Thank you. >> All right. Welcome everybody to our January meeting of the um Swamp Scott Zoning Board of Appeals. We have um two quick things to take care of um before we get to our um the the first thing on our agenda and that's we're going to
skip to number three which is um petition 2518 which is made a request to continue to our February 10th meeting. Um let me just get a motion to continue. >> We'll make a motion to continue to February 10th. >> We got a second. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I I All right. So they are continued. And then we also have petition 2519 which um is for um has requested to withdraw their petition without prejudice. Get a >> I'll make a motion to
allow petition 2519 to withdraw without prejudice. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Excellent. All right. So that's set. We're going to do our meeting. We're going to do our um minutes at the next meeting because we just got this packet today. So, we're going to skip that.
>> Okay. >> Um and approve them at the next meeting. Um all right. So, we are um here to move forward with the um um petition 2515, which is VBH um Veterans Crossing. And
we have had a busy month. There's been a lot going on. And um if we just kind of how we got here last meeting um we had our first set of peer review from um from the town hired engineers and we had
a quick sort of um response to that. We had at our last meeting asked for more and since then there's been a lot of back and forth between the engineers with response and um and um our peer review as well. So my question is if we
could have if it's possible for um our engineer team to kind of go through and see just you've read their most recent response and if and we have um but we don't have a written kind of acknowledgement from you of that so far and I was just wondering if we could go
through and see if there's things that you see are still open and things that you see as closed. And I'm going to try to get my document up so that I can follow along. Is that Are you ready to do that? If you're not, that's that's Yeah. Okay.
>> Yep. >> Oh, yeah. Do you need a microphone? Do you have a microphone? >> A microphone. Yeah. I just didn't know if >> you have to push it. Push. >> No. If it's lit, it should be good. Okay. >> Yeah. Um we reviewed the flow capacity calculation for the
culvert and the culvert relocation and um our concern was with adding in bends to maintain the hydraulic capacity of the culvert. So the um applicant has
changed the layout to add in um less severe bends I would say. So less energy loss and also increase the width of the covert. Um it's um it checks out. It's just I I don't
know if it's um I don't know if there's a cost, you know, if cost change. I'm sure there will be a cost increase, but um if there's been a that um it's seems to the final the final calculation
I didn't see anything that was missing that was taken into account because the previous ones I um would ask about you know what this head loss or energy loss would be. So, um
it seems, you know, that it can work. It's going into Pine Street now. Um and as long as it's this these mentions on the covert are available. Um, and we don't really
know without an enduring design what the impacts to the site would be or you know crossings with utilities because typically you do a profile to see how the excavation would impact crossing utilities and such. Um, I would
think that there are going to be impacts and that there the slope may change and there will have to be adjustments as the design proceeds because this is like say 30% design. The other plans are closer
to more like 90%. You know, um, but the culvert design is like a preliminary design layout. So, I would think that it's going to be adjusted as it moves on to final design because it's you're going to find out more information and
changes are going to have to be made with that. >> So, there is a more recent plan. The one on the screen now is is one iteration back. So, there I think that's the 113 plan, but there was a 115 um that I think is what Heather's
talking about. We haven't commented on the 115 drainage. um diagram, right? That's not the most recent up there with the red. There's one after that, right? >> So, we're all talking about the same thing. >> Yeah. When I looked at that one, I think there was a little misunderstanding of
which angle I had um identified as being greater than 45. So, I just called, you know, the engine Jacob to just let him know to clarify which one. So, then he made an adjustment to add in
other smaller angles. So now I think there's >> four or so. Um it's that >> the north you know it's it's by the corner of the VFW the um east corner that in
that the way it's shown that angle is not that's um greater than 45 degrees. So that was the one I was referring to in the comment. So that's since been corrected and then in the most recent schematic.
>> Okay. I don't think we have that here. >> I don't think it was submitted. It was >> that was back and forth with you, but it hasn't been submitted. Okay, that's that's fine. That happened. So, um that will be if you could just send that over um so that Christa can get that off so that we can all look at it. And then as
far as a profile, it's I think there was one of my comments was requesting a profile. Um, and it was said, oh, it's been submitted, but that's that's not there's no profile there. A profile would be like um how do I describe it? You you're showing
the elevation like a like almost like a cross-section of the proposed pipe and you show the the grade. It's like following the contours of the proposed pipe and then any intersecting pipes. Um you're going
to have things that you cross. So that's as the design advances um that's my understanding that that would be done in the future. >> Okay. >> Is it is it okay if I chime in? >> Sure. >> Sure. >> Yeah. So Jacob Hancock Associates
engineering project. So the idea with the design as it moves forward once we've got the existing culvert excavated we'll go in and inventory all the existing crossings and the field uh existing conditions of any pipes that
are in the way of the culvert. And that's when the design would progress to the level um of you know up to construction level design would be with those existing um impediments in the
ground taken into account with the actual field locations of them all documented and then we would move forward based on that with the design. So right now the design is based off of uh manhole inlets
and interpolation between elevations from the top of the covert where we excavated it and survey ex and uh survey located it and uh I think in order to really see in order to create an accurate profile
that's going to give you any more information that is shown on the site plan there we need to have that exposed and get the locations on any of those utilities that are in the way before we can really address that or show it basically
>> for the um Okay, I'm I'm talking about profile for the prop like the proposed route but the um Right. >> Yeah. not the >> Well, that's what I mean is when we've got the the site excavated for the
existing and the proposed uh that's when we'll be able to locate that. So, we're going to excavate down in the location of the new proposed covert as well as location of the existing covert to expose both of those things.
And uh we Hancock Associates uh we've been speaking with Gino and we will be the ones or at least extensively now will be the ones that are the civil engineers of record on the design for the culvert moving forward. So we have a
scope of work that incorporates you know all the structural design and the final design documents that are all stamped 100% design drawings. Um and that will be processed as part of the the grant
project. So design for the or the construction design for the culvert is included in the grant application for the one-stop money. Um so that is a part of the project even past this point and I think uh talking to Gino his approach
to this is that we would retain the same peer review staff to peer review the plans as we go along. And uh obviously we don't have that information now, but when in order for us to get the grant money or in order for us to actually
start the project, the town will need to request the grant money and they'll have to have bids. Um so they'll have to have final pricing for the culvert to pull in th those bid money. So basically the town won't even be able to
start the project until they have the money required to fund the project. So even if there's any overages or any additional design that needs to be finalized, uh they first of all it will need to be 100% funded. So the
project can't go forward until the culvert's replaced and the covert can't be replaced until it's funded. And it can't be fun and it can't be funded until we until we get to the point where we can start getting bids. And uh I I think that in
order to do that, we need to get past this point and we need to get the project going under the town's scope in the DPW jurisdiction. