And now being past 6:30, we're going to bring the planning board meeting for Thursday, April 2nd, uh to order um an agenda. First item is board
business. We have minutes. Did anyone have any comments on the minutes? >> I I did I didn't see anything. Um they're now so much more detailed than they used to be.
Thank you. Or whomever is doing it. >> Yeah. Who who whoever's in charge of the AI? Uh so can I hear a mot Oh, hi Margo. Uh
can I hear a motion to um we'll let you get settled? >> Um >> did you have any comments about the >> Yeah. >> Uh can I have a motion to approve the minutes of March 19th?
>> Second. All in favor? >> Since you have somebody to roll. >> Okay. Okay. First of all, Darl, do you have you did you have any comments on the minutes? >> Uh, no. No comments and I vote yes to approve the Margo. >> No comments. Approve. >> Yes or no?
>> Approve. Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. And I Okay. Item two is the Littleton Common Revitalization Road update. And I'm going to um let Maren explain that.
>> Um so the town received a $60,000 legislative earmark uh to update the economic and market uh and public outreach portions of the January 2019 uh Littleton Common revitalization roadmap.
uh planning department and town administrator's office are working with the UMass Donahue Institute to get this work under contract and started sooner than later um because there is our time constraints on the funding. So um attached to the information board
received was a draft scope of services. Um the uh one of the great things about working with UMass Down Institute I mean outside of their expertise um the wonderful people they have working there is that the contracting process with
them and the town is quite simple. We just agree on a scope and a budget and the administrator's office can approve a contract directly. Now in general this will take into account the 515.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um and and recall the 2019 revitalization road map was before we heard that the IBM site well the former IBM site would be selling. >> Okay. and before co and a lot of market
forces have changed um since that time. >> So as I understand it this money does not need a town meeting approval. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So as a legislative earmark um the town is required to if the town spends it's required to
spend it on on this study. Um, and then the other piece of it is, if you recall, um, it's been a couple years now, but there was a group of, um, business owners, uh, in Littleton Common that were concerned,
um, that, uh, they hadn't been asked about what their needs would be for, um, expansion once town sewer became available. Um, so this will help with the outreach portion of that discussion as well.
Okay. Um, I'm going to ask if anyone in the audience has any comments about this particular item. If not, I'll go on next to the general public input. Is there anything not
related to one of the hearings we're going to subsequently that anyone here would like to speak to? If not, it is 6:35 and we have a continued public hearing
for the JLB King Street residences storm. We have two uh hearings. One's the storm water review and site plan and the a stormwater review and then we have the site plan phase one residential development.
Now, as always, there's last minute flurry of info coming in, but the main uh what I like to go through at this meeting is
the decision. uh and there are a few I wouldn't say outstand well there are there are items that we have to discuss today. So in terms of let's first get the storm water um
uh we do we have we've had the final back check of peer review. Um we have the applicants engineer saying we're all
fine with the comments, >> right? Um the so the peer review back check um and the the outcome of that is um there will be um some design check modifications
needed in the storm water. Um, but that's an engineering detail that's easily handled. If the board conditions that that be uh completed uh prior to building permit applications, that'll um serve to keep the process moving.
>> Do I have any comments from the board? >> Mark's asking you to come up. >> Um, >> sure. This is just for the storm water. >> Yeah. Okay. Um so good evening. Thank you chair. Thank you Mark Zack on behalf of the applicant
JB Realy LLC. Um so we did have a call yesterday with our consultant as well as the town's third party consultant and yeah there's one design change I think looking at the peak flow rates for the infiltration. They decided they determined that we need a few more chambers where that is. So, we will
submit a revised, but the the crux of that was just um additional um infiltration chambers where we have it in that parking field. So, they'll run the new caps, we'll submit that. Um Green was aware of the approach that we're going to take and they said, "Yeah, that that that math adds up to
us." So, >> okay. Um, barring any other comment or input, um, I would like the board I would like a motion to close this hearing,
this storm water hearing. >> Motion to close this residential. >> Can I hear a second? Second it. >> Um I'd like now to
>> vote on closing. >> Didn't we just vote on closing? >> We have a motion in the second. >> Okay. Now we have to vote. >> Thank you Mark. Um okay. Uh Marco >> I don't I wanted to check. I don't think I'm allowed to be on this.
>> Um Mark. >> Yes. >> Yes. Daryl, >> just to clarify, we're voting on the storm water review. >> Storm water review. >> Uh, yes. >> And I'm Yes. Um, so we've closed the
hearing. Now, I'd like to see a vote on the um storm water permit. Can I have a motion? >> So, sorry to interrupt. Apologize. Um my recommendation is since the conditions um are
the both for each special permit or for each decision since it's combined I would recommend that you go through the detailed um decision for the site plan. >> Okay. Fine. We close the hearing but that's fine. Okay. So, next, um, we'd like to,
uh, continue the hearing for the site plan review for the, uh, what we're calling the JB. Um, we we're always struggling with what to call a phase one, residential, you know, etc. Um,
and so the board has before us a the draft and there are um there are some issues that are still
um we're um seeking clarification in the draft. Um, one of them was EDS >> and you responded. Uh, could you explain
to uh the board and who's here about uh your EV provision? >> Yes. So, um, it's been one of a couple meetings to uh on the, uh, amount of EV parking stations. Um, Littleton is a specialized stretch code community um or just stretch code community, I
apologize. Um and so we are required under the state's energy code to have 10% sorry 20% uh make ready meaning the conduit is run and the transform transformers are upsized to provide power there's no
requirement for stations open day one. So out of the 20% that would require 96 spaces to be EV ready and we would propose to do um 10% at day one and then as the demand comes we would buy the equipment and then they're easy to hook
up because all the electrical is already run and the transformers are sized appropriately but the the state code is is 20% just ready nothing >> would you if you have demand would you wire more >> of course well the wiring is going to yeah the cond if it's above Of course.
