##VIDEO ID:sejzGlf2G9U## [Music] going a call to order the zoning board of appeals meeting of Tuesday January 28th at the Lakeville Library it is 7:04 and the first agenda item is the continuance of the residences at learon Hill LLC hearing and I believe we actually have some plans that we going to be presented and reviewed so who's uh who's speaking on behalf of learon I can come in okay and we have someone who's refus I'm recusing myself all right get out of here yeah thank D appreciate it um uh Mr chairman my name is Muhammad itani and I'm managing member of lean Hills LLC uh we have in front of you uh the exact same plans that we provided to you last time we have two buildings uh on property that that was part of the original uh plans uh you know we eliminated as we discussed the building that we had on Precinct street because the board didn't feel it was appropriate um so we're back down to two units which if the board approves those we will end up at our 386 units that the project was originally approved for so I would not asking for any additional units uh it's the project the way it was approved back in 0405 or6 in that that time period so I believe last time when yes may I I'm sorry go right ahead um on I just wanted to point out that um this would be Mr Noble's second meeting that he's not attended so he cannot vote so I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was okay going forward with four members thank you for pointing that out Mr Tani are you f with four members yes I have that he I have that Mr Noble was not here on 620 2024 in my notes I'm going to defer to your notes and we will confirm that but to your point is if if if we're incorrect he can but we're going to assume that council is most likely correct and you would have four of us although this is a 40b it's three out of four you don't need you don't need all of us to be on board uh that's a curve ball now now if he ends up listening to the meeting on the zoom still doesn't he can only miss one only miss one you can miss one and listen to it after the fact you can't miss two but technically you only need you only need three no matter what whether you have five or whether you have four you still need three but or you could continue to the next meeting can we get dress back no no I know I know you know that um well we probably should just continue the meeting it's safer to to to continue the meeting at this point it's your call I can't you know I have no recommendation I mean last time we presented it to the board the board said they would like to take some time to think about it so I was hoping today that we would go ahead just approve it uh we have most of the engineering done all the engineering is done uh so can I take like a hand like a handful or something or a smile or something or a win I just sent this plan out for peer riew so that wouldn't be back till the next meeting yeah yeah I mean we wouldn't be able to approve it tonight anyways cuz well we just got the plan in on Friday it still needs to go to peer review okay so okay um so you're your your if if your thought was listen I could get this all wrapped up tonight and you guys could take a vote on it and move it forward I mean you can you can still present get our input but like Council said if if you do that then the fifth member would not be able to participate or actively vote I should say they could still yeah no I mean I'm I'm it's it's I would like to EV I mean I'll present it to you the way it is and then we will continue the vote to vote on it next next time hopefully we will have five members well the thing is if you present it once you start go once we start going down that road and Council keep me honest here once you start going down that road then he can't come back in so you which is why I rudely interrupted we respect we respectfully ask the board to give us a continuance to their next Zoning Board of a meeting right and I believe just for the record we just found out today that the fifth member was unable to yeah late late yeah I mean normally we would have gotten in touch to let you know ahead of time but it was always good to see you guys so it's a pleasure to see you I love these meetings they're awesome you love these meetings I'm going to have to get you mentally checked out after this um so you want to continue to that's what my wife says but that's why your wife may be a smart woman but I'm going to stop the jokes and go on to when's our next meeting February uh 27 I believe y February 27 so you want to continue to February 27th yes please okay we have a ask do we have a motion make a motion to continue to the February 27th meeting do we have a second second all in favor I oppos motion carries unanimously will the review engineer when these comments those will go to you and the good news is because it's the 27th we'll push them to get those comments back early enough for you to respond to his comments so then you guys can go back and forth and hopefully we'll have everything de and Thomas oh it is be and Thomas and they can communicate directly with they can communicate directly with Jeff Jeff Jason well thanks everybody appreciate it thanks thanks welome thank you all right let me go wake Jeff up I was just what you birthday today no no I'm the 27th I'm the 27 so R is not going to be joining us it's his 50th birthday isn't he your son no oh I thought he was your son actually nothing I was going to say you should know that if he was your son you question whether it really was his yeah everybody assumes he is but we're not even related he's not joking he was knocking off when I went out there I was just going to sorry okay here we go you're good take your time all right let's go to the second agenda item which is the cranberry Heights hearing that we're continuing John for the record John airri uh project applicant um so I believe it was yesterday um we received a Redline version of our proposed conditions that we submitted to the board I want to say two weeks ago or so give or take um Jeff and our project team and I have had a chance to go through those red lines and are prepared to kind of speak through that and talk through that with you guys um assuming the board has had an opportunity to look at attorney quell's comments and I'm not sure to what degree everyone has but what I think I'd like to do at this point is turn it over to Amy and Enlighten us on these Redline comments that youve made made and I think both Council and the applicant are kind of about the same point that we've come to I don't want to say in agreement but we're y yep there's um we're ready to move forward but why don't you update us as to the changes you suggested and that you guys worked out and then we can go from there um sure thank you Mr chairman so um there's um some administrative um changes that need to be made there was um the applic had proposed findings um and one of those was that um the project and peer review memoranda were reviewed and commented on by relevant Town departments boards and officials I don't recall and I looked in my notes I don't recall any comments from boards on the peer review memorandum only on the original filing and then we had a further fire department memo um so I I would probably change that um and then I added 14 and 15 for findings that we always put in our 4B decisions which are um that uh one of them has to do with waivers and the other one has to do well they both essentially have to do with waivers one of them states that the waivers are granted as long as they're consistent with local needs and the other one is if um they need future waivers or further waivers they have to come back um and there's um there's no plan waiver and um there's no uh any any waiver not granted has not been is not allowed so there's no umbrella here of waivers um I changed I I changed the 80% of area median income to reflect um what we always put in our which is determined by the um US Department of Housing um and Urban Development and the E and eohc that should be minor um uh the uh three and before I added the town planner because I um previously you didn't have a town planner so um that is why that's there um and then again I'm 15 I I deleted um by and through the board and the Building Commissioner um and I just put that the town has um continuing jurisdiction over the project and it's really just um my own thing because um I don't want to pigeon hole that the board and the Building Commissioner have um continuing jurisdiction in case something changes in the future that 40b changes and allows the select board to enforce I mean it's just silly but it's me um and then um 17 um 17 uh all of it is the uh Town regulatory agreement which we put in in this is in all of your 4bs um where once the uh affordable uh once the regulatory agreement with um with your subsidizing agency expires this kicks in the it's a very standard um condition um in general conditions um under 19 we I added um NP I added the nifties and the Swip um under 20 I added the um I added the uh peer review and the fact that uh they're going to fund a peer review um and if that account goes down to 500 they just have to re they have to refund it um the development shall be in compliance with the project eligibility um they um also have to comply with meepa um they have to comply with de they have to comply with storm water um the storm water guidelines and um copies of all state and federal um applications should be filed with the town um for um the construction uh this tracks the um this tracks the site plan review um decisions that were granted by the planning board for the uh Memory Care Facility in the front I guess I I call it the front because it's Main Street and then the cottage is in the back um and so I added the language that we put into that one which is what construction activities shall include but the time and the days are the same as um as the planning board um all of the staging areas and and parking Etc has to be on site um the final plans have to be approved by the fire chief with regard to um fire safety uh so the hydrant and firefighting and adequacy of the um access roadway from Main Street that that's in here the fire chief essentially has already done that in his memos um I the here um they gave the building department 10 days to um to review plans that were submitted I pushed that to 30 days because um because your building department is a oneman show essentially um it does say 30 business days I'm I would be okay if that was 30 calendar days but um that's something that the board can it's up to you guys on that one is the applicant oppose the 30 calendar days 30 days makes sense to me 30 30 days I'll change that to calendar um um the landscap there's a provision for landscaping that has to be completed and I I just put that that has to be if it's not completed they can they can do a performance bond where they tell us how much their their landscape engineer goes out there and says this is how much is we need to spend to finish and then we that gets confirmed by our peer review engineer that's just standard um was just missing there um I'm just curious I'm going to C you off there for a second who enforces that Bond because I know we don't have the ability to or do we so we really don't that is um under so you are standing in the shoes of the planning board and so it's my opinion that under 81u the planning board can require performance guarantees so if we're in their shoes we have the because normally we can't no normally you cannot okay that's my opinion that you yeah I'm going with your opinion um number 45 says the applicant shall be subject to the town's construction by if you don't know what those are it's probably left over from another perm so so that that should just be deleted yep um could just causes confusion um and then you have this authorized activity term that's not here I propose replacing it to prior to construction commencement instead of before starting authorized activity that appears in condition 46 and then again same wording in 62 so again would replicate prior to construction commencement if the board sees that fit that seems fine to me Mr chairman sounds good um um I put that the board's um consultant has to review the um storm water um and the um operations and maintenance plan um and the erosion control plan the first two 47 and 48 your your consultant has already done that um just prior to construction they need to make sure nothing's changed and then um they need to review the erosion controls they haven't as far as I know they they they might have done that on the plan but they haven't done that just quickly on 49 if I may references a road that I don't believe is to this project that would be I assume that would be Main Street instead of Essex Road the project only would it be Main Street or the back street how are you doing construction uh this project for this approval would only have construction access through Main Street okay so that would be Main Street um and then um 56 um requires that um the applicant um submits a management plan with the um you know what what the management company is going to be responsible for um and then they shall submit um the repair a maintenance plan regarding repairs um and that the most important thing here is is the maintenance of the storm water system they need to give us a plan as to how they're going to in have it inspected cleaned maintained um the um the trash um and recycling this is something that um that came up in another 40b that I am doing it hasn't really come up in this one I don't know again how um um how important this would be to the board um but basically that the the noise from the trash and recycling is limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. I don't know if that's um I don't know if that's possible for you and I also don't know if you're using trash compactors we are not using trash compactors trash will be handled interior to the building via trash rooms on each floor okay will be hauled by the management company so you could do the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. yes okay great so we'll take out on 59 we would take out everything that's where it start the last sentence where it starts with trash compactors that can come out but the rest can stay in um and then the um the Landscaping um they are supposed to replace any any trees that are not um that die within an appropriate growing season um and and then again in 62 the Umi that's going to be prior to construction commencement that's cor um and then the lighting um I put that the lighting is energy efficient and it has to um cannot have uh it has to prevent glare from uh the site shining onto a budding properties and into the sky um it has to be connected to a timer and um they should be shielded and there should be no up lighting including any illuminated signage and um the cut sheets for the exterior lighting should be reviewed and approved by the planning department as the O um agent for the zoning board of appeals um so um and then in special conditions um number 59 which I just realized the numbering is off we we'll have to figure that out okay um so the 2 59 I guess it could be the third at this point um so it says that um Minor Adjustments may be approved by the Building Commissioner um this is not in the regulations it's not in you know 760 CMR 56 anywhere and I guess my caution on allowing this to happen would be what is a minor adjustment um that was going to be my question how I mean we don't want to yeah have to have them come back in here every time they want to make an adjustment we want to give Nate the ability to do that but at the same time right we need to keep some control so anyone have any suggestions or Mr chairman in my experience it's really the building inspector's discretion to make a judgment on what is you is the plan being built bu in conformance to the approved set so so if we can reference the minor adjustments at the building commission is discretion and nothing personal but I don't need an applicant saying oh this is minor I want to make it clear that if our Building Commissioner says it's not minor you got to go back and see us that would be our expectation does that make sense am I don't know how to word that but yeah we can't use minor because SE subsection 11 of as you guys know um a a change comes into you and you determine if it's substantial or insubstantial right um and so it wouldn't be a minor change or insubstantial change it would have to be if the Building Commissioner deeps in a substantial change does not um does not modify um does not modify the intent of the of the plan I would say if the what change are we talking can you give me an example well I mean these are schematic plans so you go from a set that is 25 pages to a set that's 350 pages so it gets very very specific so if there's a plan that something shown on a plan moves an inch technically that's not you know on the plan but it's not it's in conformance with but what would move an inch are you talking about the actual building is going to move an inch that can't that would be that would be a plan change that's that's would have to come under 11 I would disagree with that because a building moving an inch is not in not in conformance with the I mean if every every change that was V variation from the schematic set to the final set came before the board every developer would be in here all the time because there's lots of just very very small things that that evolve from the schematic set to the to the CD set but the the set the the plans that the pr plans that the zoning board is approving those don't even include anything that's in the schematics that that eventually Nate's going to get so there wouldn't be a change I guess and I would say that if you move that building an inch that is a change because what if that inch is within a setback then you have a waiver change so that would matter so that's why I if there is there another example besides moving a build the board if if the changed and I'm just throwing it out if did setback change from 125t 6 in to 125 ft 5 in what is the likelihood that the board would have an issue with that I would prob but they still probably won't but why but what do you really want people to us to come back in on something like that probably yeah that's a that's a plan change how about how about if our landscape drawings for instance are conceptual they are not Construction level drawings we were given the authorization through the planning board as part of the planning board process separate to this but let's just use that as an example that no perennials were included in our in our in our landscape drawings if we go back and add perennials is that something that would have to be included no that wouldn't even be a change because we don't we didn't designate any kind of plant we just I think the only condition in here is that you can't use inv bases okay so but so that would be a change in my opinion though that that's just as much of a change as you advance to Construction level drawings as is what Jeff is describing but there's no change there's no change because you're not saying in in your plans you don't have there's no condition in here that says that you cannot have perennials and then you want to plant perennials so that's a change if if we said you cannot have perennials and you want to plant perennials that's a change we're saying your Landscaping here's your Landscaping I mean we're not this let me ask question what about if I could finish if I could please finish so if you and in here we're not even using Landscaping as screening so but again we're getting into we're getting into the the example you used which again I don't think is a I don't think it's a very good example