Thank you. Hi, and welcome to our um February meeting of the or yeah, our regular February meeting of the Swanscott Zoning Board of Appeals. Um we're going to put the we're actually going to move the um item number we we
do not have any minutes to approve. So, we're going to move item number three um because they've asked for a continuation. So, I just need a mo motion to continue um petition 2518, which is 80 Puritan Road to our April 21st meeting.
>> Make a motion to um continue 2518. The April >> April 21st meeting >> 21st meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I um >> We'll need a roll call. >> We'll need a roll call. Um, let's see.
Tony, >> Susan >> here. >> Or we're just saying I just to to um continue. Can you hear us? Can you guys hear us for >> I hear you fine? Yeah. >> Okay, great. So, we're continuing petition 2518. Mark, >> yes.
>> Michelle, >> yes. >> Heather, yes. And I didn't hear from Tony, but we don't really need Tony's to continue. I She's unmuted. So, I think we're all set there. Um, all right. So, now we're going to move on to petition 2515, which is the BBH community
development um for um the um veterans crossing. And what we what our plan to go over today is our draft decision along with the um
waiverss. And I don't know, Paul, if you have specific since this I know this changed a lot just even in the past couple of days. So if there's specific things you want to make sure that the board has noted, um we've definitely
each had an opportunity to go over them. Does everybody feel like they have been able to read the most recent version? >> Yes. >> Of this? >> I'm out of order on my pages right now. to do a little um but is there if there's anything that
we need to take note of. Sorry. So, I'll say a couple things that I think we should take note of, but Paul, do you want to do you have anything specific that change that's not highlighted on this draft?
>> Remain and track change are the ones that I thought the board may want to discuss. >> Okay. Um so that's why they were left. Everything else I think was pretty ministerial. Um so on the latest version I accepted all of those changes and I don't think that there really needs to
be any further discussion of them. >> Okay. So, um, one thing that was left on there as crossed off was the, um, under condition four, um, on page 11, it had, um, sorry, under conditions, which is n,
which is Roman numeral 4, it had, um, except and except for any additional local approvals required herein which are not otherwise waved and that that's removed. What is that something that was remove? Is it removed because it's
unnecessary? because >> Yes. Okay. So, I I was the one that suggested removing that language >> um because again the the comprehensive permit subsumes all other local approvals. So, this comment is not
really consistent with how chapter 40B works. >> Okay. >> So, I recommended removing that. >> All right. And then and then we have the um the on on page 19 um under prior to construction
condition C um A C1A there's just another 30 days and we our plan was to move everything to 45 days um because that's consistent with the um land use agreement that the town has and so we just want to make that 45 days. Is that >> So that's
>> Yeah. So that that's going to be in multiple places throughout the decision. Um so I'll make all of those changes to 45 days. >> Okay. Yeah. It's just good to be consistent. >> Um >> yeah, there are marginal notes I think
in in three or four different spots that point that out. >> Okay. And then uh my question and this was a question I had um earlier was the uh under on page 20 under C um one it's complete that section is deleted
and I guess my question was why was that deleted? Um is this information? >> I had the same question. >> Okay. >> I think I mean this is a provision that requires the submittal of final plans. So I I do think that this probably
should remain. I do think that there is some repetition because there is a provision further in the decision that talks about the submittal of the peerreview fees and cap it at $10,000. Um but I don't think that this conflicts
with that. So I would recommend restoring this language. >> Okay. >> I would agree with that. >> All right. You would agree with that? >> Yeah. Unless the applicant has >> Yeah. Do you have any concerns with that? >> No. No. I I'm not sure. Um yeah, I think
there was some duplication um pre well previously raised with respect to C3, but I don't uh I don't see an issue with uh >> uh including that as well because that's something that's the process that we would use. >> Okay. Um
So I understand that there's some debate I think between um um you know sort of a lawyerly debate um about the um how basically to communicate the completion of the covert water train
project. This is on page 27 C. Um, and what was your thoughts on that, Paul? >> I'm sorry. Which one are we on? Sorry, we're on page 27, which is um which is E1
C, which is when we're talking about um letting basically informing the town of the expected date for the permit so that the town can sort of back off that date to make sure that all the um the covert and the water mane projects are completed by that date. But then there's
some confusion from the applicant as not being 100% sure when you'll know what that date is. And >> is this D 12 C >> 27 right at the top Paul's comment about we need to work on this language. >> Yeah. So, is that been is that still in
progress or where? >> So, this is I'm sorry. This is D 12 C >> D12C. That's >> Oh, I have it as
>> as E1 C >> on page 27. >> It's definitely on page 27. It should be >> is it comment right here that has >> Yeah. Isn't that >> shows on mine is 12?
