##VIDEO ID:S6gUZpru_VY## [Music] okay I'm calling to order the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday December 19th 7:00 at the Lakeville Public Library uh is anyone other than Lake cam recording tonight all right so we'll jump right in the first agenda item is the continued hearing for the residences at learon Hills I have received a letter on their behalf dated December 17th on behalf of larian residential LLC I'm ready to ask the board appeals to continue the public hearing schedule for Thursday December 19th 2024 in regards to its request to approve certain modifications of the existing comprehensive permit we are still working on the final engineering and subdivision plans we anticipate that the engineering plans will be submitted within one week please accept this letter as a formal request for continuance until your January meeting if you have any questions or require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me very truly yours Robert J Mather so we have a request for continuance for the liaran hearing and until our January let's go with what we're thinking at this point 28th 28 yeah January 28th meeting um do we have a motion to continue I'll make a second motion do we have a second second any further discussion all in favor I opposed motion carries I abstain and we have one exstension okay next agenda item gurry Heights hearing the continuance of 43 Main Street uh looks like we have some folks here on behalf of the applicant so I'm not sure who wants to check us up from where we left off last I know we've had some engineering plans submitted they've been reviewed we've had comments between our P review engineer and yours so why don't you let me know where we are and then um we will go from there John will uh bring you up to date to where we are U for the record John with the project applicant um so since we were last in front of you which was your November hearing uh November 21st I believe it was we did receive a comment letter from Apex engineering um on November 20th um VHB uh responded to those comments and association with or or in connection to a plan set that was also revised those comments were provided on uh the 27th of November um and then a second comment letter uh from Apex and engineering was issued on December 17th which um by our understanding closed out comments related to civil uh in transportation um in addition to the comments from Apex engineering we also received a comment letter from uh Radner design uh regarding a landscape peerreview that letter was initially dated December 16th we had a response to that letter dated December 17th to which we had a follow-up um letter from Radner um dated December 18th that substantially closed all comments we're currently working on plan revisions um for the landscape specifically um that will be submitted shortly uh shortly after this hearing that capture those um plan changes as a result of the peer review comments so by our position we have completed all uh technical review um um of our plan just holistically um we're also under review by meepa right now we have a three-step meepa process which includes review from the Mass DOT the department of energy resources and DP that's a like I said a three-step process we're two steps through that process our third and final filing will be at the end of this calendar year um we closed out with uh I guess that's actually I'll hold off on that piece because it's not related to this file so okay uh who we have someone from Apex here correct you want to come on up all right I'm not sure who's taking the lead but if you could let us know who's who and uh then comment on the comments made uh my name is Liz Andis I am a professional engineer resp responsible for the Civil site Feer review and I'm Steve Shakari I did the transportation aspects of the site Civ okay great so I guess my my question to you is do you have any additional comments obviously there's been some back and forth between each applicant um in our peer review folks um so if you could let us know any concerns or comments or if you're satisfied where they are at this point and then the board itself may have some specific questions I'm not sure that's kind of the trajectory we'll take here okay um yeah we submitted a our first PE review letter to uh the applicant and they responded to all of our comments and all of our items have been closed out in terms of civil site same with Transportation uh in our in our uh most recent uh round of comments we had some minor uh we requested some minor edits or clarifications on the site plan and all the items were closed I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have excellent so at this point I don't specifically have any questions I've read obviously the back and forth um and it seems like you have satisfied um applicant is satisfied what our PA peer Engineers have have asked um I'll open it up to the rest of the board if anyone has any questions clarifications concerns anyone else no I guess you get a 100 on that test I'm going to ask um if anyone in the public has any comments or questions that they would like to come on up John you know the drill go to the podium name address and then ask a way through me Sir John Gregory bartelli Road a question about the traffic review okay does that include traffic noise traffic Vol I'm going to fortunately we have our traffic engineer here so if he can comment on that but I don't think I don't I don't ever remember uh incorporating noise into it but you can no the the traffic study did not incorporate noise um I I'll let the applicants team add anything they might have to before the applicant Court response does noise ever get incorporated into a traffic study only I mean I've been on this board for more years than I'd like to admit at this point I don't ever remember noise on a traffic study noise in other areas but not not in a traffic study so um if the applicant wants to comment um feel free if not I don't really know what else we could say other than it wasn't taken into consideration because I don't think it belongs in a traffic study anyway so that it sure okay uh let's see anyone else in the audience I actually have one clarification question on the traffic study I