Yes. Yeah. We want to meet the demand of the residents. Of course. Yeah. >> And this um for from Lupi's point of view because part of this garage will be um for the IBM.
Uh what are you providing in that if any? >> Um it'd be the same. I want I want to say the requirement is 10% for the commercial side of it. Okay. >> And and it be the same thing. It would be infrastructure for >> and would you be willing to provide more
if your tenants >> if the demand was there we'd provide more but yeah infrastructure we'd be compliant with code and >> right >> okay >> so um as a clarification the um decision is written um asking for a minimum
number um that's proposed to be installed is that >> what's what's the number back. >> Yeah. I mean, I think we would say we would we would start with 10%. Um, >> but what is that number?
>> So, this is what I was talking about at the last meeting is um, you know, I'd like to have a definitive number. You know, I view that um, you know, uh, supporting 10% of the apartments. I think you have 300
318 um, unit um, apartments. So 10% of that would be 31 or 32 U units installed on day one. I'd like to see that explicit in the in the in the um decision
as opposed to just generically 10%. >> So you you say in your comment here, I would think we will have plus or minus 50 ready and installed. >> Yeah. If if it's >> Can we use 50? >> Sure. >> Okay. Is that okay, Darl?
>> The audio dropped out a little bit. >> Okay. Um, he's proposing 50, which is more than 10%. >> Okay. I I didn't I guess I just would just like that actually incorporated into the into the decision.
>> Okay. Um, and again, you know, my threshold was that 10% of the the units had charges available on day one. And if he's going to exceed that, that's that's even better. >> And then I think the decision
uh should reference the Lei Park, the garage. Right now, we're just um I don't know how you're going to, you know, determine. I mean there's what three levels are going to be for the office
building or >> it's by spaces. So u yeah subdivision accordingly of the garage and how it gets mapped out who's on what level is a little bit of a TVD but it's set up by spaces.
>> So um if we're if we're requiring a number for the residential part of it we should require for the commercial part of it also. >> Sure. We we would we would put in 10 uh doubles which would be or five doubles
which would be 10 chargers and then the infrastructure same percentage. >> Okay. So from day one you would have 10 >> correct >> and then you would have 10% of the spaces wired essentially
>> for infrastructure ready. Correct. >> Comments. So, so would we be looking at wording uh that um the uh 50 units allocated to the residential uh portion of the development and 10 uh allocated to the
um >> commercial >> commercial >> side? Yeah, that's fine. >> Is that is that what we're >> fine? Okay. >> Any other questions or >> putting the wires in conduit? Are they
buried in the slab or are they surface modded? >> Surface modern in the garage. Yeah, >> in the garage. >> Yeah. And not all will be in the garage. We will have some outside. >> Correct. Well, they we we have as you if you can picture the plan, we have those other private garages on the westbound
side. One of those garages will have a charge board as well. So, they'll be they'll be spread out. Most of them will be in the garage, but not all of them, right? And the fire department wants them all kind of located near the the egresses. Um so you know we will have some outside as well. Yeah. Have you
have you considered um uh putting in a in you know I know that these will be all of the level two uh chargers considered perhaps instead of putting numerous level two ones uh they are a cluster of the level three
chargers at some place on the site which may be actually more more amunable for both commercial and um uh tenant uh use. >> In all honesty, I'm not familiar with the difference. >> It's like a Tesla charger.
>> Yeah. Um that would be probably a question >> level three of the highspeed chargers versus the 20 to 40 amp level two chargers. >> Yeah. I'm not sure. I know we have a a national agreement with Charge Point and I don't know what they provide. So, um I'm not sure I can answer that
tonight. Um, >> it just I I I just throw that out for your consideration because um, you know, the high-speed chargers versus somebody needing to charge for four or five hours might might actually be more desirable. >> Mhm. Yeah, it's something we'll
definitely look into if it's a if it's a benefit, at least for the residents, of course. >> Yeah. And then that way they don't have to worry about coming out in the middle of the night to move their thing when they fill their charge or anything. >> I think all
commercial developers now have to struggle with how to provide the right number, the right configuration. >> It's accurate. >> Yes. >> I I expect that um it's in your interest
to you know, satisfy, you know, your uh the users. >> I I would say in general, this is a big EV um area. >> Well, it's definitely a money maker, so they're going to be able to put as many in as they can. Definitely generates
some serious >> and if you and if you're doing it above the slab, >> the beauty of parking garage is you're running surface mount, so it's it's easy to do. your tenants are going to tell you if they want more.
>> That's right. Yeah, it's an easy adaptation to keep going. So, the next item uh on the draft that we've been going around on is the three bedroomedroom units.
Um by our special permit, we uh specified 10%. Now this is a phased project. Um so like the affordables it's not
necessarily that in this phase that number has to be reached. However we do um want to maintain our eligibility for the subsidized housing index.
uh to that. Marin has been talking with the um HLC um who do issue waiverss >> um and uh what
you are uh and you're providing 14 we're at 4% right now here >> right but when we have two in the the poli in building 500.