>> So if you look at page 26 >> Oh. Oh, sorry. I'm on the wrong I got it. Yep. I just flipped that. >> Yep. You're right. >> Yeah. So, the applicant proposed um additional language there that says the board understands it's the intention of
the town to complete the cover project and the water main project prior to the time the applicant applies for the issuance of a building permit. I think that addresses any concerns. Attorney can
>> disagree with me. No, it's it's um it's consistent with other discussions we had at the last hearing that a board can't mandate certain things of other town officials, >> right? >> And so that's the reason why that language has been adjusted. >> Okay. And we're certainly going forward,
we would certainly work with DBW and other town officials to try to expedite and to try to make sure that we have a sort of a a clear process going forward with respect to any bids or any uh work that would be done with respect to those
>> projects, um, grant applications, etc. >> All right. All right. And then there's a section in here that's not my favorite section, but um I just want to make a note of it because it's something we've talked about a lot. And that's basically um there's a lot in here on how the town
plans to secure funds and to and to work on sort of combining the water man project and the culvert moving project hopefully under one grant hopefully under one bid um and um if for some
reason that doesn't happen before the building permit um is issued that is in there that um the applicant can tie into the 6 in temporarily while that water man is being you know in between sort of the time of
which funding is secured and that actually gets replaced that that that can happen. Um so that's what that that is. Is there anything else in this that anybody on the board wanted to bring up?
>> Oh, welcome. >> And then were there anything on the waiver list as well? So, the only tracked changes on the waiver list that I wanted to point out, um, and it's really just a stylistic
thing, um, for me, is that there was a proposed change to waiver number 14 where the information that we were seeking was put into the board action portion, and I just moved that up to the waiver request section instead.
Um, but substantively nothing changed from what was proposed. >> Okay. >> So, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. >> All right. >> Does anybody have any questions about the waiver list >> or the or the decision?
>> I don't. I think it's really well done in terms of the breadth of it, the scope, and the diligence that was put into it. I think the applicant and Paul did a great job and you did a great job getting through it all.
I let Tony sit look at what he had look through. And >> do we need to keep that door open? >> Oh yeah, we do need to keep the door open. Thank you. We just need to keep the door open. >> I don't know if we if we do. Um
>> we're just trying to check on it until later because it seems like sometimes the acoustics in here are not >> I know are not that great. And so open meeting law, it states that just as long as the door is not locked, okay, and applicants or the public can access it, okay, that that we're not in violation of open meeting. >> Oh, good. All right. We've always been
told So we can keep it closed, I guess. We've always been told it had to be open, haven't we? >> That's what I understood. >> We've always been told that it has to be propped open. >> So just as not locked, it makes sense. Yeah. No, that makes sense to me. >> But we've always been told to to have it open. Okay. Thanks. >> And similar. You probably noticed the
select for most of the time the door is locked in here when they have the meetings. So just I want I want you to be assured that it's not any violations. >> Thank you. >> That in writing to you so you would have it. >> No, thank you. I appreciate it. Um all right. So
just for everyone who's here, our plan today is to um vote on this petition. We are um we're this is our last meeting before our deadline for how long we have to act on this petition. Um, and I I will say that we did get an email today
from um from from Alicia about some concerns that she had. And I we have them as part of the the record and I understand that it was frustrating for you that you had um that it took a long time for you to get your response and
that you felt you had a very short amount of time to respond respond. Um, as far as traffic studies go, um, and this is something we were discussing that we've, um, that, um, it's come up at these meetings before that we've
never seen a traffic study say that there's going to be an impact. It's never never happens. Never is there a traffic study that comes before our board where it says it's going to have a significant impact. So, um, I understand um, your concern about traffic. Um, but
I also feel that typically the impact that does occur is less than the fear of the impact. I do feel that there there's always some sort of impact. Of course, when you're having more people and more units, there's going to be some impact. And um, no one's saying that there isn't going to be any impact in your
neighborhood. We know there is, but usually I do think that the the fear of the unknown of what the impact could be is usually greater than what the actual impact of development is. And I don't know if that brings you any comfort at all, but I I just wanted to say that and
share that um with you. I don't know if anybody else who read the comments has anything >> about the driveway and yeah, who's there? I I read the comments and I think that you know although our jurisdiction is very limited in a 40B application
like this uh that is something that we have jurisdiction over with safety but seems like we've vetted it out with having um the we we have already moved around