because in that case I don't even think you would have to come back in okay um I guess you know other changes that I see that come in that are minor that come to boards that are minor are relocation of dumpster pads because once the um once the applicant either they put the dumpster somewhere and they find out that the that the trucks can't reach it or they find out that it's you know not convenient for the ab or for the um for the app for the residents they come in and they want that change that's an automatic minor modification but that's still a change so that's why I'm saying what kind of change are you thinking Nate would make on his own that he would be comfortable making because anything that's shown on the plan any change shown on the plan would have to come back under 11 which really all it is is you file a letter and they respond within 20 days if you want put it in there like if if this is going to be that big of an issue like we'll just put it in there like I don't like it's fine if you if you want to get rid of minor adjustment it's okay let me ask you question feels like normally we have any prop any like the the the sentence Happ any proposed and substantial substantial change may be submitted to the board Nate's going to review this anyways do we actually maybe to your point do we need that in there Nate's going to look at it and say all right this is they're good keep going if he thinks you're not good he's going to say you got to you got to go see the bo so we we may be over thinking giving him the ability to do what he already has the authority to do does that make sense so if we scratch fine worries great okay so let's get rid of that okay sorry Chris I jumped in I was G to say the same thing yeah stole you on you can think of thousand examples we could on that yes so the U the next one has to do with the driveways I know that the um I know that the uh emergency vehicles have been cleared I just uh we put this in here in case for the delivery trucks but I I think you're fine on that um and then the um the signs and the pavement markings they have to be um mutcd and then the sidewalks have to be um ADA Compliant um I put in bicycle racks because you guys have that in your other decisions that um bicycle rack should be somewhere um and then um the other two 64 and 65 on this are up to you guys um the accommodations shall be provided for electric vehicle charging by residents of the project a lot of times um they are um there's requirements that they have to be EV ready are you proposing EV it's part of the building code requirement for Str for the stretch enery code requires us to have do they have to just be EV ready or they have to be there's a certain percentage that are EV that are to date when you built and then a certain percentage that are e ready I don't know off the top of my head but again that that's part of our me approval that's part of our so you're fine with that condition the way it's written correct and then um the um the head in parking um this is something that um this is something that came up not in this 40b in a different 40b um and I I didn't know what the board feels about that and I didn't know what the applicant would feel about that basically I think what we're saying is head- in parking that's going up against the building if you on that first FL you don't want the headlight shining right into that so you're going to have some type of screening or whatnot so that's considered as part of our landscape design okay to request a five to request an ornamental fence designed to block headlights spill into residential units as something that was never discussed with this board doesn't feel fair and reasonable for us um we understand the concern and our landscape plan will address it so you just want to do I would prefer to scrap it entirely as are the plans that are approved uh consider that or that are that but you definitely don't want the correct I would I would it would be my preference to remove that condition in its entirety but it's in your land it's in your landscape plan though right that's correct but the specificity of the condition and the fact that it's included in here without having had been part of discussion feels unnecessary I'll differ rid of other members of the board for the fence maybe I would agree with you but you know I think something should be in there as a resident would you want someone pulling up and Shining your bedroom windows every single night I wouldn't want that agreed and that's why it's part of the approved plan and the plan that we have submitted to you all maybe scrapp of the whole thing I don't know I mean what about just that the um just that the um the vegetation um in areas of the building AB budding head- in parking um shall um have vegetate vegetation shown on the plan that shall be maintained something like that like just that the to require that that vegetation is there a way for us to say I think what you're saying is reference the plan that's already been accepted you know the the landscape plan has been peer reviewed it has been designed it has been reviewed by the board it has come up in any conversations that we've had to date I didn't know it was something that needed to be included as a condition in the Improvement so so just so you know there um we I can't tell you how many conditions there are because we lost numbering but there's got to be 100 conditions probably here maybe 80 there's no way we discussed them all these are things that we put in these 40b decisions that you know are things that we think is important for the residents um I don't think there's anything out there saying that every single condition has to be discussed by the board um just just so you know and and this was put in this was put in for a discussion purpose right so as I stated um just to help me understand because I I can appreciate your comments um in regards to right this is something you haven't had a chance to digest or even look at which is completely understandable but maybe we can figure this out so it's already in your landscape plan you're already recognizing that yeah we nobody wants headlight shining in we don't don't want to have to do offence which I think most of us probably appreciate being dictated to that extent but how do we how do we incorporate it into the conditions to basically reference that listen we've already agreed to this in the plans or so it's maybe it's maybe it's belt and suspended but um you know we we have to we can't look at a specific applicant and say we trust that you're going to do it which which I I do but these these get memorialized and what we put in here sticks so go ahead I mean off the top of my head something to the extent of um the applicant's Landscaping plan will demonstrate that adequate vegetation has been uh planted around the perimeter of the building so as to minimize headlight glare into first floor residential units that's pretty good I like that fine with me fine with me you pressed all of them the first shot how about that that was pretty Clearo oh I'm sorry yes I'm writing it down yep and then um councelor can I through the chair can I go back to one condition just with the observation um 67 or one of the 67 says all exterior sight be connected to the daylight timer to turn 30 minutes uh after Sunset 30 minutes before sunrise or lighting sensor to ensure lighting fixtures are not on during the daytime I raised the issue in that this is a you know all surface parking there's not I mean it's going to be dark at night in my experience some management companies and residents if somebody comes back at 2: in the morning doesn't want to pitch black parking lot for safety reasons so is it can you we have motion to text lights or something to that extent um because I think it's limiting it's basically saying you can have no light on after 30 minutes after sunset uh turn on 30 minutes after Sunset so they go on at you know DUS or yeah Dusk and off in the morning I think you had it backwards yeah oh I do yeah all right that's embarrassing je you just had such a good comment on the first one you had you had to go and undo it didn't you I I got on with the single and then a double play so um um so then um I took out um under um the former 66 just I took that out because it's um um I have it I have it again in in your conclusion in your standard um and your standard conclusion so that was it uh any comments from thetion on anything that we just reviewed I think just well just just if counselor could add um we don't have an objection to 17 the town R agreement but so we just say it sounds like you guys have the template or the agreement from other so can we just write that the town would furnish the draft agreement oh just so it's not um so there's no ambiguity that sounds good to me yeah I think so okay and then the only other one we kind of have an issue is and I understand and this is to 14 that it was applicable to other decisions but it it wasn't would you say 14 uh condition 14 relative to correct wait 14 14 on page three yeah that was yours that wasn't yours 14 I don't from page top of Page Three top of the one that starts maass General law 40b 2023 ow local Boards of appeals that was added we have a little bit of issue not with the condition in its entirety but some of it's a finding not a condition right but or the finding because the applicant did not fail to provide um you know there was never a discussion on anything relative to uneconomic or economic in the whole public hearing process and this relates to those or that finding which commonly enters into decisions where there was a lot of dispute and conflict and the board required a budget and the applicant said this is uneconomic we can't do that none of that happened here so we just don't think that some of the language in there is necessary so it doesn't say that the applicant failed to it says the