I'll call the meeting to order this is a meeting of the town of Norton zoning board of appeals at 702 and we have two items on the agenda tonight although um I understand that the first listed it item which is 21 samet Street applicant Dana Jr appeal of building inspector uh decision um we received a letter from Creed law dated May 14th asking us to put this onto our next scheduled um meeting which is it June 20 June 20 June 20 um I have the letter here I don't know if you received it yet not it was it was up yesterday oh um so I assume um there's no reason not to do that if the applicant is asking for because they need some information from Horizon concerning RightWay which uh Nick knows more than any of us do at this point but um is there a motion to uh continue this to the next um hearing next meeting Daye June 20 at 7 o' I'll make that motion second okay no discussion all those in favor Mr Tori yes Mr Spang yes Mr Noel HS yes so thank you um and the next item is Island Brook um is that Mr agustino yes it is Mr agustino and I saw yep you're a trusty engineer here too sorry that you're sitting looking at the back of our head come up here Dan if you're ready for me yeah sure why don't you just uh step up Mr Gallagher you can as well um uh thank you for uh coming back I had tell me where I'm wrong cuz I'm sure I'm wrong I had remembered last time that you were going to be working with Town Council on conditions on the written conditions and that hopefully we were going to get something to look at prior to tonight and tell me tell me what's come since the last meeting that's a good way to bring us up to speed I guess just going back uh to the beginning here so November 2023 just last November um uh the applicant submitted what it was presenting as its final plans and it asked the board to them then there was the question about the permit expiration date and you had consulted with Town Council on that um we had a hearing primarily uh discussing the permit expiration date um back in uh back in March y initially and we' asked the board to confirm that the the permit uh doesn't expire until January of 2025 um so that's still an open question before the board we're asking the board to we issued a we did a decision after the last meeting oh so I I thought that uh you were still double triple checking the timeline I thought we I thought Amy was still we had two 40s we had there was another one you're right L was before you yeah ly was before you on let me just mess everything up here right off the start tonight 253 was last meeting that's the decision we did yeah so you extended that we we have not ask for exens because at this point we don't necessarily need one L swe Lynn is Lyn's a good friend of mine um but no Lynn's not here tonight unfortunately you don't look anything like her right I'm sorry I'll let her know you said that um so go ahead yes in any event um so that question is still before the board to confirm the expiration based on the timeline and the only question that was up in the air was the date of the housing appeals committee endorsed decision the board was looking at the date that the board and the applicant signed their settlement agreement but the operative date is the date that the uh HAC actually adopted and confirmed the decision which uh makes the the difference between like July of this year and January of next year yes the dates in the other application were similar too that was June or January so not a problem that's the reason for my um so that question uh lingered before the board and at the same time um we had done a comprehensive analysis at Town council's suggestion of every condition in the permit uh relative to the plans that we submitted in November of 2023 and the few conditions that were implicated were with regard to phasing and the board had identified uh a handful of concerns that they had on the plans that we had submitted uh regarding phasing and it was primarily to ensure that if only phase one is built for whatever reason that it's entirely self-sufficient the engineering works the the water man is looped the recreational facilities are accessible um and that the affordable units uh qualify under phase one as one out of every four um so subsequent to that um the discussion at the last hearing was we were going to submit Plans by uh before May 6 in advance of this hearing so that the board could look at the changes we made to address the concerns regarding phasing uh we submitted those plans on May 2nd um I followed up with with Town Council I know she's busy with several other matters as well um so I don't know whether she's provided any comment to the board but it was essentially just to confirm that the remaining uh changes that were made are insubstantial so the second request that's before the board is a determination that the plans before the board is the final plans are in ins substant or an insubstantial change relative to the approved plans from the permit um and we're asking that Bo the board make that determination based on the changes that we've made and uh Frank is able to provide some detail or if you'd like him to walk through how we made those changes uh my letter dated May 2nd shows which uh sheets in the plan set were revised uh as revised through April 22nd of 2024 and and those changes address concerns again uh to make sure the affordable units are evenly distributed the storm water management system is entirely self-sufficient in Phase One the water man for phase one is looped and the recreational facilities will be fully functional within phase one okay so barring questions from the board I'll ask Mr gallager to go through those new uh plan sheets but no I we have not tied this down with Town Council correct as far as I know we haven't received anything from Amy right um certainly not since May 2nd I mean I think there was some back and forth around the time of the last meeting um but nothing further I thought she was going to look at that date if if I remember correctly she was just going to check the date I could provide the date it's really just a matter of simple math to count the days and I don't think she was overly concerned with with it if I remember correctly I think she just wanted to look at it and then get back to us but she didn't yeah I actually was kind of surprised that I thought you twoo would have maybe worked that out I had followed up with her as well and I I know I think that's what was supposed to was supposed to I I sent subsequent emails as well since I I hadn't heard um but I know you know I I think that you know to some extent maybe she thought the board uh was going to confirm that as well I'm happy to walk through the days so that we can tie it down um yeah I don't think we had much doubt about the dates that were presented to us but I know Amy wanted to confirm with the actual date on the papers as she has them um but the other question as to substantial versus uh or insubstantial versus not insubstantial that's Magic language in the statute for 40 BS that when a change is presented we have to decide as an initial matter whether it's insubstantial or not insubstantial and if it's not insubstantial which is double negative sorry um we then have to call for the opening of public hearing um is am I right that the only difference is what it has to be advertised again right yeah you would you hold a public hearing on only the changes to the plan yeah I I would submit that the plan is identical we've added detail as far as the phasing issue well but that's what I'm not comfortable calling the phasing uh element or um whether Mr Gallagher's plans satisfy you know the questions I'm not comfortable doing that saying that's an insubstantial change no offense to council who's asking us to do that I think we have to vote that this is a not insubstantial change and thereafter hold public hearing on these questions including hopefully you know the appearance of an assistance of of councel but of also other departments I know the water department uh feels that they have um stake here and want to weigh in on this and I understand this is a process that's uh the guidance is that it all comes through the zoning board but effectively we can ask the water department to come and to tell us why this will or won't work so if I could Mr goad couple points um the regulations describe the process for submission of plans that include changes and uh they describe instances where changes are substantial versus insubstantial what they're really talking about is an increase in the number of units a complete redesign of the development layout going from for sale to rental none of those changes are implicated in in what we're doing here these are really just um details that allow the phasing to be confirmed as working uh according to this plan so it doesn't implicate that also we we had submitted uh the plan and the building department actually made comments and I believe uh one of the comments came back from the water department is that correct Frank so these these plant have been socialized throughout uh other boards in town um this was a reduction correct based on the there's a reduction in the units the the the by four so y but in one of the examples you gave is um a change in the number of units right which four is could be determined insubstantial but with the phasing if you don't construct phase two that's obviously a a major change in the number of units right um and so we we talked last time that that that's a possibility here and that's that's one of the reasons why you want to phase it um is the risk of financing yeah um um and in in the same vein U as your comment or question that's another reason why I think this is not an insubstantial change and that we have to go through the process of opening up this for public hearing on these changes rather than just the administrative so ifec making go ahead it's it's not just a change in the number of units so the following matters will generally be substantial changes uh an increase of more than 10% of the height of the buildings an increase of more than 10% in the number of housing units proposed a reduction in the size of the site by more than 10% in excess of any decrease in the number of housing units proposed so if we reduce the size of the site but keep the number of units the same then the proportions off we're not we're not reducing its proportionate if only phase one were built um a change in building type we it's still single family homes um a change of one form of housing tenure to another that's again going from for sale to rental um where are you getting that from the regulations uh regarding chapter 40b and and project changes so um I [Music] think so the original submission was in November um we've had several hearings on this now and I I know we're kind of waiting on Town Council is weighed in um there is a 20-day period within which to make the determination so uh of of substantial versus insubstantial so I thought we would be prepared to make that change that determination tonight and um you know respectfully based on the the conditions and the description of what's substantial versus insubstantial it's pretty clear that nothing we're doing here is a substantial change under the regulations um well with all due respect though that's not an exhaustive list and that says as you just read the following would constitute substantial it doesn't say that nothing else can be a substantial change uh I I think that without guidance of council I'm just not I'm just not prepared to vote that this is an insubstantial change I understand what you're saying um but the plans were were just amended and um the letter of of May 2 um I think that's the request for modification that that that we're going to rely on and within the 20-day period um I see this as the vote on substantial versus insubstantial um I'm not arguing with what council's saying but I'm not willing to accept and say this is insubstantial if we say it's insubstantial this is it the plans go forward the permit is modified I think and we clearly discussed last month on the month mon before that we may need to hear from other people U once the phasing plans were given us which they've now been given us um I think that's the that's the immediate question before us right now we can hear and we can hear from Mr Gallagher that's fine I'm not closing that off at all um would you like to do that at this point and then make a a determination uh take a vote on substantial versus insubstantial after if we so if we vote let's say we vote substantial yep they have then they have to go before a public hearing well it wouldn't this is this is a public meeting we have to to open open a public hearing and I would say um I would of course want to have the water department up here to tell us what their concerns are there there are emails in the in the file from um Frank fornier um you know to us uh talking about the looping and the fact that they consider this a difference that they want to look at how it impacts ma the town um water and um sewer plants that I remember talking last last week about the looping and that was one of Amy's um missles that it definitely should be Loop because if you don't do the second phase that it's self- sustained right and we can hear from Mr Galler on that right but I think the water department has already signaled that it needs to be heard so if I could chairman the water department can certainly be heard I I again Frank will speak to this I believe they have been heard um they can certainly provide input without noticing a full public hearing and uh doing publication and and having several more hearings uh the other thing the regulations provide that only those aspects of the project that have changed are issued during the public hearing so where these changes are are technical in nature um it's really just a matter of if if the concern is about the water department you know let's let's have them look at it um I would suggest that if the board is uncomfortable with that tonight although I I certainly uh would would urge the board again these plans were submitted originally back in November but they were changed last month a few weeks ago so we just L of changes we were not in a position to be able to say that with any shity I mean I'm I'm not a an engineer and I'm not in a position to say that I understand what you're saying I'm not arguing with you even but so that's fine I I think um you know I I would then ask you know if if there's any inclination to make that determination i' I'd rather get Town council's input um because I'm I'm I wish I was able to get in touch with her before the hearing I I reached out a few times I know when we first met back in March uh we wanted to make sure Town Council was available to communicate and correspond and I I know her schedule's taxing so hopefully I can I can get some time to the extent we don't uh have these plans endorsed tonight um I I think just anecdotally you can see how time goes by so uh you know we were talking about how there was some passage of time uh on the original permit time does fly in these things and I think