Um, I mean, I accept that they're probably harder to lease up than >> but but I and and this is not here nor there, but I would also say that part of the purpose of this development we felt
was to provide a different, >> you know, we have single family homes on an acre. did was to provide a different um uh housing opportunity for people who live in our community or might want to live in our
community. And one of those opportunities are young people who come out and start and have, you know, two or three people in an apartment. Um and that may be a market. Uh I personally
have as a parent signed you know guarantees for such a thing and I know it's pretty common and and these were sophisticated you know apartment um filters but anyway
>> um so what we're talking about now is uh we would like we we agree with you to go through the waiver process which may not get to what you are providing.
And um you also say that and and part of the waiver process is you um saying we just don't think these are going to be up. And the other thing that you have talked about is that with the three bedrooms, which would be more
oriented toward families, people coming in with kids, they tend to come in at just one time throughout the year rather than there. Um so we in the um
conditions will with the board's approval um agree to support the waiver. >> Okay. >> We can't provide it for you >> to support the waiver >> and if it doesn't come through you will
have to prior to the building permit um make whatever accordingly. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um, any comments? >> I I wish I had had time to talk to human
services about the demand for family units in town. my position on the housing authority um which is my only source of information right now is that there's a great demand for family units
>> at what price >> but that's it's a different demographic I admit that but I am I'm hesitant to allow a reduction in future units >> well this wouldn't be a this wouldn't be a complete reduction would be in this space.
>> That's one of the possibilities. >> Yeah. >> And then the other thing is we would have to talk about you know which of I what are we talking about at at building 500? We're talking about one of the subsidized
what are we talking about? Um we we have to bring the affordability question into this too. whether or not um we include we provide you know three. >> Yeah.
I mean, I think to your point, we don't have a lot of that that hard demographic data in front of us, but but anecdotally, from what I've seen, um, like on the Littleton Parents Board, there is definitely that kind of demand for just people asking at a decent
frequency of looking for either affordable or sometimes not necessarily what we would classify as affordable um, housing because I mean, a threebedroom, that's basically parents, a kid, and a home office. So that's not like huge families, but it
is representative of what's in the school district. >> And there's I mean look at the open market. The houses are new ones are all four and five bedrooms. They're huge and >> there's not much in space.
So, >> but I think um as long as we end up in a state that we can count uh the you know uh all of the apartments as part of our SHI, I'm in favor of letting them pursue the waiver
process. the waiver process doesn't carry through. They're committed to providing the unit uh per the other regulations. I'm I'm actually fine with that. And I guess I would say that we're talking about
under this present scheme 14 three-bedroom apartments, which is 14 more three-bedroom >> than we have now. And um possibly more depending on the waiver process.
and more in the future as the future phases roll out. We understand um so I guess I have the option of um
I guess I want to have the board weigh in now on this item. Uh, and if we need to talk about it more, we need to talk about it more. >> I don't think we do. I think I'm good with the 4% have them go for the way. If
they don't get it, then it has 10% right now. >> I think that you should maybe talk about it in terms of 14%. >> Can you make speak towards the microphones a little bit? I can't I didn't hear anything. >> I just said I was just saying to Mr.
that he should talk about it with reference to 14 threebedroom units. >> All right. 14 present with the potential of going for a wave and keep it. They don't get the they don't get the wave and then it's I'm okay with that right now.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Daryl. >> Um um like I said the the sound kept dropping. >> I'm sorry. Oh, uh, and I'm I'm asking the board to weigh in on this issue, yes or no. And, uh, what's presented to us
is, uh, 14 units, uh, our support for them seeking a waiver. And I'm careful about we we can't provide you, >> correct? Yeah. >> Yeah. We're just supporting it. Yep.
>> Um and uh so at this point looking for a yes or no. >> Yeah, I'm I'm fine with the agreement that uh you talked about at the beginning of the meeting here >> and I'm yes. Um so the rest um
there was an inquiry about dark sky lighting. Uh you responded dark sky you would be dark sky compliant. Um we I think there are people here who are embarking on a
um um an effort to bring it as part of a town bylaw. We have something but you know there's various degrees and um >> Nope. It's for you. >> Why? >> Cuz we're the one that we can't hear. >> Okay.
And so they have to share. >> Okay. Um so um you know we'll look forward to that. I am cognizant that the site is next to 495 which can never be dark sky compliant but anyway we'd like
to push in our community for that kind of um this Martin these items three and four have to do with um wording about the peer review um which
is very typical at this stage in in these in this um do the uh any of the board members have any comments about items three and four for the people in the audience items it's a it's addressing storm water
peerreview comments in the final which you've already talked to and for is uh traffic peer review um which we're working toward getting the town involved at an earlier
uh time then would be typical. Um, am I describing that correctly? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And they have no problem with that. Um and the fire department has
asked that um that ahead of building part permit submission when you have roadways laid out uh they would like to practice and confirm that everything's going to work.