applicant has not provided they didn't it's it's all factual um the applicant did not provide the board with a project Prof perform round so um basically you're looking at the waiver requests and you're granting those that are going to be consistent with you know General Health safety and Welfare so there hasn't been any allegation of the project becoming uneconomic so that's why that's in there that's in all of ours I think our but what but we the and the applicant has failed to provide that the waivers not granted do not either alone or in the aggregate render the project economic right we we didn't fail to provide that the waivers not granted do not either it was never discussed that's because we haven't gone through the waivers yet we're going through them next right but we submitted the I mean all right if if we want to review that language after we've gone through the waivers so are you concerned with the term failed yeah I mean it makes it sound like was a part of the yeah The Advocate has not provided but we were never asked maybe the applicant has not provided nor was it asked to provide by the board I mean that's our only it it Intimates to us anyway that we not we don't have to ask when we go through these waivers if the board if the board is going to deny a waiver you have to tell us that they cannot deny that because that would make it uneconomic if you don't it's because all the waivers were granted you're getting way ahead of yourself because the waivers haven't even been considered okay well we can revisit that well we would we would only revisit it if a waiver was denied if not it's it's standard language that they have in their for in their decisions that I have in all of my 40b decisions let's go through the waves and if we need to come back to it I I'll address it at that point but let's before we go there anybody have any questions at this point just a point of clarification has the board not reviewed any of the waiver requests any of the waiver requests yeah I can't answer for anyone else but I mean unfortunately I don't really you can you can ask I mean I guess you can ask but no one's obligated to the ones that came in yesterday these no well they were initi part of our filing in September right I had that I had that some of them changed from September to yesterday yeah as part of the process they have they have been updated so I just I was just curious that that comment sort of took me by surprise um what comment that we haven't even disc the W the waivers no no no the board the board's going to vote on the waivers so the board votes on the waiver separately and then they vote on the decision okay that's what I meant understood thank you for the clarification I I think hang let me let me clarify I think we're going to we're going to discuss and vote on the waivers if normally this can get wrapped up if there's no issues that the board has but let's say there is some issues with some of these waivers we may not even get back to voting on this tonight we that may that may put us in the position where we're saying all right you need to get this this and this and show us why type of a deal and if that that then was going to refer itself back to4 but if we've reviewed them if you and Council have gone back and forth now and no one has any questions we a lot of times and most of the times it can get wrapped up at this point so the board probably I'm assuming has taken a look at some of this stuff and if they had any issues they would have asked at that point so I right and Mr chairman we we would just make the point that we're not trying to pull any fast ones the waivers that we're representing to the board reconcile to the plan set that we spent the last 6 months reviewing and peer reviewing and whatever so the waivers are necessary to build the plans that has been vetted by everybody to this point in time we're not asking for anything above and beyond let's get through these two and the only comment I will make is I think if we get rid of the term fail I wouldn't be openly worried about it's going reflect that on you it's just saying they weren't supplied doesn't say we didn't ask doesn't say you didn't Supply them it's just we never got to that point whatever reason do you have a comment Jeff nope I'm fine okay Mr chair extra copies of the wa do we have an extra I betop app anybody else yeah I [Music] okay Amy sure so um they are all um under the zoning bylaw I did check with the applicant that there's no waivers required for um any of the general bylaw any regulations um or subdivision rules and regulations and uh the response was that there's not um so under um section 27-41 which is the use they're proposing a multif family residential use um and uh that waer is obviously required the next one is the frontage um they need 175 ft and they only have 128. um as most of you are aware um generally uh the the 40b developments do not meet um all of the dimensional requirements that are required in the bylaw um the front yard Circle requirement uh there is a 160t diameter and they're looking for a 6 foot diameter my comment would be the same as the last one in these in these 40b developments usually the um dimensional requirements are not met um so the maximum Building height um is 2 and a half stories and they are asking for five stories um they we did discuss this I think during one of the first hearings and it was pointed out that the properties across the street are also um you know of a of a increased height uh again the um maximum Building height 25 and they looking for 53 um the maximum lock coverage um is 25 um and the they're asking for 75.6 um I they can um the applicants can speak to this but um I think that um if you if you look at this in a if you look at this in a silo where we're just looking at this this project that appears to be high however if you look at the entire site um and and the fact that they're offering public walking trails they're offering so at this point I think you hit him in the head I'm going to yeah ask you to give us a little better argument as to why for this particular project we need to go from 25 to 75 because again I know there's other phases on the whole property that are going to come into play which is probably going to skew that number if we look at the overall project correct mhm that's right yeah the purposes of this um of getting this number so high was because we wanted to give the other portions of the property to uh have the ability to meet the open space requirements that are there um specifically um The Cottage Home Development has uh under the mixed use bylaw a very low coverage percentage I believe it's 25% and that lot is 30 or so Acres can't count wetland in there can't count storm water so it makes that lot has to have a significant amount of green space so again when you look at the property in an aggregate it's probably closer to and again I don't know the exact number but it's probably closer to 30 to 40% lock coverage we bound this 40b project as tight as we could um to the property line so as to allow those other properties to have um as much green space and open space as as we could and also to meet um what's currently in the B laws and regulations and to Amy's point a lot of that open Green Space is going to be accessible to this project right here in front of us and and I believe even the public in general correct that's correct okay okay um the parking requirements are um two per dwelling unit or 400 parking spaces and they're proposing 347 spaces which is 1.74 which um um again the applicant can address that but I I know that um you have actually um you've approved that 1.7 number U before on other 4S um and I agree we have but we usually have an explanation as to how that will work so I'll let you explain that to us cuz what's going to happen is if we don't have understanding we're going to have people coming back to us saying I have I don't have a place to park I got to park on 105 so yeah no absolutely we we through market analysis have felt that 1.75 is is pretty standard um for what we've seen uh at similar projects like this that was the bogey that we targeted um and we're initially able to get above that um as a result of some fire lane access that we had to provide had to lose a few spaces and got just below that 1.74 but but um we feel it's it it meets the demand um for uh a development of this um size and and unit count um and in addition to that also sort of thinking about how we can be efficient with the space that that we have and you have one yeah we have yes yes yes we have a mix of one two and three bedrooms and our three bedrooms are it's it's 10% of of our overall so 90% are one and two bedrooms that's corre the if you had to fall Park and un let you know specifically of the 90% how many are it's like uh we have it somewhere sure we it's near 50/50 all right so app one bedrooms Mr chairman if you would to and what's going to be done here and you know I'm involved in a lot of 4bs including my own um is this the parking is not assigned you basically have the right to park there but by unassigning spaces parking is much more efficient because if somebody is in Florida for 4 months or in Vermont or whatever they don't have spot 147 empty with nobody allowed to park there but if it's I have a placard and I can park in any exterior spot by definition it's much more efficient because when people are gone people can park in their spaces so 17 in my experience I'm involved in a lot of 40 BS right now we don't see anything over 16 in any Suburban location I I feel very confident to say 17 using that parking strategy will be more than adequate John um I just realized that we usually put in um I was John um we usually put a finding as to how how many units are one bedrooms two bedrooms and three bedrooms and we usually put in a finding about the parking spaces and we don't have that in here that's my fault so I would like to add a finding that recites from your application that's fine we're going to yeah let me before we go anybody have any questions on the parking space explanation or concerns okay so we're going to add the finding it's basically just going to memorialize the breakdown of one two three bedrooms and the parking spaces we can supply that or that's otherwise found in our site plan you can supply it that would help yeah you can supply and she'll double check the site plan and make sure they both match up how's that sound John sounds good to me all right Amy um the parking Dimensions so your um your requirements are 9 by 20 um with handicap 12 by 20 and they're proposing 9 by8 and handicap 9 by8 um the um they're saying that the handicap 9 by8 meets Federal ADA requirements um so um that's up to the board well I'll I'll ask anyone if they have comments but as it meets Ada Federal ADA requirements I think that's all we can ask so everybody good with ADA requirements okay continue on um and then I this I did have a a question on the next one which is the sign regulations it says that the um applicant has not yet designed the proposed exterior signage um at the time that such signage has been designated the applicant will submit to the zv as required under chapter 40b so here this this waiver would have to be denied because there's no waiver to Grant so you can't Grant anything that's not there um I think I think counselor is correct in just a lot of projects we have people come back after they come back once the signage package is fully vetted they'll come back in file look at the yeah so we can remove that just take it out rather than deny it yeah y I think so um um site plan review they are asking for that to be waved that is a standard um that's a standard waiver you essentially spent since June doing or July no September I guess doing s review same thing with special permits um that's a very standard um standard waver uh mixed use development um District regulations those are they're asking for those to be waved because a portion of this or the entire site the entire site is in the mixed use and then the um the last um provision is not labor and that um we already had the discussion on this so um that would be not be part of your waiver that your waivers that you're granted so does anyone have any questions or concerns about any of the waivers obviously we're removing the sign [Applause] one anyone else um I guess my only question would be um the lot coverage in this phase if the project is not completed for some reason how does that get reconciled um what do you mean if the Project's not completed then they don't use 75 they don't go up to 75% lot coverage yeah um I think well hang on are you talking this project or the entire AGG of the project entire project so I think what he's saying is we get this done and then for whatever reason the developer says we're not going any further years go by they sell another par and then is that possible yeah it's possible because the um the other two projects are are they're standard projects they're not 40 BS and they you're doing this in PH correct yes that's correct um so Chris's point is how do we guard against yes you could um you could have a condition that if um you could have a condition stating that open space for this project is contingent upon um the other two projects and if the other two projects are not constructed within and it would a certain amount of time which would be a generous timeline um then they would have to come back to provide for open space meaning they would have to they would have to somehow Cut Property off of the cottage site and add it to Mr chairman I'm I admittedly i' I've been involved in a million 40 BS I'm not an attorney but I'm pretty sure it is not allowed to do contingent conditions to other projects or Parcels so I don't then you would have to require they do open space on this partial that would be the only way so they let me so I think the concern is um we have probably correct me if I'm wrong we long as 40b yes running in the state of Massachusetts right now it is being fully built out but the concern always has been at at any given point do they just say we're done walking away which they haven't and I have no I mean at this point they're almost done but if they walk away and sell off that power that has that open space that you guys are using in aggregate um now all of a sudden that open that open space may be used to its full capacity which means now of a sudden that 30% number overall gets increased for the entire project I I think John knows where I'm going so that's what we're trying to guard I think my my where I think your concern is is I don't want to say guarded but protected is is any future development on the balance of the property will have to comply with the zoning bylaws which regulate the amount of open space so what would occur on the balance of the property would only be maximized almost to the extent which which with which we are maximizing that gets you to an aggregate open space that feels digestible so I think whether it's the projects that that we put forth in front of the planning board or whether it's somebody else down the line they still are going to have to comply with what's in your zoning bylaw unless they come to you and ask for a waiver so whether it's what's currently planed or whether it's something else there still is protection that they're not going to blow the open space through but I think it it sounds like in your explanation the remaining Parcels that you're going to develop you've actually gone less to make up for the difference that you've gone more we've basically hit where like gotten to where we can like we've maxed out what we can for lck coverage so you're saying even with maxing out you didn't necessarily do anything different with those it's just the size of the property correct by default allowing you to be here you didn't do anything extra on the other ones in order to get to where we are correct correct we are I I don't know off the top now can the applicant hang on hang on one second because am's gonna so the the issue that I have with John's explanation is that um any other project has to be has to follow the zoning bylaw or be a 40b however they have to they have to provide open space they don't have to provide public open space and so here the trails and the dog park are public open space that can be used by the 40b residents if you have two other developments on the front and the back that are private they provide private open space for their own development they don't have to provide public open space how do we make sure that they can use the others if something changes down the road so well one piece of the open space is is within the bounds of this project which is one of the dark Parks is included within this approval so that that that piece of the open space is is included in this project so you're protected there as it relates to the to the public walking trail that exists I that it's sort of it's sort of that open space like I think there's a definition between there's there's a slight difference between the definition of open space by what the bylaw is and what and what you're referring to or what the board is referring to which is publicly available amenities in my opinion no what I'm what I'm trying to say is that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that that for 75% coverage your residents can still use they still have open space to use they can use the public Trails but I guess you need to focus on how are you how are you justifying 75% coverage if you don't have those Trails the the other dog park you all you have is a dog park in your site you have 25% to play with and that's it I think if if we look at an aggregate with the open space I'm just picking a petitious number here if it's 30 Acres right right and two of those acres are on this for the dog park right now way it's being proposed is going to be 28 Acres of of open space but if those other Parcels aren't part of this they still have their two acres but they there's no access forget about even honestly I'm not even necessarily overly worried about the public space for anybody I'm worried about the folks in this this this development now of a sudden they've gone down to the two acas and they don't have access to you guys sell it or do whatever you do type of a deal now all of a sudden there's there's no additional open space for these folks and for the record I I I think you know your I think your intent is you're going to develop the whole property is my understanding and and this is going to be an issue but things happen and we're you know we're obligated to protect the interests of the future residents no I I yeah no I I understand that I guess I'm just not I'm not quite I'm not quite following why whether it's what we've approved off property versus what somebody else is going might potentially go forward and do off property will change the open space for what's available off the property it it won't that's the that's the problem that you have is that right now the board has the ability to look at this at as an overall scheme and they have the ability to say you know what 75% coverage is okay because the other two developments offer so much other open space and some of that open space is publicly available but if you take away those other two projects and you all you have now is 75% coverage and that's the problem how can you ensure us those other two projects are going to happen the way you have them currently planned well I don't think he can but I would say I would say this but but you understand we understand that you guys because of things that have happened in Lakeville or Happ otherwise you have concern about the um the future build out and whether or not the residents to your point Mr chairman forget about