> I think we were going to send a letter to or we had voted to send a letter to all of the residents on Justine's Way. I think it was to all of them, >> right? >> But I don't know if that ever happened.
Um, so, >> so this they have a so my question is are they building a so they're building a they're building a 2400 ft barn but they already have an existing >> right >> they already have an existing larger
barn. >> Yeah. >> I don't know where. So again, I'm not I I I agree with you like this is the way, but they not buying that 3,000 ft. >> I don't I don't I don't know exactly >> in the heaven at the moment.
>> Not not by not say cuz they they meet the criteria. 2400 ft is the three acres, I believe. Or was it five acres? >> Uh it was five, but wait four and a half. >> 24 was the highest you can do. >> Yeah, >> I think it was 1,500 for three acres.
>> So it's it's 2,400 for 5 acres. Yeah, >> I know. Don't quote >> me. I had a call. I was good. I put you in. Yeah. Um if you give have a second. >> So the good thing is even if we don't send a comment back though, the good thing is like at this point they have to
notice the abutters. So like people with concerns hopefully they will show up anyways. So they'll be more vocal with their concerns. The VA will listen probably more so to them than to us honestly because >> Well, no. That was the whole per the whole purpose of it was to allow cuz if
it wasn't then people could just they could just do this with a building permit and no one would know until it's already started. Right. >> So I'm again >> I'm I don't know exactly what it is but again I'm not as concerned like you said if if he already had like a 3,000 foot
barn or a 2500 foot barn building another one. I don't >> if no one's I don't know if no one no one's complaining but I don't know what >> right >> I don't know what Yeah. What >> Yeah. Would you say what? >> It's not like he's really farming. >> No. Well, it's interesting, but it's behind his existing one. So, if you look at that, >> it's not like he's putting it out front
or like >> No, it's way in the back. >> Cutting land do. >> Did he Did he say anywhere what the usage was going to be? >> No. >> Would this be up to the voters to say? >> Well, they could. So, the ZBA is going
to hold a public hearing and allow for residents to comment and chime in on their concerns. So, I would hope that they're, you know, taken >> to heart and and maybe if there are no concerns and no one shows up, then it is what it is and ZBA will make their
determination based off of what they >> think is appropriate. >> Remind me, was there wetlands in this area? >> AV trying to remember this play >> cuz I don't see anything on a plan. So I
don't know living >> and I didn't look >> residential >> and I don't >> the map here. >> It is located in zone X. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> No known wetlands. >> Okay. >> Or within 100 ft of the proposed work.
>> So where I'm trying to like find this. Oh, there it is. Didn't this Didn't someone probably come for something before? >> Looks familiar.
>> I I don't remember if it was >> was it just that the butters I think so the neighboring I think it was Fuller Shores that was having people on Fuller Shores were having drainage >> water draining onto their property from >> That's right. because they they were not
I don't think they came. >> That's an interesting bar. You're building another bar. It's already clear. It's already So, we building another one, >> right? >> I'm not I'm not saying I got it. >> I Yeah, I have no problem. >> Okay. So, we'll leave that one. Uh the
next one is the Fuller 225 County Street. We're familiar with this one. We've >> just gone through the ADU process with it and it looks like they're looking for some relief in regards to the
size of the buildings that exceed the 1500 ft. So, um, once again, residential, we've kind of done our due diligence, I'd say, with conditioning the ADU, and they have to go through the necessary channels in order to move forward with any
additional structures besides the ADU. >> The only thing they didn't fill out was was they didn't fill out the coverage. >> Oh, the law coverage percentage >> or the existing and proposed, >> right? >> I know it was it was filled on the previous one, right? the previous ADU.
>> So, we did have to request for them to add it to the ADU plans, >> right? >> To these. Yeah, >> we did. >> Yeah. >> So, and that's probably something we should add to the site plan application. >> Yep. >> Yep. Well, because we talked about doing
it for ADU, >> but also for site plan. >> Yeah. So, I'm not going to be a stickler, but like I'm a little >> I'm a little taken back that they didn't that half the form is not filled out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I know. And I >> It's not They're not They're not They
didn't strike off what zone it is. >> Yeah. The The problem with this is I was on vacation and I came back to like six ZBAs and I I had to meet the deadline. So, it it was what it was, >> I guess. >> So, normally I would say, "No, I can't accept this." But it was already there.