Actually, we have a late update um from the design engineer for 200 building 200 um that he added that note to the building 200 plan. >> Okay. >> So, and that can be handled for JB
development that can be handled at the building permit stage. His building department and fire department work closely on that. So you can include it in as a condition on um approval if you wish or it's >> it's just part of the process. >> The curve installation is what they
asked for just in case there's minor adjustments that need to be made. >> Now uh that being said, were there any other issues? uh as I in my mind the main issue was the um
with the three-bedroom issue there are a lot of details in the conditions uh prior to construction etc etc um that are in my view boilerplate that have you know come about because of
previous products the only thing I had uh put in the lottery for inclusionary dwelling units shall be held prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the 96th market rate unit in the development and that
translates to 30% is that typical >> okay um >> can I ask a question on the um so on number four regarding um bike share or
carpool etc everything to reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle trips. Um I know in in 3D here it says site plan provides safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access connecting etc. Um,
how is that shown more in the in the site plan? Because I know I've heard from people saying like, "How many bus stops will it have? Where will they be and all?" Um, because there's been a lot of issues with the location of school bus stops and if this is going to be a
residential community, do we have there already been conversations to ensure that it will be supported by enough bus stops? I know like D has pushed back and all. >> How is that looking? >> That's a good question. >> Yep. So, um we did put uh the school
department um in touch with uh JB and they'll work out locations um for school bus stops um for this development and that'll depend on who the residents are. Um but they are working at this stage
pre-esigned stage on that. We know where it's going to go and then there's been like the push back on that. Okay. So, how do we so that will be in >> that's for the school department to work with with the developer on that and they've agreed to work together on that
>> and and relative to your broader question. Uh our item three in our agenda is a board discussion about support for transportation management agency grant which is a sort of more of a regional
um that is sort of after during the pandemic sort of fell to the wayside and you know the effort what what effort can we do to get it going again. Uh but that would be there is a commitment by LeBI to pro you know to support
um this you know these regional bus efforts especially connecting because 600 of these units are tagged for MBTA communities especially for a connection
>> to the train station. >> Yes. >> Um so we will not lose track of that. Um, now Mark, do you have any >> Nothing. Are we ready to vote?
>> Would you like to >> I make a motion that we close the hearing? >> Do I hear a second? >> Okay, Mark. >> It's a hearing, right? I can ask >> Good point. Good point Mark. >> Okay, I guess I can't
I draft things would be >> Marker 205. I have a question on the uh waiver for the three-bedroom units. Is this something that you're saying you're building 14 now onto the 318? Is this something that we're catching up on
later or is this like we're not ever EOHLC requires 10%. >> Yes. >> And everything. So is this meaning that this building's getting four and the next building's getting 15? >> So the idea would be that this does not affect the future. This is just for this
phase. So, so the question is if we're only putting 4% in this one in the second or third phase or whatever, are we going to end up with 10% overall? >> Which also then means then there's since we're putting less affordable ones here
in this phase that there will be more affordable threeb units going forward. >> Yes. >> So, how is that expressed in the decision in writing to confirm that that's going to happen? That the ratio is still >> it's in our pilot. >> It's in our the BIOS certain percentage that are
affordable expressed in the special permit under which this is being approved. So ultimately the entire project will have to conform to the special permit. >> The the the question is how do we keep if they're building more three-bedroom
units later and we're doing more affordable later, this is actually a better thing for us if more of the three bedrooms become affordable. So my question is how is that codified in the special permit that we end up with more affordable three-bedroom units?
>> We don't we don't have we don't set it up. We we have 10% of affordable 10% threebedroom. Then it's up to us at a later date to decide the m what the mix the final ultimately mix is. We can't front end
load it like you're trying to ask us to. >> I'm not asking you to front end load it. I'm asking you to c because what we're doing right now is we're back end loading >> and what I'm asking is when we're backending loading it how are we making sure that going that it's codified that when it is backend loaded that we are
going to end up with more three-bedroom affordable units because if you were spreading them out we're going to get 10%. Now you're collapsing the three-bedroom units into a smaller project where there'll be more of them. So in theory we should get more than 10%. So how is that being exposed? So
it's it's on the well I'll let Warren speak to this but first it's it's the in and this is confusing and every aspect of this project because it's phased. Mhm. >> Um
it is they have a commitment to provide this 10% affordable and 10% three bedrooms and how it I I don't really understand why
we would get more threebedrooms. Well, we we might get more than 10% in the you know to catch up and that's >> they're going to have so they're going to catch it. So the next building will theoretically have 15% threeb. >> Yes.
>> So >> they could get waiverss for that too. >> Questionable how long you're going to get the waiverss for. But if they have 15% and then 10% of that building is affordable or larger percentage is affordable. Theoretically we end up with more affordable larger apartments.
That's what we should be agreeing to as part of this. we're allowing you to go forward with the waiver is that in the long run it's going to benefit us and that we're not just pushing it off. >> At the end of the day, we're only going to get 10% three bedrooms whether they're affordable or not. That mix
hasn't been decided yet. That's the point. >> EC requires 10. If you're building a 10 your units, 10% are affordable. And it's not like you can say only the one-bedroom apartments are 10% across the board. But if you're putting all
your affordable units or a larger percentage of your affordable units in one building, then that building's going to have and you're putting more your three-bedroom units in that building, then theoretically more of your three-bedroom units have to be affordable. So, if we're agreeing to
allow them to go to the waiver, we should be requiring that we get more larger units. I don't even understand that math because in the end we will end up with the same well how do you get more out
>> you can't get more it has to be 10% of >> there's no there's no obligation >> but so okay >> there in that phase there might be more >> when they build phase two >> are we going to move more affordable units into phase one
>> no >> then then the buildings in phase two have a larger concentration of threebedroom units and a larger concentration of affordable >> which means that we should get more threebedroom affordable units. >> Not necessarily. He's also proposing to put more affordables in front loading 40
to 50 affordables before it even gets to phase 2. So most of his affordables will already be in front of us. So that might mean that you're going to get less affordables in phase two. >> You're talking the off-site ones. I'm talking the on-site ones. >> It doesn't mean they're both the same.