the public I know you didn't mean it that way but the residents or any or the public having access to the open space or some open public open space or private but that can be used Rhino has created this master plan with the intent of of you know having it as shown but John as of today could not provide any guarantees about those future Parcels however within the context of 40b I would put it to the board and Council on this condition alone okay I understand the preference and the intent and the lifestyle but what issue of health or safety or otherwise Rises to the level that the open space is so egregious that it would behoove the board to deny that thus making the whole plan irrelevant you know what I'm saying if you denied it we can't build the plan and the whole project falls apart and we would appeal and we you know and we would say we can't build the plan so hey board what what what about this waiver did you deny that is an issue of health and safety to the residents of Lakeville and you wouldn't be able to defend that so I'm not saying that it's not a valid concern I think it is but John cannot make assurances about non 40b Parcels I know he's in tented and and he would represent that but that's just where we are just for the record this conversation was brought up when we talked about it being being 75% coverage the explanation for why it should be and you are absolutely correct we may be restricted as to how far we can go with this but the topic of conversation came up because it was presented to us that we're going to use these other Parcels to turn around and fair make make make up the difference I yeah so that's that's why we're having the conversation if if and it's a worthwhile conversation to have I was just going to say so if if we can come up with a solution that's the best if if at the end of the day we can't we can't but I think it's it's definitely worth and I understand the concern of the board I do 75% lock coverage is High um and open space is is a valid concern it's a valid local concern for this board um also the configuration of the open space on that lot alone is I mean first of all they're not connected they're they're Courtyards one they're two Courtyards um when's the second phase start how quickly you starting the second phase I know you're doing it phases this one's first I mean I do you have any indication or idea as to when or is this one completely built out and then you start on base it's very difficult to say I I I don't know exactly I mean we would like to move as quickly as we can but it'll largely be dependent on market conditions unfortunately I I don't have a good answer that was going to be my next what's what's what would be what would dictate that and market conditions will Beyond anyone's control control so can the board put a condition saying that if the property is let's just develop 40b on this small parcel they want to sell the remaining Parcels mhm before they can sell the parcels they have to take a section of one of those parcels and add it to this to create bring the law coverage down I don't know if we can do that am I I we could do it only with the uh only with the agreement of the applicant which they wouldn't agree to I wouldn't think and would if that make those other Lots nonconforming it's correct well they're so big anyway I doubt it but I I mean I I don't have a plan for I can't by what's approved right now it it would render what the the decision that the planning board made to be um not conforming but in his example you wouldn't be building correct fair so if it's not conforming you wouldn't be I I think my my sentiment with this and and take this as you may but we've been staring at this property for 5 years and folks have been looking at this property in this town for 30 some odd years trying to redevelop it we've tried this is now our second time I think this is the fourth proposal that's been in front of the board and this is the farthest that any proposal has gone um the chance of something else happening here that isn't what we've already proposed I I put it a very very slim margin um some what we have designed is the highest and best use is the only use that's going to be able to the only density it's going to be able to absorb substantial amount of capital that's going to be needed to remediate demolish those buildings to remove the landfill and construct the wastewater treatment plant I I I've been trying to wrap my head around what before we came in front of this board for the last two years trying to wrap our heads around what would work here and it's just not a lot of options so I think what we've put forth is our best effort and what whether it's us or somebody we sell it to it's going to be what they come to the same conclusion too so again take that as you may it's not it's not a fact it's just my experience and and having tried to put this puzzle together um but that's just my my two [Music] cents that's probably unfair questioning because no one I maybe you maybe you'll surprise me do do we know what normally the lot coverage is I mean I I know this is probably a little higher I do agree but I mean we it's normally is is pretty high with these for I don't think it's like crazy so I don't think it's I I'm thinking it's more within 10% or is it more like it's 50% 50% so usually it's 50% I'm going to look and see if I have if I have le the max lock coverage that's referenced as 25% is per the residential Zone district oh so what is it for mixed use the mixed use reverts back to the underline zoning so that's the challenge with the with the Cottages because we had to comply with a 25% lock coverage what's the um in the business district it's 50% okay which is why we were able to get the Windgate parcel to be a little bit tigh if you looked as sort of an odd jog in the in The Windgate parcel um again that was largely due to we had more flexibility with with the senior living being sorry preference the same project but the senior living we had more flexibility The Cottages were really 25% lock coverage over 30 acres is a challenging um challenging to get the density that we need in order to justify or support demolition cost so how many acres is this parel 49 and half not all upun only upun can be count towards you have any comments no you looking anything up Amy yeah I can't find it so sorry um um okay so if we put this aside any other comments or questions how much of it is up one in the 49 do you know I want to say it's like 30 Acres or so 3 36 I think so substantial portion of the property in the North Eastern portion that is that standing body of water rush pond it's actually I don't know if it is rush pond it's it's it was frontal pool I think it was basically created when Route 79 was extended large one body there that then kind of got split in half anyone have any ideas any thoughts nothing good nothing helps well I guess to your point John I mean um there's a little bit difference between the general public and the residents that are going to be there because right now the general public isn't doing much over there right it's not that I'm not concerned it's great the general public gets in there but my my my more of a priority to me is folks who are going to be in that development and making sure you know it's not just parking lot in in a dog John if if they don't complete the other phase they're going to have to come back whoever buys the property is going to come back in front of this board well only only if or they're going to come yeah they're going to have to come before one of us one of us and I venture to say both boards would have a good memory and I think that what you guys propose is much better than what's there now um I have no issues at all as long as the entire project goes through I I have no issues whatsoever um but I just like he said it does make sense what if you guys do the 40b and you decide more profits in it see you later goodbye you stop doing it you guys file bankruptcy whatever it may be and that just leaves to his point what happens to it you've got you know as our Town's not very dense it's not very populated it's very spread out so you've got all these things PR out you have this one property that's all blw coverage essentially but as a partial a whole for my perspective I think it's no complaints at all my head it's much better than what's there now it's not ey bar I appreciate it it's a lot better than it's a lot better than what's there how do you think it Compares visually to what's across the street say at the train station how do I think it compared like visually as far as the layout in the open space that they have versus what would be left here if the rest were undeveloped would it still be considerably more than what they have over there God I couldn't tell you I mean keep in mind both of those project s were not before us those were 40 hour I'm just trying to visualize how it would it would look pretty close to the same what's there right now would Zing follow zoning um the um the properties across the Street would be that Max that lot coverage would be under the zoning bylaw because those were approved pursuant to 40R those weren't 40 BS right so um so I have another 40b um that has three buildings um that it's the lot coverage was um 55.2% um so but your 70% 75% 74% is based on the up it's not or is it% based on it's based on the up it's yeah it's yeah yes and there is no Wetland area within the 40 parcel okay that goes against your yeah well because to Chris's point I'm trying to optically optically um look at this and say all right it's not just going to be all jammed in I mean I guess my one Saving Grace would be we know what it's going to take to remediate that property and we know the investment in capital going to take to do that so I think it to be worth it for them to do this I don't think it's the juices worth the squeeze to only build the 40b and stop now that being said they can file bankruptcy and that all changes but as long as they're in good SC I don't think they're just going to do the 40 BS stall because it's not going to it's going to cost millions of dollars remate the property but that's just a lot of what US 13 million you guys think I have no project no problem with the project so um we could out a finding that essentially uh mimics what they say in their explanation um box that while the part 40b parcel itself exceeds the maximum lot coverage the 40b program exists the overall Master planed development which offers extensive open Green Space publicly accessible walking trails and other landscaping and passive Recreation features and that way it's out it's a finding and there you know then if plans change for the other two projects that finding is there that it memorializes our compensation that if you decide to come back later and do something different we can remind you that you guys have agreed to this and yes I guess you can't control the future your point something happens with Rhino or um like would be comfortable with that what do you guys think yeah CH well yes but I can see the point where you have to kind of frontload the The Profit into the project to coincide with the hospital um so that cost has to that cost has to be financed somewhere so the the high density first phase I can I see the thinking in in that um but I still have concern that like what happens if the project all all the phases of the projects aren't complete like good intentions are good but like things happen so I I would put it to the board just for conversation think I don't think this goes in the decision but I think there's a misnomer amongst the board that this is the profit part of the overall master plan so let me ask this project I mean this is a $100 million project somebody's going to have to write a check for $35 million and the bank will provide in today's market I would be very surprised and I'll say this with my clients sitting here if they're going to be able to capitalize in this in the immediate future and this is going to be I think can be a spect acular project but the other projects are less expensive and can be done gradually so the likelihood is that those projects may happen before this so the fact that people think like oh the 40b is going to go for and then they can walk away I would I mean that's going to play itself out relative to what the capital markets is but this is going to be a very expensive project to build and Lakeville is a great town but you don't get Welsley or Brookline rental in Lakeville so if you look at the overall underwrite the the returns that the person writing the check or company is looking for it's going to be tight so I I don't I just make that point because thinking that Rhino is just going to do this and walk away let me ask you a question yeah to either one of you is this project uneconomic no without the 74% yes yes it can't be built it's a zero sum game by denying that waiver the project is proposed can't be built I think the key that doesn't mean it's uneconomic you have to they have to State it's uneconomic it can be built it can be built with less units right but if it's uneconomic correct no but it's not units hang on they would have to they would have to then provide their proa and claim that they need the building of this size basically saying listen without you giving us this waiver right then we can't do it it's uneconomic yes and without this waiver it is uneconomic that's correct so you make get your wish about the other thing we talked about careful what you wish for I wasn't wishing for that I know you weren't um Mr chairman under the smart growth the um the Min maximum lot coverage for multi M family residential is 50% um for neighborhood business it's 75% so most likely the property across the street is neighborhood business M so it's 75% um so if you consider the multif family residential under the smart under the U 40R program is 50% they're over by 25% instead of and that's really the only um that's the only lot coverage comparable in in your zoning byw so what's the threshold or or the what we what we do we do we ask an applicant if it's uneconomic and they say yes and that's it or we have to go I don't I'm not proposing to go through a full performer and and give us all the numbers that's probably a bit excessive but if they if they determine that it's uneconomic they then have to provide proforma we can you can um hire a peer reviewer to review the pro fora um and you know move on or you could and you go from there however um I think that in this instance um when you take into consideration um property cost and you take into consideration the remediation which I'm assuming they can um they can attribute at least a portion of the remediation to this project I don't think they could cont I don't think they can attribute all of it to this project no I don't think you can but a portion of it's going to be attributed to this project and then the wastewater treatment plant um you know the construction of that there there's quite a bit of um there's quite a bit of money that they they would have had to put out so um 200 units doesn't seem like well it it doesn't seem unreasonable and they you know their their profit is limited here as the 40p and it do you do you have those numbers as far as mitigation or do you have any degree of those what it's what your potential cost is for clean up and for the for the like project capitalization yeah you have that information I you don't necessarily need to tell me the number you have that do I yes yes be in here do we have that there was a as part of our project eligibility application we did have to submit a I don't know if you gave us that yeah Bare Bones Pro fora um not going say I remember also with the wastewater treatment plant that can't be I me you have to have that complete before you can have one unit develop you know so that's a full capital cost investment it can't be done like incrementally I there's a small part of it that can be done incrementally but most of it has to be done on day one to add to that it would be very challenging for us to lease any of this building without having everything demolished nobody's going to want to stare at a seven story abandoned Hospital buity in their in their backyard you would want that whether or not it was a good design decision or not is still up for determination but the the landfill that we are committed to removing happens to be overlapping with where our wastewater treatment plan is proposed to be located so everything be cleaned up on that property that's correct so that will be just demolition remediation landfill removal will all be completed prior to really any building permit being issued or at least underway prior to any building and a lot of utilities too yeah right there is worth it so you're going to agree that the entire parcel will be cleaned up demol let's let's put let's say this demolition will be underway prior to any building permit being issued I'm more concerned about property is going to be clean up before occupancy permit issu that's yes that's fair that's fair to say yeah I you're going to be doing a whole bunch of stuff at one time so but before Nate issues that first occupancy permit all those buildings are going to be gone I mean obviously there's going to be other site work needs to be done on the other two phases but that will all be cleaned up no one in Lakeville is going to be looking at any buildings on that property before the first person that's our that's our intention or it gets an occupy and again the the the landfill would have to be gone because that's your intention but the land is are you good with that being in our decision well I guess I'll I'll it's inherent that the landfill would be removed because the treatment plan has to be constructed in order for Nate to issue his building permit or his occupancy permit so treatment plant will be built and the landfill will be removed the buildings again I I don't see any way in which the buildings aren't down by the time we're signing a lease with anybody so to answer your question yes we would be comfortable I would yes we would be comfortable if that's something that the board would like to see I think that's fair hly pretty sure the boy's going to want to see that yeah and it gets us to a place I think we can move forward what do you think Amy sure the um the to the budget the estimated budget for the project is um 75 million almost 76 million that since increased as a result of departmentment energy resources I was actually just going to say I don't know if you can attribute all of these to your pro fora but that's either here or there it's a significant it's a significant project yeah so um I need help on that um that finding or that condition the condition is going to be that um well there's two things there's the um the wastewater treatment plant has to be built has to be built which you which is and that's going to take care of the um the land the landfill um how are you regulating that are you is that going to be um is that going to be the management company is going to be the the party that's going to be part of the owner so each each entity using it has to be an owner of the wastewater treatment plant so how are you going to do it I understand the other two how are you going to do this one is it going to be the management company or the owner of the owner of the actual proper the property owner correct okay okay and you you've already talked to deep about that about the the structure of ownership um I I it's I don't know I don't think so Mr chairman I think your point though was already covered in the decision in that we have to satisfy all D requirements and there the governing I was just curious and no no about the Waste Water treatment plan no no I no I I completely agree