this site plan to try and help with sight lines. So from what I've seen the evidence that's in front of us, it looks like that's the best alternative that we have. So I don't I don't know that there's something else that could be done with this project given the time
frame that we have a requirement to vote unless the petitioner were to extend voluntarily which at this late date I would ought to anticipate. >> Yeah. And our and our job isn't to necessarily um say that the our job is to basically weigh the impact that this
development is going to have over the need for um affordable housing and um and like Mark said, we don't have a lot as much jurisdiction um in a 40B as because it's dictated by the state
versus first the town. Um >> so that being said, >> Madam Chair, may I just say a few comments? Um, you know, we we try to do as much as we can to accommodate uh the abutters uh and and owners in the
neighborhood, but uh in terms of the um the comments that were made um some of them are incorrect and and uh also the fact that Vanessa Associates is probably the the premier traffic firm uh in the state and they're not going to risk
their reputation on doing shoddy work and they're professional engineers. they have standards that they abide by. Um there is no mass DOT jurisdiction here and if there even if there was there wouldn't be a need for a traffic study. Mass DOT would not require it in this circumstance because of the low volume
smaller project that it is. And uh you know in terms of traffic volume uh peak hour is maybe nine or 10 vehicles which means one vehicle every six minutes. And so I I think that uh the VAS report does clearly outline and address any
potential safety issues and uh and we feel it's it's adequate as as provided. And I'm going to open it up to um public comment if anybody has any questions um specifically um about this decision which I guess
does encompass the whole thing but more importantly about the conditions and such. >> Hi Alicia McCarthy 9 Pine Street. I submitted the letter. I think it's important to note that I didn't call the and ask whoever did the TIA shy. So,
that might have been maybe a a comment towards me. I apologize. I It is kind of a a joke among these boards that you never get a a traffic site. I And I didn't mean to just to to um I don't think that was directed to yours. I think that was directed towards me. But
I noted in my letter that all of the information and the sightelines and the guidelines and everything that they looked into was for the driveway for the proposed building for the new building. It had nothing to do
with our side of the street or in particular my driveway and our safety, the pedestrian safety on that side. So, how can we say that they did a good job? They didn't even look into our side of the street and how it would be how our
safety would be affected. >> So, I think the the um point of looking at the driveway coming in is how that would impact other people using the road. So, how >> I mean there was a crash in front of my house today. >> I I >> for the exact same thing that I'm
explaining and it's not the first one. There are many fender benders in front of my driveway because of the turn of that road and the way it's designed. So now in addition, we're going to add a
driveway and another point of vehicle entry and exit for people and pedestrians and everyone to look out for. It just seems irresponsible and dangerous like that. It's a very dangerous
location for a driveway. And then the other thing I was concerned about is the temporary tying into a 6-in culvert. If it's not best practice to do that, then why is it okay to temporarily tie into it? And what kind of effects is it going to have on our
So that's for the WA for the water man. Yeah. And yes, so that is that is in there as sort of a last resort after um it is on our town schedule to replace that and the goal will be to have that done with the covert as one project.
That is 100% the town's plan as far as how the grants work and everything. It should be done together. It also would be a cost savings because you'd only be doing um police detail once as opposed to doing police detail for multiple projects. Um and I agree with you that that is not ideal. Um, I don't want it
tied into the six-inch pipe. So, but that is a last resort for a temporary situation that would allow them to um get their building permit and start start their construction. This is going this project's going to take a long time. I do not see that happening. I really think everything that we've um
outlined that that will be replaced before. That is my hope and this is lit this is just a contingency if something gets held up on the town side. >> So, what kind of contingency and like recourse do the residents have if we're negatively impacted by
something that everybody's saying won't happen, but you're saying it's okay that if it does end up that way, like what kind of so recourse as far as after the project is done if there's some sort of um >> no like for the temporary tying in I mean if it's not advised for it to be
tied into a >> it should not have an impact and um and we have our um engineers here. It's not that it would necessarily have an impact on your water pressure in your home as much as it's more about if the sprinklers and the water pressure is
needed for the safety of this building that that was that was the concern that there wasn't that you should do that on an 8 in pipe. And um and I no I mean I do agree that this is a compromise um that was made to to try to get this done
um through the town side rather than um and the town has the town unfortunately because we have a time constraint on making this decision. There's a timetable for applying for and accept and and getting grants and they're just not lining up.