>> No, the senior ones are separate. This isn't senior. This could be affordable and over there as seniors. Could be also affordable over there not as seniors. The point is you have 10%. It's got to be 10% across the board. 10% three bedrooms, 10% two bedrooms, 10%
onebedrooms affordable. >> Yes, but that's not what you're doing now. All you're doing is catch up. >> We're giving him the right to build less. Three bedrooms. Not affordable. Not nothing. Just three bedrooms. >> What happens if phase two doesn't come to pass? said before he gets done. This
is this is a good question and it's been, you know, for the whole >> I guess the other question I would ask is to me this looks an awful lot like we're kind of kicking the can down the road. is >> No, >> no. The developer is cooking the can.
>> But we're we're no I I I >> we want this to go forward and this is what the developer for I think
basically common sense reasons has asked to do to get the project financed to be built. And that's just the way it is. >> What do we lose though by moving forward with this?
>> Like you're saying we'll have to >> So my saying what I'm saying is when you build phase 2, you're going to have a larger concentration of three-bedroom units. Yes. >> And a larger concentration of affordable units. >> Maybe not. That's the point. >> No, you have to. >> Right. The um there's no not been a
request to amend the overarching special permit for this site. Our planning board special permit requires the 10% threebedrooms and the 10% affordable. Um so in order to keep maintain compliance with that and town council offered um
you know for a phrase in one of the conditions that um addresses that. So >> so it's addressed your concern is addressed in
a non-specific way. by the overarching special permit. And if there are further phases, they'll have to comply or negotiate with the E L H O E HLC. Yes, the impossible acronym.
Yes. >> And if they never build another phase, they have to make them we have to stop at 10% affordability, which means they have to make whatever units they have affordable. There is also a process of essentially liquidated
damages if they don't provide these which is a cash payment which is substantial but we don't actually want that. We want built >> well it has to be a pretty substantial cash payment and
>> it's I think I think it was like over $300,000 >> that's nothing >> per unit. >> That's nothing. Well, it's not it's something, Mark. >> It It's It will not get you. >> I agree. I agree. This is not where we want to go. But I'm just saying there is that process and it's tied to the AMI.
>> Yeah. I I think what this discussion is really bringing up is concerns about our um inclusionary bylaw that allows the deferral of the um affordable units to late in the construction process. And that I think something as a board we
need to revisit because I don't think unfortunately relative to this discussion uh that bylaw is is driving the um you know part of this decision uh here and uh if we don't agree with the direction that's going in, we need to
adjust that bylaw to properly uh account for the board's dealing. I get the impression that the board feels that we should not be deferring in general the affordable units. However, that ship has failed relative to this project because it's approved under the existing bylaws.
>> Right. I agree, >> George. George Sanders 672 great board I want to understand one if we're talking about the number 14 the previous meeting we were talking about 13 the 318 unit
though they came out with the total they figured was 8.1 can I stop you for a second the 14 is the number of threebedroom units It's not the and the 13 was the number of affordable units of all sizes. So,
they're two different numbers. >> Okay. Well, then let me back up then. According to the affordable units that the town is supposed to receive out of all the unit that he's going to
build, I'm in a onebedroom. How many two and how many three? >> It was outlined in the special permit and the only percentage that I know off the top of my head is 10% are three bedrooms.
>> How many in total bedroom three that he's going to build? >> Well, no, you mean in the entire >> Yeah. In the entire base 804 times 10%. So 80, let's say 80 roughly 81
>> 81 unit. So now they're agreeing to give you the 10% which is the 13 and you ask >> they're agreeing 14 >> and you're asking them for >> and then there's two additional in the re in the retail phase one. So there's a
total of 16 >> 16. So now that's up to 46 in the retail. >> So there's there's two in the retail. Oh, there's 44 units and two of them will be three
bedrooms >> and two of those be three bedrooms. So that'll be u 14. So there 16 units. That's going to be three bedrooms. >> Yes. >> 16 14. But you got two over in the 44
unit that >> 14 you getting 14 over at the 318. >> It come out to be 16 by my math. >> Yes. >> Okay. They're agreeing to do that. Is that the
understanding here? >> Yes. >> Okay. Then if they're agreeing to do that, then as we go to phase two, then we have to start back again and come up
and say how many they going to give us then at the phase two because that's the progressive process that's supposed to take place as he build. Am I right? as he build, we're supposed to know what
we're going to get out the number that he's going to build. >> Well, I don't see a problem here then. If that's the procedure that we're using according to the bylaw and he's
conforming and doing as the bylaw says, then the next round, phase two, we'll know when he present to us what he's going to build. And then we would talk about the numbers at that time.
Am am I going in the right direction here? >> That's the way I hear it. >> That's the way I see it. >> Okay. That's the way I see it as well. So I was said that if that's what they're going to do, then we just include it in the permit. That that's
what they're going to provide us in this phase one or whatever you want to call it here. and we'll be all set with that and look forward to the second phase that's coming in
and hopefully that he will come in with the 410 as to what he's going to build over there and then we will know at that time what we're going to get total wise what the three bedrooms will be and the 10% of what's going to come in over
there as well. So, I think that uh we need to get them started so that uh they can get start building over there and uh we can start getting some revenue in from that property over
there, get it back up to the 60 million level so that the taxpayers in Littleton can start paying taxes over there. So, they need to have to go here tonight and start building on that 313 318 over
there and get this project rolling. So, I'm looking forward to it and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Um Joan, >> do you have a comment? >> Can I ask a question? >> Okay, sure. Yes.
>> Yeah. So, I'm trying to understand the waiver that's been discussed. Like, it sounds like there'll be 10% has to be affordable and 10% have to be three bedroom units. And this waiver is applying just to the first >> phase
>> phase. So, it allow would allow there to be fewer than 10% affordable or fewer than 10% threebedroom. >> Both. >> No. >> Oh, the waiver doesn't apply to the affordable. just fewer threebedroom ones. >> Yeah.
>> So then the former speakers concern was that in later phases they'll have to have more threebedroom units to make up for having a smaller proportion this time.
And then we want to make sure that more of those three-bedroom units are affordable. And it's not just all oneb units that are affordable. We are, Mark, correct me if I'm wrong,
but 10% of the three bedrooms have to be affordable. >> You said there would be 16 threebedroom units. >> No, 80 10. Yeah, there's going to be 80 ultimately >> in 10%. So, eight of them eventually
will be affordable. Yes. Three bedroom units. >> Yes, it is. that that's that's a requirement of the state to get these units certified in our subsidized housing. >> It is unfortunate to delay
making available these larger three-bedroom units, these larger affordable units. There's plenty of people who really need them. It's too bad >> that has to be >> I would also say that uh do we have the numbers for what a rent would be for a
three-bedroom affordable >> not off the top. >> Okay. Because still pretty pricey. >> Yeah, it is. >> Okay. Thank Yeah, I think that's a good point. But this brings up Mark. What is Yeah. Why don't you uh
One more question. This is a lot of balls in the air, a lot of um how many of the three bedrooms that you were providing in this phase
uh are you proposing to be afforded? >> Yeah. So we're we we still are proposing that they be split proportionately um as the state you know depending on how many how the unit mix is they would be split proportionally among um the the
affordable units. >> So >> you got to give us a number. >> Yeah. So I think we have one one eBay. >> So that's fine. So you have 13 affordables. >> We have in our phase we have nine. Oh,
I'm sorry. In this in this special permit. >> Yeah, you have nine affordables. Okay. And that would be 10% essentially of that of what a single three-bedroom affordable would be 10% of the affordable.
>> Correct. Yeah. And since we have, you know, 3% it would be 3% of each unit mix of each unit type. >> Three ones, three, three. No, it' be 3% of however many one beds. So it is he favored towards one beds because we do
have predominant one beds, right? So it's all equal in proportion, right? So because the affordables are 3% of the total development, 3% of the one beds, 3% of the two beds and 3% of the three beds would make up the affordables is how the state that's how the state
will you know anytime there's 10% or 25% or 40 bed 25% have to be one you know whatever it follows what the unit mix is so that they are evenly distributed throughout the unit mix and throughout the building. Okay.
So our concern is that the wording of the condition of this particular matter um reflects what we've talked about in the meeting >> and we have um you've weighed in um our
planning staff has weighed in. Town council has weighed in. Um Martin, what do you what's the state of play of the wording of this particular condition? >> So I I think um on page two of JLD's
email covers quite well with one wording change. Prior to issues for building permit, the applicant will work with the town of Littleton on seeking a waiver from EOHLC to reduce the required number of three-bedroom units of the unit mix
from 10% to 6%. So that they need be counted on the town subsidized housing inventory. understands that in the Amen the waiver request is denied, they will be required to have 10% of the units be and I want to um be sure from you Mark
um the waiver you're seeking that we would support is for this phase. >> Correct? Yeah. And so this waiver is for the benefit of the town so that they can still count all the units on the SHI,
right? Because under the master permit, we're required to deliver 73 beds. I don't believe they are tied to phases. >> So the board could allow less in one and one in the other and we could not do this, but then the town would not get to count them on their SHI. This is going to benefit the town this waiver um
because it allow >> and this waiver may be um approved by HLC because of that overall >> correct they're the they would be the waiver granting authority here. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I would just want to tell
people in the audience that the word um the word that Maren um substituted you would use securing. She's seeking and it's a little um you know it's a little picky but that's
what we like to do. >> She did seek. Yeah, >> she did seek. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I think I think we had a secure request. >> We we do not want to be responsible for uh whether or not this happens. >> We I mean I think we'll work with Mar
and her team will do the work for it, but it'll ultimately have to come from >> because part of this is a market. Um >> it is correct and right we're you know I think as you know chair you know we're making between us and Loli you know in excess of $200 million investment right we we've done a lot of research right
and we you know we use that market research to determine how we you know approach these buildings right and that's what they're telling us >> um that addresses the conditions um that
we've proposed in the uh decision Um >> Darl, do you have any comments? >> Uh no. Like I said, I you know, um I support the um again, my priority is is ensuring that we get all as many as the
requirements that come towards our SHI so that we can ensure that um we're not going to be subject to any 40D triggers in the future and that we're maximizing the available housing uh there. Um and as long as the word is is you know we we
support but or endorse them applying for the waiver but we are in no way responsible uh for the waiver is it's purely on the applicant to uh pursue those u those items. >> Anyone else in the audience?
Um, can I then hear a motion to close this part of the year? >> I'll make a motion we close the site plan for the residential phase one residential. >> Can I hear a second?