that's out of oper but and it's in there already so so it's not going to hurt to have us well if you have another condition that basically says the same thing no we're saying it has to be built the the condition that we have says that you they have to comply with all yeah they have to comply with de d as far as that regul my bigger issue is the dump site's going to be gone okay and all the buildings will be demolished before first occupance occurred because it sounds like you're going to be almost there anyways so let's just make sure we finish it up before and then you get your 74 we're going to it's a whole another capitalization it's that's fine you good with that yes okay anything else is the remediation ongoing right now no it hasn't started no it start Play approved honestly you don't have an Rao or anything on the property there are existing rtns okay and but no r no nothing's been done with those there's been no has there been has there is there an approved remediation plan DP approv the non-tradition or yes approve are you talking for the landfill or for the building removals oh landfill yes there is a corrective action design that's been reviewed and approved okay that was approved in 2007 as part of National Developments attempted Redevelopment is there a um is there a date by which it has to be remediated oh no that that permit is dated 2007 so I I don't think it whatever we'll have to renew that that cap I was just D so no okay so um the wastewater treatment plant has to be built all existing buildings to be demolished before the occupancy permit and the landfill um uh to be remediate fully remediated yep the was treat okay so having said that that's in the we we just did there is that's that's in what document that's going to be a condition that's a condition right that's a condition so knowing we're going to have that as a condition we can now vote on the waivers correct unless anyone else has any other questions you have any more comments for us on waivers Okay so attain a motion to approve the waivers uh without which one are we getting rid of um it's not numbered but it's sign regulations okay you want to approve all the waivers with the exception of the sign W with the exception of the sign waiver which is being withdrawn correct correct and the dicta at the end which isn't even a waiver okay that's that's withdrawn too okay so what Amy said is withdrawn the sign waiver is withdrawn but all the other waivers as presented I'll entertain a motion to approve to Grant make motion we approve the waivers we have a second second motion okay um any further discussion all in favor I opposed motion carries unanimously so you have um Mr chairman you have the option to um to vote on the project vote on the decision as um vote on the decision as um revised tonight or um I will make the changes and bring it back to you I mean I'm good with you I'm good with voting on it now if everyone else is I Mr chairman can I ask a question before the board takes I mean I think we're all on the same page but would we have an opportunity just to review counsil is l no no well no if if we vote on it tonight you won't if we don't vot on it tonight if you'd like the opportunity to that's the question so we may ask the board not to take action if it means if you want to take a look at it and make sure that everything is to your you're that you're comfortable with it you're going to want to ask us to continue because we V in it tonight could you just quickly go through what changes have been made so what I'm what I'm going to add for the record I was going to ask you to do that so I am going to add as a finding I'm going to add um the I'm going to add open space um I'm going to use add this as a finding the second half of that Pro of that description um I am going to put in uh well I have a note to myself to make sure that I have um oh never mind I don't have to do that on this one I was going to say construction sequencing but it's one building so never mind I am going to put as a finding I'm to put the number of bedrooms and the number of parking spaces and the fact that there is a dog park because we don't have that on as a finding okay um and I'm going to add a condition that we just talked about the wastewater treatment plant must be built all existing buildings to be demolished and the landfill to be fully remediated prior to occupancy the first occupancy well it's one building so occupancy um okay so on finding number 14 at the very end of that I'm changing and the applicant has not provided that the waiver is not granted blah blah blah so I I deleted failed to provide and said not provided under 17 on page five I am adding after town regulatory agreement I'm adding provided by the town um under on page n under 33 at the very top I'm changing business to calendar um on number 45 I am taking out the applicant shall be subject to construction bylaws Town's construction bylaws on 46 I'm taking out before starting any authorized activity and I'm putting in prior to Construction Construction commencement a number 49 I'm putting onto Main Street uh number 59 on page 13 I'm deleting trash compactors the rest of that sentence on 62 I'm putting prior to construction commencement on 59 um taking out minor adjustments may be approved by the Building Commissioner on 65 I am um going to reference the landscape plan and put that the vegetation is there to minim I mean I'm going to use better language but minimize headlight glare um into the first floor units but I'm taking out I'm taking basically I'm taking I'm deleting that condition in in full and I am deleting um Jerry's name and Eric's name um actually don't you just have one person sign it yeah we normally do that normally cuz what happens is you go through and do it and then rather than have everybody have to go down to you just hope for me to sign it so I'm going to take out all the names that just have John's signature one comment that just I forgot to make mention of um page 7 number 25 I just caught this while we were going through this earlier but it references the last of the condition references prior to final or prior to recording of final plans could we adjust that language just because certain state and federal permits will take a year for some like our access permit is going to take like 12 months for us to get so and we haven't even started that process so why don't we just say um submitted to the Border it's designated agent that's fine by me I just wanted to make sure that we could still record the final plans um also could be done PRI construction but would there be state and federal approval that he needs after yeah throughout so there's certain elements that that like our access permit for instance we've done another project where we've just started the project and then gotten our access permit 6 months in like it just that one in specific because it's a roadway just State roadway um and then just as a point of clarification um finding one um I have if we aren't allowed to or if we aren't able to provide any followup information um that date is Monday April 8th the applicant submitted project eligibility application in Mass housing um and then finding six um duly noticed public hearings I refer back to you all but I have that as September 19th November 21st December 19th and then today's date as public hearings I'm not going to say I know I'm off the top of my head but I do know they started in September so we had October was continued um and then there's a reference to exhibit a and exhibit B which you we haven't supplied to you you have supplied exhibit B okay exhibit that's right we have exhibit so I'm going to turn this into um a waiver list I'm taking it off your your that's um the exhibit B I did prepare but didn't send to you exhibit a which is list of materials so I don't know if I can can I give that to you now can you also send it to me yes of course cuz then I'll just put it all together yep thank you that's just a for the for the boards ref that's just list of materials referencing plans date numbers and that sort of thing yeah let me know if anything on there doesn't look do you want to add this cuz I have it so you must have given it to me to us um the um your application oh the actual application yeah yeah that's okay you good John yeah we're comfortable with the conditions as as discussed Amy anything else you need to add um I have um never mind um okay no thank you good looking at my notes no so at this point we have then red back um comprehensive permit um with all the findings and adjustments as discussed between Council and the applicant do we have a motion to approve as present I make a motion approve as presented um and I guess for the record um that I am authorized to sign once Council has um has prepared them you going to add that to your motion add to motion okay a second second do we have any further discussion all in favor I oppos motion carries who um seconded that I'm sorry it was shy I thank you and quite a second at was thank you very much a little more than a second that's all right um okay thank you very much gentlemen um you'll May we'll get that drafted and then get it to me and get signed and then let you know when it's oh you didn't close the hearing so you should do that yes um I want say a motion to close the hearing I make a motion to close the hearing post vote Yes we have a second any further discussion all in favor I iOS motion carries hearing is closed uh let's see we do not have any minutes to approve uh we all did receive in our packet just as a reminder you need to do the um complete conflict of interest training I believe everyone's gotten some emails on that make sure you get it done again next meeting is February 27th at the Lakeville Public Library I will in a motion to adjourn make a motion we adjourn second all in favor I motion carries meeting adjourned 8:44 p.m. thank you