I was already stamped in by somebody. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. >> Who stamps things in when you're not here? Just out of curiosity. >> Uh, usually the clerk's office will take them in. >> Okay. >> So, can Well, it's up to the EVA, right, to decide if it's if they can I don't
really care, but they should check it off. >> If they're really missing something like serious, they they won't make a decision. They'll continue until >> that would be my suggestion. They fill out the form. >> Yeah. I don't know if I don't know who filled it out if it was Jamie or or the
attorney. >> So, what do we think? Uh, do we want to send any comments back on any of these? >> I think we should probably send a comment back since this has kind of come through our purview just
what do you think >> about the the plans and adding the um >> pertinent information? >> Yeah, the pertinent information. I I don't know. That's up to you folks. >> You mean just for the application? >> Just Yeah. >> The misinformation. >> Yes, sir. >> But I don't know. I mean,
>> we're just going to go. >> Is that overreach? >> Maybe. >> Yeah. So So then, you know, >> just checking online. >> Well, I mean, I'm just >> I No, I mean Yeah. But >> other than >> I appreciate you throwing it out there, but I I mean,
>> but other than that, you don't have to. ZBA should be looking at that, too. >> Yep. So, >> okay. So, >> they can watch our meeting. >> All right. So, no comments for any of these. Does someone want to make that motion? >> I mean, this this one isn't come coming back to us at some point. >> No, >> no. Let's move it along. It's okay.
>> Yeah, I'll I'll make a motion to send no comments to the ZBA for the the properties reviewed. >> Okay, we have a motion. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I motion carries. >> Uh we have two sets of minutes in our packet. Would someone
>> like to approve those or any Oh, actually one edit. Sorry. >> On June 12th. >> Um because it's in the beginning of the meeting. I know Jack, sometimes you join us a little later. We start at 6 p.m. and then it said Jack join the meeting at 7:05. I think it might have been
6:05. So, that's the only thing I had, but other than that, if someone wants to make a motion to approve these two sets of minutes, >> I'll make a motion to approve the June 12th, 2025 and the where's the other one? >> June 26. >> June 26th, 2025 meeting minutes as
stated with the one check. >> Second >> motion and a second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. >> Um, the next item on the agenda is site plan review inspections. I don't think we have anything in here. We're not going to deal with that one right now. We'll push that out. Um, administrative
update. Diana, you have 30 seconds for an update on EDC committee that you joined on Monday. Do you have 30 seconds worth of info? >> 30 seconds worth. It was a very productive meeting. We had uh Jay uh POS uh executive director for uh economic
development um from Taton come in, gave us some really great feedback. Um I encourage everybody to watch the video if you can. Um, some great information was shared about uh retail space, what they've done to improve some of the uh
major areas within Taton um and rehab those areas um just in those past five years. So, it was a lot of good information. Um very quickly, uh we're looking to reservey residents uh for and also for small businesses within town as
part of the economic development survey. So, we're going to um look at that and um also discuss revising the economic development guide perspectus piece as well. >> Perspective >> like a >> charge
>> a a show piece, you know, basically a brochure proposal. Okay. Yeah. >> Marketing brochure. >> And that's all I have. >> Excellent. Thank you for that update. Appreciate it. Next meeting is going to be September 11th, 2025 at the Lakeville Police Station. We're going to open that meeting at
>> Wait, wait, wait. 6:30. September 4th. >> Next meeting. September 4th. >> Sorry. The next meeting is September 4th via Zoom. >> Did we give them a time? >> Huh? >> I don't think we gave him a time. >> September 4th at 6:30 p.m. And we'll let
the fire chief know and we'll do it via Zoom Lake Cam. Hint hint. Um and then the following meeting will be 911 at 6:30 >> here. >> Here. Okay. >> Make a motion to close the meeting. >> Second. All in favor?
>> I meeting is adjourned.