So this grant that um Marzy is applying for that will expand the funds for this project, we won't have that information until the end. And so having a document that has well if you know we can't have sort of no solution if this grant doesn't come through or if there's any
sort of delay for other reasons. So that's that's why that's in there so that there so that the document is clean and that there and especially for our developer to get move forward with the project. But as far as recourse on your end, um, after the project, I guess that's a
question if there's any adverse effects to them after the project. >> Well, I would ask Paul. I mean, they have to the applicant has to comply with their conditions and all the approvals that are required, but I don't I don't know if there's any
particular recourse. Paul has great deal of experience. I would refer to him. Sorry, I always forget when I turn my mic off. Um, it would really be very dependent on the nature of the claim. Um, to a
certain extent when you're talking about the issues with the the traffic, it it would really appear to be something that's related to the existing conditions on the roadway, which certainly would not be attributable to the applicant. um the town has, you
know, whatever obligation it has to make sure that its roadways are safe. Um but I I couldn't really speak to what specific remedy would be available without knowing the exact nature of the potential um harm.
>> It's a question more about the 6- in pipe. >> Yeah. >> It never gets >> Yeah. If if it somehow affected them negatively to to for them to be tied into the 6-in pipe, would there what recourse would they have? >> Yeah, I well, it wouldn't really be an
issue of recourse for the neighborhood. It would be really more of an issue of recourse for the town if for some reason it was be able to be proven that the connection of this project caused, you know, whatever harm occurred as it related to that 6- in.
Um, but it really seems like that that's an unlikely scenario and the proposed resolution here is taking into account, you know, that the the issue of concern that was brought up by the board's peerreview consultants really has to do
with this the the state of the existing infrastructure and its age and its potential for future um breaks in that um which again is going to be the responsibility of the town to ensure that it is providing um adequate
infrastructure not only to the applicant but to the the entire neighborhood. So unless you're able to show that there is a direct result of this project causing a break in in the water. Um I don't think
that that's something that could be attributable to the applicant and again it's going to be up to the town. Um, I I think that the way that the the decision has been drafted is addressing this concern by first off trying to make sure that the 8 in pipe
is actually replaced prior to the issuance of building permit, but taking into account, you know, the potential for that not happening. Um the applicant would be allowed to connect to the existing 6- in um with the intention that the 8- in pipe would be replaced,
you know, pursuant to the schedule that the town sets up. >> All right. Is Gino Gino's not here, is he? >> What's that? >> Nick is here. >> I'm here. Snip is administrator. Um, so
I guess the question um for you as far as I um the scheduling of this water man, do you have anything to add to that? If for any reason grant money wasn't available, um this is still on the plans for this has still been um identified as a project that needs to be
done by the town regardless of this project. Is that correct? >> Yes. Gina had identified this and included in sort of the a number of different projects throughout town that need to be done because of the age of the the infrastructure. Um this is
something that if we're able to access funds, we would move it up uh grant funds. In addition, there's the SRF 0% interest loans which we also use regularly to replace aging uh infrastructure like this. And as I said, Gino had identified this as an area that
was, you know, among its priorities even before this project came in. >> All right. So, this project is just moving that is is making an effort to move that work up and get that done more quickly than it was originally scheduled. >> Correct.
>> All right. Any other questions? >> No other questions for me. >> All right. So, >> I think somebody else here question. >> How you doing? Uh Steve Gavin, 11 Pine Street, right across the street from the development.