we're we're going on seven months into the uh the application uh to endorse the final plan so it's all fine I mean we want to make sure you know the board is is comfortable with the final endorsement um I just think you know let's make sure Town Council uh has the bandwidth to do that if if the board's going to rely uh heavily on Town council's input here um so that we can you know have a productive meeting next time I I certainly agree and as I said at the beginning I'm not and I was thinking about this project not the other one but IOD that there was going to be work done on the uh condition specifically and that passed back and forth has that happened that's that's been completed so she comment completed she commented I believe she said she was pleasantly surprised with the conditions compliance Matrix we actually broke down every condition went through each one provided commentary where we thought there was some devation and the only thing that that stuck out as a deviation was this phasing issue right um so that's what we thought we were going to be able to resolve this evening um and we can provide a presentation on it and then uh if the board's still uncomfortable with uh uh making the determination of insubstantial then um you know maybe I I would suggest rather than going through the trouble of advertising a public hearing to talk about a loop water main um I would suggest deferring to get Town council's input on it and then you can make that determination administratively um you don't necessarily even need to do it at a meeting uh so I don't know if if if and certainly you can consult with Town Council uh through the chair on that as well I think you know my goal we've taken some of the board's time during public hearings at this point we want to make sure that we're uh we're moving this forward um understood that agreed what's the pleasure of the board one question so the modifications that have been done were in part and partial from the court correct the no so breaking if through the chair go ahead so um there was a settlement agreement yeah that's what I meant I'm sorry the settlement agreement was entered as the order of the housing appeals committee and included modifications to the original 94 conditions yeah okay Town Council took our Matrix looked at the the plan that was submitted and other boards I believe the water department received it and Frank can speak more to that but looked at the plan and went through the changes and Frank in The Matrix said this was complied with this was complied with this was complied with as far as the plans that were submitted in November of last year correct so those plans from November were vetted Y and those plans when we submitted them to the board we were asserting these comply with the original approval endorse our plans and then we'll go forward with final permitting and building inspector approvals and and get the project built from there um the exceptions to the approval from the November plan set were the issues that were uh raised with regard to phasing y so they were identified by Town Council and we said okay we will address those changes so now that those changes have been made we submitted them on May 2nd and said hey we're changing the plan here are the changes that deviate from uh well we we submitted as a as a request for change just to because Town Council has suggested you know this is a modification request a modification so we've engaged in that process um and that's what we're asking for approval on is to say all right the things on phasing that we're identified in that Matrix as open are resolved to our satisfaction as insubstantial and then we can move forward with endorsement if that helps I think the the only comment I had um I I took down some notes from our last discussion we had discussion about what constitutes infrastructure um and I think attorney qule agreed with defining that somewhere um has that been addressed um when we talked about infrastructure could you please remind me the context CU I my notes didn't sure the concern was that um if it's now phased there was a note in the conditions I think that said all infrastructure would be installed as part of phase one and we wanted to ensure that infrastructure included um you know roadways utilities Street lighting um catch basins retention detention ponds all that stuff for phase one for phase one yeah so the plans through notes describe exactly what will be built in Phase One the the goal of the phasing is to not build the road in the back and disturb that and just let it sit and overgrow and the discussion was hey wait a second your recreational facilities are in the back we need to include those so we've revised the uh I don't see things like utility plans in here though um is that there I see lot layout PL plan profile rating so details erosion control sheets 15 and 16 uh are the erosion control yeah I'm thinking of like you know electrical infrastructure um you know fire hydrants um that's all of that kind stuff all in there so why don't I why don't I defer to Frank and Frank can show you what was addressed uh as far as phasing and then hopefully we can come up with a plan um moving forward I am in favor of hearing from Mr Gallagher for now and then um I think we have to vote though and whether substantial or insubstantial again if it's insubstantial we vote that tonight the plan is the plan and it goes forward without further you review or input my only uh comment on that Mr Chim if it's the board's pleasure after hearing Frank that we're dealing with substantial changes we could certainly by consent extend the deadline for you to make that determination there is a 20-day deadline yes we ABS consent yeah cuz I wondered about that actually I'm not sure we've done that in the past but we can certainly wave our rights saying even to make that determination absolutely You' rather you'd rather us hear from Town Council on that yeah because I I think I just going through the trouble of opening a whole public hearing just to talk about you know the engineering details well we can let's talk hear from Mr Gallagher and um take our questions for a little bit at least as far as we you know we have here without uh without assistance y um go ahead U Mr gagher so um first comment that I got from from the last meeting was show show the affordable units so on the cover sheet what we did was we shaded in each one and just for the record is that plan one yes that's dated um it's dated 22 24 yes the revision date got it so I don't know the version that I have that's stated 4 22 24 doesn't have colored lots like that really are they designated in another way darker yeah I got oh um sheet one I think so yeah sheet one with rision 422 am I looking at a different one yeah oh I open this I opened this off of um Brian's email so um apologize if I'm looking at no maybe I maybe this was downloaded from open um in the Dropbox yeah so the the version is in drop boox right sorry I didn't take it from drop box this came from Brian on May 13th in an email attachment the one that I'm looking at so it must be different well here do you want that's okay that's okay okay and it's that up there right that's same Bri yeah I see that there is did you photocopy it or something same okay thank you so so that's what we did and we put a yeah you know a little key to it and listed the affordable units um so that's one thing just and how many are in Phase One um let's see let me just flip the page that eight I see eight oh eight there's eight okay so as we said before it's the left