was just curious in Prior meetings unrelated to this we've heard about grading of intersections um particular with traffic um was that considered here and and what was your kind of projection for that intersection at uh Bridge Street where it intersects to Maine the impact for traffic there with the dish traffic that's coming across from the new development and I didn't see a grading in here so maybe that's if you could comment on that maybe you know what's the current grade you give that intersection at Bridge in Maine if that's based on the traffic volume but when you add in the new volume from across street how does that impact that grade uh just just to clarify by grading you mean like the level of service yeah okay yeah so we've heard in the past you know certain intersections in this town have different grade based on the weight times all right so I I know I'm speaking a little bit out of my expertise but I'm just curious as to what your opinions were on that so yes so so we know a little bit about the background of that location that uh we know there are already uh issues with the delays from the side street from Bridge Street uh turning on to Main Street and there has been talks about signalizing that uh intersection uh but based on the traffic study that that was provided for this development uh the development did not send a ton of traffic through that intersection and we did make a comment that if an intersection is um you know already failing or close to failing adding more traffic to it might exacerbate the conditions but um based on what I remember I don't recall exactly what the numbers were but I believe they provided uh a fair traffic analysis for uh this location and they weren't sending a ton of traffic to it and we already know that there is an existing condition and actually uh I mean an existing issue there but uh they also stated that mot has reviewed this through the meepa process and they didn't require any mitigation um meaning mitigation meaning a light a signalizing of that intersection is that what you mean by mitigation mitigation yes but mitigation yes it refers to that's a general term referring to any action that you might take any counter measure that you might Implement to kind of U offset the impacts of a development or avoid worsening a condition right um Masta did not apparently see necessary uh any offside mitigations as a result of this project but we know from the history that uh this location uh does have uh some operation operational ises okay so just in your opinion then if you had a grade that intersection I mean I know I'm maybe putting you kind of beyond what the expectation of the study but you had to grade this the intersection today versus what it could be tomorrow with the development in place what would those grades be uh I'll have to refer to their traffic study while we look at is normally we make sure we we want to uh we want to know that their analysis is uh you know paints a fair picture of what's existing and what will be in the future we cannot we don't have a crystal ball to know exactly or predict what exactly will happen all of traffic studies are mostly um I should say estimations um the the the methodology that's used in like almost I shouldn't say all but most of the traffic studies is that it's based on a database collected through Nationwide data for the trip generation So based on the size of the development and the land use of the development they estimate the number of trips that will be generated by that development and it's all as I said estimation in in practice it might be different and based on what they provided in their traffic analysis they have uh committed to a uh I believe a 5year uh monitoring program to see if uh the trips that are generated by the development line up with what has been estimated um but um as far as what what the exact level of services I have to look at uh those um numbers and you know the uh information they provided in the report but based on what we know from the methodology and what standard practices uh it seemed like they they followed the standard industry practice that P thank you sir do you mind clarifying you just had mentioned and you the petitioner may want to comment on this you got to do five years worth of of monitoring so why don't you walk us through because I know folks are watching and the question's going to be okay 5 years of monitoring what happens if something happens beyond what we think what's the resolution at that point so I don't misspeak I would like to defer to our traffic engineer M Hy who is in attendance with us to try to provide a little bit of color both to to your question as well as as well as as that question I think that's a smart move from the traffic IED Matt key traffic engineer with vhd um so I'll take your question first so we are committed to 5 years of traffic watering so we'll work with M do to determine if they want to count what intersections they want us to count at a minimum it would be our um site driveways to actually do a comparison of how much traffic the site actually generates after it's open and operational that'll be compared back to in our traffic study if there were some drastic difference um maot could come back to us and say well you need to do more you know TDM measures you know to try to reduce the amount of traffic that you're generating um but it's can I pause you right there like what was that acronym you just used TDM Transportation demand management okay we don't speak the language so make sure talk us thanks uh second nature you to me sometimes I forget um but yeah it's I mean it's it's atypical for anything to be drastically different uh that we require Mast do to require more mitigation um but that is sort of the the impetus behind the the monitoring program is to it's a system of checks and balances to make sure that we're not way off with our projections as far as so let me just clarify so Matt Mt thought has the oversight and ability I guess to if in the fourth year they say listen something's not going right here um there's no negotiation there's no well let's talk it through I mean obviously you want to make sure you're on the same page but if they say you need to do this to to mitigate