Um I understand it's we know what's going up. Uh and we've been here every week as you know just to make sure that our concerns are heard and you've listened to all the concerns. Um but all
the concerns we brought up and if I miss something or I have something wrong, please let me know. But the only concern that was really um changed was the stairs being moved in the front of the building. There was a set of stairs that
went went out on Pine Street. So now there's only one set of stairs that goes down out into the parking lot. I'm hoping it stays that way and that's my understanding that that's supposed to happen. They changed the plans. Uh the water pipe, the water pipe, you already
talked about that. Um, we asked for the driveway not to to not to be there because of safety issues. We brought up maybe going out by the um the cannabis store and it was brought up, well, you don't want to tempt the people in the
building walk being able to just walk over and go into the cannabis store. Um, that make them walk walk around. that that doesn't sit well because right from the start as from from veteran
standpoint we said it shouldn't be near a cannabis store. So we said that right from the beginning even before we met to the zoning board but yet it was still thrown back at us. Well, we can't have that entrance the or
the exit there because the the veterans are going to be tempted to walk straight through the parking lot to the cannabis store uh living in that building. So, I think that really needs to be looked at again um and give us a different answer
rather than using a temptation because we brought that up from them from the beginning. There were some other um there were they did do a whole analysis of that and there were some issues as far as not just that it might be a sort of a conflict to have going through a cannabis store to get to the housing but
it was also um the the land the way the land use and was with between the two sep because they are two separate properties. Um there were there were some other issues that were identified in that analysis. And they did move the driveway to get better sight lines for
for safety, for pedestrian safety and for car safety on that road. That that was the other >> Okay. And again, I I did say if I if I did miss something, you know, it's it's a lot of information to take in. >> I know. um the equipment on the roof, you know, I've mention it all the time
and the engineer states that he just doesn't have that information yet. Um but I want to know if he doesn't have that information, how do we know that it's going to be to the state ordinance and the town ordinance if they don't have the the
specs for that equipment that's going on the roof? >> So the the way we know that is because they are not getting any any relief. So, if they if they don't keep the sound level below the ordinance, they will be in violation of this agreement. They'll be and the building inspector's job is
to manage the um the process after after the permit and make sure that the applicant is following all the rules of the state and any rules that haven't been waved um that they haven't asked for waiverss from from the town. >> But shouldn't shouldn't that be looked
at beforehand? Well, they will be submitting detailed um plans that then there's a 45day period for review. So once the some of the plans that are submitted now will change things will change
throughout the process because there is a a sort of a more in-depth design that happens after this process and those will all be reviewed by our building inspector and those will all be that there's a 45 review per day period of that and I'm guessing that um that town
can connect you when they have those when they have that information um of what what mechanisms are going to What now? What happens if they say, "Oh, we didn't realize. I guess it is going to go above the ordinance." >> So, they would have to come back.
>> That would be considered a significant change because they're asking for a waiver that they were not they never asked for and were never granted. So, if they needed another waiver, they would have to come before here. >> And is it at that point is it going to be too late for us to say, "No, we don't. I mean, that's unacceptable."
>> And they have to find another way to put the equipment in the building. Correct. >> Or is it is the town just going to allow >> and give give them give them that relief to say, "Okay, here you it's okay to have that equipment up there." >> I do not see the town allowing that. I also don't see them coming back for
that. I They've they've never um seem they don't seem to have any concerns with sound that they're going to need relief on that. >> All right. I'll believe that when I see it. >> I I understand your hesitation. >> You know, I'll be at that meeting. >> You'll be I know you will be. and we'll
we'll be glad to have you. >> Um, >> ask about the sound. Um, with the funding that they're getting from the onetop, I believe there's actually more stringent acoustic requirements for that than in a typical building. So, I I
think um we'll be in good shape once we see things. I'm the the the big thing is um be having the so if you say well the neighborhood have brought this up many a times and then the state comes in well there's nothing you can do about it
>> and they're going to over over >> override >> yeah I I in that in that situation where that where a decision has been made and the applicant has agreed to the conditions of the decision that's been made um and Then later on they need more
relief there. That is under our jurisdiction whether or not we give more relief. >> And can the state can the state override the zoning board >> on on additional relief needed after the fact? >> Yeah. So it's >> Paul. Can you answer that question? If there's additional relief needed after
the fact, can the state >> So I I can answer that question. So essentially the board would be acting um on a request for a modification. Um that determination would be based upon
whether or not the requested modification would make the project substantially less uneconomic than whatever status it had at the time they requested the application. And if they can't make that showing, then the housing appeals committee wouldn't have
any basis for overturning the board's decision. Um, it would be very unlikely that that would be something that would ever even get to an appeal to the housing appeals committee. So ultimately, uh, very unlikely that the
board's decision would be overridden on an issue like that. Again, they would also they also still have to comply with the state requirements. The state has noise requirements as well. >> Yes. >> And those are not waveable under chapter
40B. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um and we brought >> So the likely result would be is that they would have to provide some sort of screening um to mitigate the sound. And I have been involved in projects where
developers have come back for modifications to provide screening um after the fact because they ultimately found out that whatever mechanical um systems that they had would cause a noise issue. Um so that's what what the
likely result would be. It would not be a request to allow them to exceed the noise requirements. It would be a way for them to figure out how to meet the requirements. Okay. All right. Uh, and we we talked about
the the culvert being moved and our concerns, you know, and I had mentioned it's right outside our driveway. Um, once this goes through, is there a timeline? Is that going to be like are both building going to be constructed
and not being moved at the same time? Uh, what? So the the culvert will be moved before the um before they can start construction because they can't build on top of the culvert. So that will be a town project done prior to the 40B project.