>> Let let Darl you do the second since that'll indicate that you heard what Mark said. Okay. Um, so can we do Well, we have to do a poll. Yeah. >> Um, Mark,
>> are you in favor of closing the area? >> Yes. >> Bartlet? >> Yes. >> Darl? >> Yes. >> And I'm a yes. Uh that being said, I'd like to move toward um approving of a motion to approve the site plan
review as um presented as amended. These would be our discussion tonight. Um >> with final wording according to town council. >> Town council. >> Can I hear a motion? I'll make a motion
that we approve the uh conditions of approval subject to um final wording by town council. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh we'll proceed to a vote. Mark,
>> I'm an Iran. >> Yes. >> Daryl. >> Yes. >> I'm a yes. >> You need to vote on this one. >> Can you Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. >> Uh I'm going to be a day reservations on
that one. >> Okay. >> Um >> the storm water. >> And now we'll vote for the storm water which we previously closed there. And uh can I hear a motion to accept the um
>> condition of the storm water for a phase one residential as presented? >> Can I second? Do we need this subject to town council final wording? >> Yes. >> On that? >> Yeah.
>> Put that amendment. Yes. Or second. >> Um we'll move to a vote for the uh storm water permit decision. Mark, >> I'm a yes.
>> Yes. >> No, you can't vote. >> Yeah. Yes, I don't. >> Okay. I don't understand how that worked, but whatever. >> Marin told me. >> Okay, >> that's how it works. >> Uh, Daryl. >> Yes. >> And I'm Yes. >> Okay.
>> Thank you, chair. Me. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, order to get it going. Um the next item seven as it's past
seven >> uh is the board discussion uh support for transport transportation management agency grant >> um try to do the short version of it since we're running late. Um let's see.
This agenda item is to request planning board approval um for expenditure of up to $5,000. Um if a grant is awarded um to for if a state grant is awarded uh to create or reinvigorate the cross town
connect transportation management agency. Um the details are in the meeting packet. Um idea is that four communities have already um agreed uh to um provide matching funds uh uh
Littleton, Actton, um Sudbury and Conquer. Uh and the magic um sub region is uh convening a larger group of communities interested in um talking about and exploring uh a transportation
management agency for this region whether it's a new one or a reinvigorated um tail connect. and there's a consultant that's willing to write the grant for $80,000 if there's this $20,000 match 5,000 from up to 5,000 from each
community. Hopefully that was clear enough. Um this funds would only be expended if if the grant is supported. So you had explained to me that um
the previous arrangement sort of fell through because Actton was managing the grant and then decided not to fund it. >> Yeah. Well, there are um what 17 TMAs across the state transportation management agencies. Most communities
are in at least one TMA. Some are in several. And the PMA is the kind of like the bus company that the group that um figures out where shuttles need to go um
brings um businesses into um as part of the TMA as paying members. And then the paying members uh create the the board that that runs this uh you know this buser ban operations. Um and
Cross Town Connect was the outlier is the only uh TMA that had a um community acting as the fiscal agent. Um so when COVID hit and uh a lot of the buses couldn't our shuttles couldn't run anymore, it was a um financial hit um
that couldn't and so the services couldn't be sustained. The proposal is uh the 495 Metro West Partnership is um interested in being the uh fiscal agent for a new TMA and they would certainly be an appropriate uh uh fiscal agent um
for for a TMA. >> Any comments? Any comments from the board? I mean it it's definitely part of our goal is to provide more public transit or any public transit.
>> Yeah. Yeah. um and um raised the issue with um Lupi team and they're very interested in exploring this as as you know to to help them to provide the
shuttle service uh between uh this site, the King Street Common site and the commuter rail station. And what the town would get out of it is not only that connection but other transit connections.
Okay. Uh let's go on to Can I >> ask a question? Sorry. Given that this is um tied into area employers, is the target audience moving around employees from these places as opposed
to like shoppers coming to it? No. >> No, it's it's to meet help meet the transportation need area wide. So, um the well the employers uh buy in. Um if it's market basket, they're going to want both their employees and you know
residents. >> So, schedules aren't optimized for just people coming in the morning, going home in the evening, that type of thing. It sounds like it's throughout the day. And if for example JLB andori is one of the um
like now I think one of the the members then they will help to um decide uh the schedule and the routes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's supposed to be town friendly more than just hours and afternoon. I'm just curious how they
operationalize that like when they're actually developing the schedules. >> I think I'll be curious too. It seems difficult. Um >> yeah, go ahead. >> Just a question you might not know yet. Um there's been a lot of talk about
having bus service from the 550 King Street property to the train station. Is that going to run like right down King Street and Foster Street? Is that the plan? >> We don't have any details on that. >> No, there's no other way to get there.
>> That's what I was thinking. Yeah, it's going to make a big difference in foster care. >> Well, okay. We're not talking about, you know, 20 trips a day. And and the goal the goal by the way
according to the FER or the DEIR is to um it's to some degree traffic mitigation. So instead of having 15 cars going down there, you have one bus, >> right? >> Thank you.
>> That was always the hope years ago. Hopefully it finally comes to fruition. This is America, right? Well, who knows? So, vote on this. >> Are we done? >> Uh, no. We have item four. We have uh >> So, actually, >> we already
>> No, we have King Street Common. >> Yeah. >> Vote on the expendure. >> Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. We have to vote on the expenditure of $5,000. Uh, I need a motion to move that the planning board vote to expend up to $5,000 as a local match for a Mass DoD
transportation management association grant to be expended only if grant funds are awarded and a qualified consultant is selected to undertake this work. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I have to I'm sorry. I
have to poll. >> Mark. Oh, I >> Daryl. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. Okay. Now, uh item four is uh the public hearing.
Have we opened that hearing? >> We did at last meeting. Is it a continued public hearing? >> It's not a continued public hearing. There was a notice that was published for the storm water public hearing portion of this. So, so this is the opening.