it's the it's the Pod of development closest to the uh entrance of East Main Street and it includes 12 and 13 that included in phase one right I think it went between 12 and 13 if correct me if I'm wrong yeah think 13 went on the second phase correct oh correct so there are nine affordables in that first phase and then one two three four in the second phase and you know just to give you a little bit of proportion the first phase at this point since we kind of expanded it really represents about 2third of the project it was more or less 5050 but but um we expanded it so that it's why do I only count eight and I only count eight too maybe did you just miss yeah it's not that one though right that's outside phase one the one you're pointing to right now no that's that's in phase one now oh wait um if you look at the the the line ah this is all she is phase one that's sheet 16 that's right okay okay I I remember line now yeah cuz we talked about that all right now I'm um yeah there were a couple of things that um well one thing in in particular after our meeting when I went back and looked I realized that some of the drainage that was from phase one actually dis uh discharges in this uh detention Basin so I couldn't really end phase one cuz this storm water would just basically dead end so I had to expand it number one to include um the the recreational areas and then just for the drainage sake I had to expand it to to include this Stone water basin what's the vehicular so how does how does a fire truck get back out of that does the road just end at at the limit of phase one line um as it is yeah that's it does yeah I think that changes the conversation quite a bit right yeah where does the water pipe lie here I don't know if that's something you've seen on this uh Bri of the water M the the water M to get a looped system so let me fall back for a minute on that yeah sure so so right now right we have a water main out in East Main Street and we tap it here and we run it all the way all the way around the project and then it Loops back here but it also comes off the road in this spot these Dash lines are an easement and it connects to that same water main in East Main Street M okay so that's that's really the loop right here that portion just connects back on itself but the loop and it is is right there right it Loops back on this Main in East Main Street that's been that way yeah since 2014 when we started no but that was a change from last time though well the change was this right where is it going now the change that that we just put in front of you is that we now want to connect the main that's coming here to the main that's coming here so we just showed an 8 in you know about 100t long stretch of 8 in pipe that connects right there so now that's not we have a double Loop well yeah yeah but it continues it continues up the road to service the two buildings that are now in phase one and that part is not loose so so so in other words we have that much of a dead end in phase one right that's my that's what I was asking and that's something that I I don't know how that affects you know whether that's true looping or not it's my understanding that it's not um because the the ending of a line is the ending of a line that's not it's off a loop but it's not itself part of the loop that's my understanding from yeah well just understand too that this is you know um this is going to be in process that you know construction until you complete it all you know you're working toward these things during the construction process so you know depending upon what point in time you want to stop you can have it you know you're going to have a dead end water Me Oh by the time you get to the end of the project you're not yeah but but phase one is phase one and one of the conditions is that it be a looped water M so that's that's one question I'm identifying and just for pointing that out that's all so so it was just one more thing yeah you know as far as uh the notion of whether this is a substantial change or not like I said we laid this down in front of the zoning Board in 2014 yeah we met with the SE and water commissioner the Commissioners in that process they gave you know they every time the plans were revised it was redistributed they there was feedback from them so at this point the water department has seen what we've done here and you know approved it the only change we're making is we're now connecting right here that's the only new thing that the water department is going to see but you're ask I guarantee you that they're going to say oh okay well that's good you you're looping it yet again yeah so it's I mean for my money at least it's it's a very minor change okay and it's something it's not something that's new to them as far as you know project wide it's not me to at all it's the same thing we've been seing for the last 10 years except that now it's SP except for that connection except and also that it's phas so that there are two or three structures that are on a non-looped water system M okay how many buildings would be connected to that extension two or three let me let me go to that sheet again I see three um Lots 49 50 and 51 or 51 as well or Parcels what you want to call them and then lot 52 looks like is oh that that's so those are temporary stockpiling but then you you'll be building right on those as well so so there'd be you know if if if everything stopped right there yeah there'd be four Lots on that dead end um okay so you're not including 38 no 38 could be off of that I'm sorry where's 38 can you yeah 38 is is here kind of where the cut through is and then the four that would be on the branch line are 49 through 52 I mean 4950 51 and 52 yeah and where's 52 52 is right here2 so it's got a hatch over it because you're using it as a stockpiling but once the stockpiling operation's done they they would build that out oh that's to be built in Phase One yes includes lot 52 but not 38 no 38 also oh 38 also but that's connected to the it's connected to the loop yeah 38 I think the house would face that I got it I I think for me the biggest concerns here are the the traffic flow I don't it's not clear what really happens there I mean the street just dead ends right is it's a double wide Street and it just dead ends um and then the the dog park and the playground are in the same location as they were before um so technically they're built as part of phase one but they're not really accessible um you know what's the how does someone get back to the play how far does the road go does it stop at The Limited phase one line well you that's what the limit of work line is so you know you're you're right about that this this this line that represents the limit of phase one should actually cross the road right here it should include that because just for the sake of these these catch basins also feed into the stone although those wouldn't necessarily have to be built as prod of phas by the by the time you get to like constructing another cuap or something back there you're you've done almost all phase two youve done all of phase two I I calculated it out it's you're down to 20 26% taken out so now it's more of like a 7525 instead of a 5050 yeah and I Me Maybe we're sort of uh straining over something that's not as not as big an issue as as yeah so so that being said if I might so I I found the condition specifically from the settlement agreement I'll read it on phasing so um and this may speak to these these details um it says there shall be no phasing of the project unless the applicant returns