>> All right. And is there um is is there something that's in a backup plan for the sewer pipes in case the >> for that it just can't handle everything? So the the only change that
was made with the sewer was that they're tying in further down. So they're tying in at the steeper part of the sewer. They're not tying in at that flatter part of the sewer, which seems to be where where the problems um were. And um so that that's the change is that
they're tying in further down to to try to mitigate any anything like that. There also um have been tests for capacity that have that have said that there's plenty of capacity in those pipes. Um, I think some of, and I know this isn't necessarily what you want to
hear, but some of there is a little bit of a wait and see on the lining. It sounds like that may have mitigated a lot of the problems, and we're hoping that it did, and Gino feels confident that it did. Um, and I don't think we've had any problems since then, but I also don't think you've had the conditions for problems since then either. So, it's it's easy to say that you haven't had
problems when you haven't had a a major storm either. Um, but I think we need to see what what happens when that happens. And um but I do think that problem that pre-existing problem is separate from um from this project.
>> And then uh one of the the biggest things um once this project starts and stuff and we're running into problems that we have reassurance from the town to get help and that not everybody's just going to wash their hands while it already went through a vote. See you
later. Sorry it happened and we're done. So this is >> that's I just need the reassurance from the town to say yes, we're going to be there for you. We're going to make sure and from the construction company to say we're going to be there for you. Don't worry.
>> Yeah. So I think that the um there is going to be a line for the town to call um if there's any issues ongoing during are you talking about kind of during construction? during after um I mean once once the apartments start getting
full I mean we may not notice anything until it's at its full capacity >> right as far as sewer and things like that. >> Yeah. with the with the water pressure and you know we may not see anything but once it's at its full capacity uh that we know we need to know that the the
town's going to back us and say okay we have to relook at this and >> yeah and so because this is a sort of this is a joint project as this is town owned land. Um our board will no longer be involved at that point. Um but um I don't know if um Nick wants to answer that. Oh, Nick has his hand up. So Nick
Nick would like to answer that for you. >> I I just didn't want to speak over anyone. That's why I raise my hand instead of jumping in. Yeah, I I would just say my office, the town administrator, Gino, DPW, director, Marzy, community development, and our
teams are all committed to making sure we're supporting both our partner into the development, but also the community. So, we we are all directly available. I'm sure we'll have a particular line set up that's sort of a hotline, but you can call any one of us, come and knock on any of our doors as well. I just want to be perfectly clear, we are always
available for this project or or other questions and concerns and I've been very fortunate since I joined in October to see just how that plays out with staff and and so I I I'm happy to make that commitment on behalf of the town that we're here uh to work through questions with you and we'll not just
sort of, you know, wash our hands a bit and say, you know, the ZBA voted on February 10th, so you know, we are where we are. We're here to work with you and we'll certainly coordinate with BBH wherever we can um to address issues and to to hear you out for sure. >> All right. Thank you for that.
>> Thanks, Nick. >> Heather, if I could if I I could just add to this too. Um also, historically and in past projects when we had worked with um Benet Brit, we would also hold weekly meetings, on-site meetings. So, if there are any issues that that come up during the week or with the
contractor or with the neighbors um that you'll be able to to have a direct contact either through the city um Gino, myself or or or Christa and then also through the project manager, the whoever the contractor is and we would try to address any ongoing issues at that time.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. And I I would add there would there would be a um as as we know there would be a detailed construction management plan that would be prepared to deal with all contingencies with respect to the construction process and BBBH as you
know has has been here before with Michan school and our understanding is that process went well. We don't expect anything different uh with respect to this project as well and we'll work certainly work with town. >> Thank you. Um it looks like someone has their they
raise their hand um online. >> They're on mute. >> They're on mute. If you want if you have your hand up um we can't see your name, but if you would like to um unmute yourself and ask a question. >> Looks like we got bounced out.