folks have to do it at that point Y okay and as part of the minr program we're actually monitoring the participation in the the transportation demand Management program as well if if if for some reason they weren't doing something that we required to do Under the me process um that would come out during the mon monitoring program and and you would have to do more or or improve the um the measures that you're implementing on the site okay thanks now that 5 years starts from construction or from completion 6 months after occupancy so it's not just day one it's just sort of get let that development be uh populated and and settled and and normalized and then after that once it's sort of under its normal operation is when we would start doing a monitor so just to be clear on the data collection piece you're collecting data like you put out those uh those lines on the streets and they calculate counts and so what's the Frequency by which you give that data back MK Dot and then how frequently are you meeting with Mast doot to go through those numbers it's annually for 5 years after so once a year meet with M okay um and as far as your question on Bridge Street I pulled up the level service table so um under the weekday morning conditions under existing conditions we rate it based on the critical movement which is Bridge Street obviously the SI street is waiting for the mainline traffic to go that's a level service D under existing conditions in the morning and it's an under uh weekday evening conditions and it remains at those levels under a future no build and build conditions and there's a negligible increase uh in DeLay So the letter you said D at morning and F at night correct okay and it's current condition as well correct but that's with build a no build correct go for y existing no build and build are all the same level even with the build it's still at D because like he like he said there is very minimal traffic that we're sending down that okay than any else have um any additional questions under the traffic so we are at the point where unless anyone on the board has anything else additionally that they would like to ask or need from an informational standpoint I would think we're probably at the point where Bob Council for the petitioner needs to coordinate with um our Council Amy qule who could not be here this evening um but well obvious I don't think it was necessary that she needed to be here um to start drafting up um the documents um for us to move to the next step does that sound like a plan I think it does that's that's what we were hoping we've actually already started pulling together the material that we would need cuz the decision is a pretty comprehensive decision of basically everything that's been submitted everything that's been talked about um and with all the conditions so yes um I would like to be able to begin uh Drafting and and send it to Amy as as soon as possible uh we don't need to take a vote on this but I guess I'm just asking consensus wise we all good with that at this point everybody yes I will talk talk to council let her know to take your phone call and you guys can get what you need to get done and prepared to bring it back to us sounds good we you know we're working on a decision on our um site plan review also so they're sort of related with with Amy so it's a good time to work on everything at the same time perfect time Christmas and New Year's right Bob you're not going to Puerto Rico I didn't say that okay um so I guess at this point I'll reach out to Amy and you guys can start working on what you need to at this point you'll bring it back to us and we will see you um at a future date I guess um right now do we have a motion to continue this hearing until I say January 28th January 28th I make the motion we have a second I'll second that motion to he any further discussion all in favor oppos motion carries we'll see you on the 28th thank you thank you very much you're welcome okay just got some housekeeping items left you have some minutes to approve that were included in your packet um I believe everyone is everyone here for all of these you don't I don't think I was for 1 17 okay so here's what we're going to do then who wants to make a motion to accept the 17th um if so inclined I'll make a motion to accept the minutes from the 17th meeting October 17 2024 do we have a second second we need comments or revisions to those meeting minutes all in favor I Jeff abstains any uh all in favor I oppose none so next November 21st same thing we have a motion to all right so I guess that one I wasn't looking at you anyway I'll make motion to approve number 21st we got a second for the 21st okay all in favor opposed motion carries our next meeting is the 28th we all also have some uh meeting dates included in the packet just to make note of it on your calendar we we need to adjust a few of them but said Kathy sent those out earli oh that's the in there what the 28 the yeah that's not what it is I have a conflict so get that out in the open now everyone can blame me okay God anyone uh want to make a motion to adjourn the meeting no wait a minute what I do well I have forum we're also up for January for February both dates are available the second all the four so I just need to know which one you'd prefer okay yes cuz our meeting is is during February vacation week that year and I know some of us usually AR available during February okay so we'll literally have nobody here for that meeting because I know these two guys probably aren't I know I'm not and if you are not so and I'll be by myself huh well no you're good way no I think we need more than two for a quorum so what are the dates we're looking at the 13th of the 27th so 27th 27th works for you 27th good 27th it's good for you all right so we will weedu that to the 27th the holiday one you're thinking of is June but no no no is don't we have President stand there something no doesn't affect us it's on a Monday oh that's right all right so you got your date right okay now can I make ask would somebody like to make a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn second okay we have a motion a second to adjourn at 722 all in favor oppos motion carries we are adjourned