to the board with a specific phasing plan which shall be reviewed under 760 CMR 56 but the applicant shall provide the board with peer review funds and Grant a reasonable extension of time to allow the board to determine whether the modification is substantial and requires a public here so that's the that's what we've been kind of operating under I think we've mentioned peerreview a couple hearings ago and we didn't think we needed it um if the water department you know wants to comment on it um I think whatever it is um you know let's just come up with the game plan to kind of make some progress and I think I think U what's what's probably more critical to us is confirming the January date so then that gives everybody more time just to say okay you know maybe we'll we'll go back do some of these details we can meet with the board before August recess I don't know if you meet in August but hopefully we can kind of we meet all the time we meet all the time hopefully we can resolve it before that Congress we don't have recess months so far anyway unless Nick um I don't get excited over that okay well I thought you were the boss I mean in ter in terms of the date I was pretty I personally was pretty comfortable with the determination that you had and I think we exhausted that with Miss wexel and she was pretty comfortable I remember her saying when to double check and but it wasn't a major concern I I actually think she had more concern over the loop of the water me and the date um so I would be okay with I would be comfortable with at least confirming the date that way we can at least move forward but that's that's me it's a you know that would I don't know how they feel my memory is the same but I thought she wanted to count it herself or get back to us after I I don't know after looking at the file decision or the decision that was in the file I I can't tell you more more than that my memory obviously is not um the best of U of that meeting tonight um but I I agree I don't think the date was going to be an issue what is the date now however is it so we we assert that it's January 21st 2025 but if it's not the only question was whether it was the date that the settlement agreement was signed by the parties versus endorsed if it was signed by the parties it's July in which case we have to add another uh I mean you guys made quick work of it when ly weed requested it but I think we were trying to just avoid that additional request altoe if if we can you know if the board votes to uh ratify and confirm that the expiration date is January 21st 2025 then the applicant can you know per the language in here we can consent to an extent vote on that is there a motion is there a motion so is it I'll make that motion okay thank you is there a second I I just don't understand why we have to vote on on a date because it's in the permit right now and an appeal took over the permit there's actually no date it was the board that raised the question initially as to whether the permit is valid so when the board raised the question we need a determination that yes we agree the permit's valid okay I I agree I understand yeah I remember ask question we thought it was dead because we assumed it was dead this was like on the very first meeting yeah was that's what applicants I know here's what's been going on the last 6 years I think we all agreed but we just want to confirm so I I suggest going forward with that vote I mean it's the same thing as extending as the applicant says you as we did last time for the other project it's in our interest is to put that aside on that motion is there a second any further discussion and what is the precise January 21st 2025 that'll be reflected in the motion I'm going to call for a vote now Mr tor yes Mr Spangler Mr Noel yes so that is now yeah that makes I don't know how we what we call that whether that's a modification or that's satisfactory to me I think as long as it's reflected in the minutes and and the board can you know reflect that the vote is documented so it's on camera so perfect so that solves that um then I think the question is um we and and again I can sign something on behalf of the applicant to extend the 20 is that's a that's a dead end anyway like it's it's rare that anybody goes that route but we can certainly extend the deadline to make the determination so that Town Council can have the time to weigh in and I think the question is I mean we we'll we've volunteered it before if you really think you need technical peer review on these limited issues we can get Graves involved again just to make sure that we have some progress here um I would suggest that we vet this with the water department because they they were the ones that had the original comment and nothing else has changed so are we vetting the current this current right now yes as your this plan this is the plan this plan yeah I mean we we already you know we we're pointing out that there may be so we may need we may need to make a minor you know further change that we would submit and we can do this collaboratively yeah you know I agree that that the access to because we talked we did talk about access to the dog park and but I also you're you're talking about like 15 houses here which I you know I'm look I'm I'm not the applicant and it seems like going through a ton of Hoops for 15 houses and again it's not my money so I'm just pointing this out like if we keep going we're going to end up at 10 houses here or or like 12 houses I think when we addressed it we kind of did and it happens in planning a little bit of whack-a-mole yeah in that um we thought the plan was where it needed to be and then the issue of the recreation was raised and that implicates other issues so because the we had a question last time Mr Gallagher I think said well I'll have to look at whether we can move it somewhere else weig move it where the house was create some access and this is well we asked about the drainage right and that that flagged a big issue that there's a whole retention area that really was part of phase one so there's a lot of due diligence that still needs to occur here yeah nobody's suggesting that this is a block or a bad provision but we need the we need some advice from Council yeah water department and maybe peer review yeah how do you do we have money in peer review right now do you know that maybe not fair question to you off the uh no uh so how PE reviews usually have worked is that we ask the applicant for the money we have the third party peer reviewer we get U money from them we've had an account for Island Brook peer review I don't know if there's zero in it or if there's a couple thousand dollars in I can check to see how much is we don't know right now yeah we don't know um you don't know I assume no I I don't know off the top of my head um Paul uh did you se he could I mean he knows how to determine he's probably at home now no it's I'm not asking right for right an answer right this minute I'm just saying tomorrow I'm sure we could find out but um that's exactly the question though you know how do we proceed so that we move it forward without peer review funds in the account we can't engage anybody I know that Graves or anybody else that's just how peer view uh the statute is set up there the money has to be in place there might be money there already in which case we could contact Graves and say we need you to look at this and but only Fe the account we would have to determine that it's a substantial probably well it's being suggested that we just get going with that process