>> Yeah. All right. >> Not on mute anymore. >> Not on mute. >> We can't do it. >> But we can't hear you if you're if you're speaking. >> Caesar. >> Is it Caesar or Caesar? >> Caesar.
>> Oh, now he's gone. >> Probably going to try to reconnect. >> Yeah. Okay, we'll let him. Is that someone Is that someone you know? Is that a neighbor? Yes. >> We'll give them a few minutes. >> Is there anybody else? >> Yeah. Is there anybody else while we're waiting?
>> I feel bad. He got kicked out right when he was asking a question. Give him a couple minutes. >> You text in Nancy. >> While we're doing that, could I ask Paul a question for >> Paul? For purposes of making a motion on this petition,
sufficient that I that I reference u the decision and the findings therein and conditions therein and the waiverss incorporated essentially by reference in my motion. >> That's perfect. The only thing I would
say is uh just note as as revised presumed to the discussion tonight. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't catch that. >> I said the only thing I would add is as revised pursuant to the discussion tonight.
>> Right. Right. 45 days. Yep. >> Got it. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> All right. Well, I don't I'm not sure what happened. Does anybody have contact with >> She said they just got knocked out. >> They just got knocked out and they're trying to
>> They're trying to get back in back in. There he is. >> There he is. >> All right. Hi, Caesar. If you want to unmute yourself. You're back in the meeting. Sorry about that. We're not sure what happened. >> Hi. Sorry, I may have missed it. C 27 Pine Street. I just have a question with
the covert. I know it's a separate project from the actual building, but it's reliant on the covert moves. >> Yeah. >> Um what would be the actions if that couldn't happen whether environmental reasons or financial or whatever other
reason may pop up because to my understanding there hasn't been a full study as to how it will impact everything. Am I correct on that? So they have um preliminary designs but not the final design for the covert moving. And yes, there is some more work that
will need to be done before it actually goes out to bid. Um I I mean if the covert can't be moved for some reason that we can't predict now at this at this time. The building can't go on top of the culvert. So that would be a major
change, but there is no um evidence to show that the culvert won't be able to be moved. The assumption is that it will be. Um, >> so I guess my question is is why would the board approve this project without having the full scope of the covert moves,
>> the full plans? Well, like like we talked about with um all all of the plans, there are more detailed plans coming and that's how this process works. Um, but also with the Covert specifically because the Culvert final design plans are being paid for by a
grant that the town has acquired rather than the applicant and they can't put that out to bid until they have the funds. They can't pay for the design process. So, that grant has to be processed. Um, and then the town will be doing that project. >> Yeah, I understand that. But it just
seems like you the town is putting the cart before the horse type of thing. Well, the the it it is happening in the order it needs to happen in the sense that the the culver the project can't be built unless the culvert's moved. So, the covert has to be moved prior to the project,
>> but also the approval is dependent on the 40B timeline. >> Yes. Yeah. And the approval of this Yes. If you if you're if you're thinking that this we could wait till for this approval until after the covert is moved if that was the question um we can't we have a limited amount of time to process
and vote on this um on this 40B project. >> Okay. And I just have one side question and it's not really board related but since the town administrators here who is in charge of plowing or shoveling the property because all the kids are walking down the street on that side.
Sorry I know to go off topic. No, that is a good question. I believe that it is town- owned property, so that would be the town would be in charge of shoveling the sidewalks on that side. Um, and uh, if anybody here wants to correct me if I'm wrong on that, that would be my guess. Um,
>> and I, and Mary Ellen's in the back giving me the thumbs up that I am correct in that guess. So, it is town owned property and they would be responsible for shoveling those sidewalks. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. >> Is it too late to ask a question? >> Yes. You may ask another question.