>> This is we are opening a public hearing for the storm water review. It says and site >> and and it's continuation of the site >> continuation of the site plan uh for building 200 which for the people in the audience that's the existing ID building
there um modifying the parking around the building. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Uh thank you Mr. chair and uh members of the board. Uh my name is Chris Raymond uh from TEC and uh first I'm going to apologize. You may
experience some deja vu um this presentation. Uh just a quick background as Martin just just stated uh there's a little snafu with noticing um the previous uh last time that we were here. Um so we weren't formally able to open the uh storm water permit that is
associated with our site plan review. Um so just going to give a quick um you know, a brief uh brief overview of of what I presented last time. Um, so what we're talking about for this project is the uh building 200 improvements, and
that is the uh associated ground improvements. Uh that's uh that's circled around what we're calling building 200, which you can see here highlighted in red. Um you can see it's directly adjacent to the residential development um that was approved earlier
tonight. Um, and you can see it's relation to retail phase one which was uh previously approved. And just to kind of zoom in, uh, we're looking to just um um update some some parking uh, and access improvements
around building 200 to just help it um, kind of marry into the rest of the uh, the proposed development. Um, just a quick overview of the the site plan here. Um we're we're seeking to uh incorporate a new uh driveway
access to the building 200 around the rear of the site. You can kind of see it um right here if you can kind of see my mouse. Um, but around the rear of the building, um, we're looking to, uh, incorporate new driveway access, um, to,
um, to, uh, gain access completely around the building, um, and, uh, add, uh, an additional 122 surface, uh, level parking spaces. Um it'll have access um you can kind of see in the middle of the screen here. Um
it'll have access um over to the um proposed garage as part of the residential development. Um um as far as some uh storm water utility updates there, um there'll be a new storm water treatment system that'll be
um designed as part of this um to accommodate the existing uh roof runoff um and as well as any additional um storm water created from the parking uh parking area will be captured, treated and uh detained on site. um will you can
see in the bottom right of this graphic there's the existing utility connections which um will be maintained and tied into um the uh utility services that are currently um uh the new utility services that are currently being um designed and
installed as part of the infrastructure phases of the project. Um and that's really it. Uh but do want to give a a quick update to on kind of um uh some other aspects of this is um it is getting peer-reviewed by um Green
uh engineering uh which we expect to hear back from them um I think later next week. So at the at the next meeting we should be able to give you a good update um and correspondence with with the peer reviewer. Um, we've also reached out to um the fire department and gotten their feedback um and and
approval of this um pending uh one note that they want to see on that we incorporate onto the plan. Um that just allows them to they want to take the um their tower truck um during the construction. They want to be able to do a a test run prior to the installation
of of curbing just to make sure um that they can adequately um circulate their tower truck around the development. um and we can make any curve adjustments as needed um prior to its installation. So just an update there and that's it. So
welcome any comments you may have. >> So the peer review has begun, >> correct? >> Yep. >> Uh and then what's the schedule you think >> for the peer review? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We anticipate um receiving that I think by the end of next week. I'm just
our next meeting is the end of April 30th this month and so um >> should we be preparing a draft decision that we could discuss at that meeting? >> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Okay. So, we'll put you on uh you want to do it first? >> Yeah, that would be my recommendation. >> Okay. So, let's do 635. Is that okay? Absolutely.
>> Okay. >> Um Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. >> Comments. >> Pardon? >> Okay. So, this is the hearing. Are there any comments from George?
Yeah. >> Do you want the lights on, George? >> Oh, go. >> Thank you, Margo. This is this is the reason we like this building because it has the ad and but we haven't taken advantage of the >> gents know how to turn the lights on and
off. Anyway, >> George Sanders 6 great. I want to back up with a comment. Um, where's the public restrooms going to be? It's they're going to be uh a part
of the retail that's going to be a part of that. >> Yeah. Yeah, that'll be part of the retail phase. Correct. Yeah. We shown them last meeting on the plan there's a location and the buildings in either end of the George that they were
incorporating them in there. >> Okay. Uh the other question that I had was that um this is going to be based on the entire project that you have up there. You said there's 120 parking spaces around uh building 200,
>> correct? >> How many entrance are going to be on this once you do this renovation up there? >> Uh there'll be two uh vehicle entrances. >> Two two entrance for >> Well, actually, I guess three cuz there'll be one over to the garage.
Okay. Um I'm concerned I'm on disability commission. So I want to point out to you that um you're probably going to have to take and com calculate the number of handicap spaces based on these
buildings you have instead of just saying all of you got you can put one here there two here or whatever the case may be. So you need to do that for I would suggest that you do it for each building. >> Yep. Yeah. Absolutely. And actually on
our site plan you can see um we we do we locate the ADA accessible uh spaces close to the entrances of the of the building. >> Yep. And they're they'll have um appropriate access to and from the doorways as well. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> Anything else? Um, so was I dreaming that we are going to see the town green soon?
>> Um, yes, I possibly I know you possibly miss meeting. >> Um, possibly. Yeah. >> Yes. >> We're anxiously awaiting. >> This has to do with the restaurants.
>> Okay. That being um this matter being uh completed, we are done. >> Let's vote to continue both the storm water review and the site plan review
for uh common uh building 200. Can I have a motion? Second >> second. >> Margo. >> I >> Mark
>> I Daryl. >> Yes. >> And I'm Yes. >> And um we have confirmed that on April 30th at 6:35 we will have this room here. >> Okay. Um,
that being said, can I have a motion? >> Make a motion we adjourn. >> Can I make a second? >> Second. >> Marco. >> Hi, >> Mark. >> Hi. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Thank you all forgan.