without taking that vote because then it implicates other procedural aspects down the line but in terms of the doll right determining that it's substantial change unlocks the ability for if you must get additional I don't believe so I thought that's what he had sorry what's the question I I have a comment to make as well but what was the question yeah well fres go ahead uh you had made you were reading a note about if the board determines that the changes are substantial then that unlocks um the ability to get funds for additional review was did I not understand no the funds are discretionary you can require perview and frankly regardless of whether regardless of substantial change I mean I would interpret either way so I think we're we're comfortable with that as long as we set the scope you know we don't turn this into a you know a start over um which I don't think is the intent and Graves is familiar with the project already just to kind of bring the whole phasing thing back when when you say 15 units is what we're down to what it all started with was a condition in the settlement that was very precise that the the settlement said they wanted all infrastructure like in a general sense every last bit built before we get the first certificate of occupancy so it was a very onerous condition to say we got to build the entire road before we can even it might have even been building permit so it was it was this idea and we were saying okay well we'll build the first part all the infrastructure in the first part and then we'll do the second part and that was simply to try to get out from under that that occupancy certificate issue um so I don't know you know I don't know how we address that and yeah frankly I think given where we are this evening the most important thing is that we we get some feedback from Town Council as well because I know the board relies heavily on her input um we just have to make sure you know that we have uh have her attention I know she has a lot going on um but we can maybe take another look at how that condition is implemented and and to your point what is infrastructure how do we Define that yeah that that's kind of how this started right ex said at the end of the last meeting though she just wanted to take a look at infrastructure as a term of art to see yeah that's how we started here we were going to go and look at the utilities and things and then we all realized oh a whole another and that was our motivation in even proposing the phasing is we we didn't want to build all infrastructure before we get a first building permit which seem a little nutty have to put in a road that just it's loops around an empty standard subdivision approval though well phasing will be different right you get to a certain phase and then Lots would be released by the planning board in a standard subdivision approval so it's not uncommon to build to a certain extent and have the road to a certain a certain point before building per would be issued is that so but phasing again I'm not this is phasing I would have no problem with as long as First Responders in emergency access was suitable from my standpoint that would be fine right you so typically phasing would be could be for instance a binder coat on a subdivision would release building permits would release the lots to the planning board and Franken speak this do but you would put the road in put the infrastructure in buy your coat on the road and then go back to the planning boat for releases and at that point could then issue building permits well that was that was actually one of my questions last time as well is that the the notes C for um final cod as part of phase one which you know the town would would own that meaning you know construction equipment constructing phase two would be traversing you know final coat asphalt and I don't know there's there's finer points to this um that I just really really think need to be thought out here I think you you'd want to speak to to Jared the superintendent of of DPW 2 if you're going to require final code on phase one and then have construction equipment and everything else driving over that road right to get to phase two it doesn't not if you know it's not feasible right because then by the time you get to phase two your final pavement on phase one is destroyed the town has to take care of that if this road yeah usually um and we'll talk to Mohammad about that note but and Stonebridge does quite a bit of this and and if they did put in the final code which I don't believe they do they strip it and read if it's if it's damaged but I I think normally they just go to the base course you would a final equipment tears it up that dramatically yeah you think about the size of the vehicles that are driving over I would I would consult with with Jared if you if you're considering that I would I I would tell you to tread lightly with the final code before construction is done you can make it a condition of final approval the final code and Curbing and whatever is done but I you're going to destroy the road if you final code phase one before phase two is done and and we'll check that note as well uh just CU I don't know if that stone bridge is practice in any way um so all else aside Is it feasible to put a uh turning radius called the sack and at the end of that extension where're given just what Frank had pointed out and this discussion about even the detail on on the loop I mean we we'll take a look at it a little bit further um but you're right I mean if we're going to end up building a culdesac to access that and make sure there's emergency vehicles we we may have to look at another iteration um so these are these are all good points is a c prohibitive though I mean just to turn a for just to do phasing it's probably not it's you know it doesn't make sense to install a cue saac just to phase and then take it out and put the houses in right but I think if we need it to access then we'll have to take a look at how we can accomplish that I I think um let me just read this because this is what really really triggered it uh it's it's uh what is that you're read from page 11 of the settlement agreement section five condition C it's the amended uh section five itions c section 11 and this is what triggered our discussion about um phasing and it speaks to the issue of binder cour course as well it says all infrastructure and then pens which I guess is defining it utilities roads and storm water management system sore in water shall be constructed as shown in the plan of record as altered by Exhibit 2 prior to the issuance of the first occupancy department so that got our wheels turning um except that hydrant shall be in place in operation before the first building permit to frame the first building is issued which if we're going to do that then essentially that required before building permits issued you needed everything so that was the requirement that we were like okay we got to phase this um and tie-ins for individual units need not occur until the occupancy permit is sought for the unit it says the road may only be to binder course until after all building is completed so that says don't that contradict the note yeah don't do it um and then it says provideed the proper provided that proper shity is provided to secure the work when the first document per which is normal process yeah um any phasing plan that is developed shall address these timing issues so it's these details um and I think you know our our plan we had H to get some of this feedback I think before the the meeting side