>> I No, I forgot to bring up um the contamination. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, that was discussed at the last meeting. Yes. um that the and I'll I'll have you restate what was stated last meeting about the about any contamination that that was
>> uh we have been working with a geoenvironmental consultant who we work with on many of our developments including at the Michon and we feel comfortable with the condition of the soil and some of it may have to go
offsite but we have a professional team who will be evaluating it and we have budget we we have budgeted funds to treat this soil appropriately and uh we're >> and also the VFW was determined not to
have asbestos in correct so when that type of mit mitigation when building concern >> correct so when that building is demolished there is no asbestous containing materials in there >> um I think does that recap what >> there and this isn't having a foundation
so there will not be large soil moving um that you would expect in a in another project that this is going to be built on on final. >> Do we know how far out the contamination goes? Like is it going to >> Never heard anything? >> We've never heard anything of it. We know that they did all kinds of testing
over there. Um >> how can we get the information? >> Where could we get that information from um to to look at? Is it something that we have to worry about? Is the contamination going to be going into the street towards our property? It's my
understanding it's not that kind of contamination that you need to worry about. This is >> so is there a report that they can do? >> What is it then? >> Sorry. Sorry. Hang hang on. We'll just talk to me and I'll and I'll ask you the question. >> Okay. Sharing. >> So that's the qu So the question I didn't mean to.
>> So no. So so the question >> I'm trying to be reassuring because it's >> so the question is is there a report that they can view? There will be a report that's public information that we will be sharing with the town and our funding applications.
>> So yes, >> so that so that will be a public report and so when that's available um to that's available it'll be shared with us and then um Christie will make sure that it goes out to everybody. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> No problem. Thank you. >> And and that's a that's an area as you
know is heavily regulated by by the >> by the at the state level. There's no waiverss for those state regulations >> and there's no way the state would allow us to create affordable housing with very concerning environmental conditions that weren't appropriately addressed. >> Okay.
All right. So, if there's no further questions, >> should we close the public hearing? >> Close the public hearing. >> I'll make we have another >> Oh, >> sorry. Say sorry. One last question. Y >> um so when the whole Culver move goes or
the planning goes into effect um how will we as neighbors um have an input or be informed of the actions taking place? >> So so there will be no uh if you're asking about like public hearings on the covert there won't be the um that
process will be done through the through any sort of town improvement project that is would normally be done. So they will um take bids and they will choose a contractor and that contractor will do the work. Um but if you want to follow up on um sort of the design phase of that, I'm guessing that you could follow
up with um with Christine Marzy on that. Is that true for if they wanted to hear about the design phase before it goes out to bid? >> Absolutely. And just just now Christristine and I were just discussing just quickly to say that we'll most likely create a project page for this
project um similar to uh as we have done in other uh projects. So then residents are able to take a look at sort of where we are and maybe it could be a a great place for repository of information and others. >> Great. Thank you. >> And I understand that Benth did some
soil studies. Does that include the soil that's going to be removed u during this culvert extraction or relocation since it's on the same property or the so um well if there's soil studies required for moving the culvert those
would be part of that will be um part of the design process and part of the bidding process for that. So all of that will be on that portal um when it when it's up and running for from not portal but what what would you call that the the same way you access this information
there'll be another folder with information about this project. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Okay. I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. I think we got to do a roll call. >> All right. We get a second. >> Second. >> All right. Tony.
>> Hi. >> Michelle. >> Hi. Heather I Mark >> I >> and Susan >> I >> All right >> and I'm going to make a motion to approve petition
2515 by BBH Community Development LLC requesting a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law Chapter 40B to construct 41 units of rental housing for seniors and older adults with a veteran preference at 10 Ocean, New Ocean Street
and 12-24 Pine Street and further making findings um and um conditions and waiverss as found in the decision on comprehensive permit
application that was submitted with a date of February 10th, 2026 with the modifications that were discussed tonight to paragraph on page 19 C1A
to change from 30 days to 45 days and to reinsert the uh redlinined C1 in its entirety. And I think that's what I have. >> Maybe just in any other >> changes agreed to
>> in any other changes that were agreed to tonight by the applicant and the board. Um and I think that's all I need. >> All right. Do you have a second? >> Second. All right. All in favor? Susan?
>> I. >> Tony I. >> Michelle I. >> Mark I. >> Me I. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate the motion. >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I >> Susan. >> All right. Good luck with the project. >> Good luck. Thank you very much, >> Paul. Thank you very much. >> Yes. Thank you, Paul. >> Pleasure. Thank you all. Pleasure working with you. >> Thanks, Paul.