but it's fine that we're doing it now now that we've at least accomplished half the battle and that we understand that we have till January 21st to either request a further extension or request an extension or resolve these these phasing issues and get the plan endorsed so with that um I can confirm as Council on the record why don't we set a date certain our next meeting we do know is June 20 June 20 let me look at what night is that it's a Thursday Thursday and it's the Thursday after holiday if that matters yeah I think we did it on Thursday because of the holiday oh that's right June right right right so the 20th um I'm available on the 20th I can be available on the 20th so um you know I would say the applicant agrees to extend any deadline make a determination of substantial and substantial change pursuant to 760 CMR 56511 which governs the 20-day time period for substantial changes um until uh June 25th sure which gives you you know and you don't even need to do a written decision that gives you to the 20 so I'm comfortable with that Council agrees to that on behalf of the applicant binds the applicant so that gives us till the 20th and we'll work out some of these procedural what comes first um the the vote on substantiality I guess other review would it be prudent to talk to the one Department about that line if they were to do this feing like it is now to have that extension not go all the way around just dead end would that be still okay would looped on the other side let's inquire we'll inquire with the water department to say and then also the issue of emergency access was raised for those few buildings so you've we're playing a little bit of wack and ball which is fine because I think we'll be okay now that we we kind of have a plan here I think the question then is from the board's perspective if town council's okay with it and the water Department's okay with it and we run up by the fire department do you need peer review cuz I you know I I really want to avoid a situation where we're back on the 20th you say hey we need an engineer I say let's just rip the Band-Aid and decide because I I was you know I I know you you need if you need technical assistance I I it's totally in the discretion of the board I've seen boards that are comfortable with getting the input of the water department and and the fire department one of these issues I I mean I leave it to the board but I think just give us some direction either way I'd be in favor of it to be honest I mean I feel like as we're discussing this we we pick up on one thing and then we say oh gez yeah that's that's not picked up but you know it's like it really I'm I'm concerned about the rigor in the in the phasing plan so gra Graves engineering had this before right Graves yeah and they're still around and uh you deal with them and I haven't dealt with them since really what are you what are you having peer review there because you correct me if I'm wrong but you can only peerreview the modifications yeah phing phing and specifically we would ask about um the way it is shown as to the end of phase one Loop uh or non-looped water and U the extension of the road uh Visa V emergency uh access whether they can make some recommendations as to whether this is um reasonable or acceptable or whether there's some other fix you know cost effective fix that they would recommend if not and I would add drainage as well you know you'll have runoff you'll have runoff from those houses Now 49 I guess the question to POS plan West right um for peer review is is Phase One a selfcontained adequate phase if it's abandoned at that phase that that would be the question for the be the broad question yeah the broad question right we can check tomorrow about the funds in place if there are I thought there was some in place I thought I saw an email on this in the last six months when this all came up um but I have to look back that there it was a small amount but this and a couple other projects the town accountant you know keeps track of all that okay um so I think just with that uh you know that that question maybe you can the chair can consult with town councel and I think when we first met we we were uh we knew we were going to be coord with Town Council we really could use some dialogue there so I know um I know it's difficult to the schedule um but hopefully is Mr Gallagher anticipating then changing some features here on this as I'm looking at it I and that's fine I'm not I'm not U pinning that on you or blaming or anything but in my communication with councel and with the water department you know I want to be able to say that that we're looking at these things and we're going to ask about Graves engineering and communicate the need for some funds if there is a need for some funds I think it's sensible to just put these Lots in face too we'd have to build that section of the road to get access to the to the recreation but if we take those lots out of phase one then we don't have an issue of tapping into a dead end water anymore does that whacka all hurt your affordable but you're still doing all the catch basins and yeah you know so you got to carry that cost but I mean if we just took those lots out of it and put them into phase two I see then by the time they come online that that Loop's been put in place that solves the water question but not the emergency access I think you wouldn't have it cuz you wouldn't even go down but your dog park and your other stuff would be gone I mean the dog park and the playground are for the people who live there be built they just walk down oh they' walk down wouldn't that still need to be accessible you would need you would need some type of access potentially I I can reach out to to the deput the fight department and have that writing from him in an email we could I mean short of a cuer saac we could probably put a hammerhead turn around just a gravel Hammerhead to you know for a for a turnaround so yeah it's probably whatever the fire so look at that and talk to us um sooner rather than later and U we're going to ask about funds right away and um find out about getting Graves and um see if we can advance that right away way without you know going back to applicant um immediately for any for further funds but if we we have to uh then you know we'll communicate that um uh in the next few days okay I I'll confirm in writing tomorrow the uh June 25th extension um and the June 20 meeting and I'll in the June 20 meeting and I'll summarize you know my our Takeaway on the discussion y um and that's uh I think are there any other questions or comments on this plan I think you know emergency access to the houses double-checking you know the roadway limitation here the binder course note ums it yeah so the um we're going to generate a revision probably before it goes to peer riew yes just that's what I was that's exactly why I was asking right so we'll do this you know uh it'll go back and forth but let's communicate in the next week or so about where you are and where we are on peer review and all of that so we can we don't have to skip another meeting that would be very helpful all so I've been CC Brian with myosa Town Council I don't know if the chair mind no I would like to be CCD I mean we don't have any objections to us being CCD either okay I think we just have to be cautious make all of us because be through one but I can communicate to the chair sure yeah include me if you can on yeah so Brian if you wouldn't mind sending me the chair's email just so I definitely have it and then that might help um it's working it works I can write it down that would be helpful thank you do you have paper oh sure I have I have his address I can email him too um I can email can we can we talk more to for your list about the infrastructure piece too um and you know what that is and making sure all that's on the plans we don't have to walk through it tonight but um yeah and and what portions of the infrastructure are now going to extend extend up yeah um you know we'll want Street lighting and all that kind of stuff to go all the way up does the plan call for Street lighting um no I don't think we have usually these are dark sky but but we do have all the utilities if you look at the plan and profile sheets you you you were saying you weren't sure that the utilities were detailed but if you look at the plan and profile sheets um you'll see that they are um detailed on oh I saw the series yes the sheet that you're on now I see I saw the details I just shows you you know didn't see profile with what's underground and then in plan view with the locations mainly I didn't see like electrical but maybe I missed electrical we don't generally show because what happens with the typical subdivision which this really is is the U the utility company designs the electrical system we give them an approved plan and then they take it from there so you you still get you still provide the plan yeah um and then they they take it and they say okay we're going to put a Transformer on this lot corner I I just I think it's an important aspect if it's not required by the B per the bylaws then obviously don't need it but um if it is we should have it you know um yeah and then I think the only question is the timing and again that it all related back to this idea all infrastructure so your suggestion would be to the extent of any lighting it would be pre first occupancy permit yes I think that's what we talked about last last time is because of the way the condition is written calls out I think it says before the I don't remember lighting specifically it didn't call out lighting but I think the question last Define what infrastructure includes right right and you're saying to the extent the plan shows lighting you want to see that as part of infrastructure that's completed before the first occupancy per so it's kind of a Sub sub phasing right it's like what's what's going to be done you know sidewalks road to to what level of the road we talked about binder so binder um yep I know that that to me anyway is all kind of infrastructure um okay that that's helpful yeah Street lighting you know fire hydrants um Frank was the street lighting proposing the original approv plan no what about uh light poles at the end of the driveways supplemental as opposed to street light um that we never uh I don't think we ever talked about it and uh there was no I don't believe there was any condition that even yeah I don't think it was in the planet and more modern more the most recent subdivision I've been involved and I don't know if Norton has a preference for it but a lot of tals are doing dark sky for these subdivisions and they just the ambient light from people's uh you know living room is enough just to give a little bit of a sense of what's going on see and like more so light poles at the end of the driveways yeah right so they're they're like you said it's more ancillary to the resident to the resident as opposed to a light pole in the street with tradition like you used to see I I guess I was thinking mostly of the park you know it's it's a public space it's going to be pretty separated from the uh neighborhood you know if it if it's not required by part the bylaws it's it's a done done deal I'll go I'll go through and cross some teas and do andiz and make sure but just a sa a safety safety thing so I mean I I think that's a generally a small request I do think we do have to stick to the original approval to some degree I mean well has to comply too to the to bylaws regardless right well well you got to go by bylaw what it was originally approved outside of whatever modifications you're dealing with now so I think like again I can go back and see if there was anything back then but it didn't have to and if and if it's not if it's not there I don't that that's a question for legal question for Amy if you can now impose something like that but I think that's part of the um substantial insubstantial question I think Amy has said that before if conditions have changed you know we may need to delve into something but I don't know if that's part of it yeah so that's like again like you were saying it's some of the stuff when it was probably when it was approved may not have been what it is today right and we can't we can't just impose something now because it's now a bylaw and it wasn't back then MH um but that's a question for Council through the chairman or whoever and see what she wants to say about that but okay all right um thank you for helping us out again and helping us through this uh to see a Way Forward no I think we we made some progress we at least you know confirm the date uh so we have that uh confirmation in place and now we can navigate this phasing question and it really is just figuring out how we're going to deal with this condition um so now that we have more inut and we'll we'll see if we can continue to cross cross off these open issues and not get any moles popping back agre all right um anything else of the uh per hold at this point nope thank you both for uh thank you bringing it Forward would it help to provide some comments uh can type up and send them to you Tom or um I don't know don't know how that works I try to memorize everything and we have the video but certainly if you have comments it would be very helpful yeah just just uh they have to go into the record and oh okay I don't I want to complicate it but it's not complicated I'm just saying we'd have to print them up and put them in the record commun send them to me Brian and can everybody I feel like that's fair to to you all something you can reference back to absolutely okay so the board will continue to June 20th yes we will and U we'll communicate anytime is there a motion to continue this till June 20th at 7:05 I'll make that motion second Mr Tori sister Spangler yes Mr no yes thank you great thanks everyone thank you thank youse we got that's so the other one go first on June 20 um samet samet right unless they resolve that otherwise um okay anything else tonight question we got an email today to sign up for another system is that is that to be ignored if we're not on the health system it says even if you don't have Town insurance you have to sign up and I don't know what that meant you know what it was I don't think that would Navigator account years okay yeah is that just health insurance benefits I think yeah so doesn't apply to us yeah okay it says for employees so yep but employees and email addresses you know I got you that's fine that's fine thank you um nothing else to come before us tonight so uh let's uh carry on on on this um in the days ahead and thanks thanks Nick for your help and guidance and thanks Brian all set we can call a meeting motion to adjourn at my watch is dead 88 8 816 I'll make that motion okay all in favor I I actually I second thank you yeah I did see two chat things up there I just saw it Oh that was Charlene saying that she couldn't hear and I confirmed with her that we could hear okay all right so so that's why there's two okay thanks though I just looked up wait make sure we're good yep all right thank you oh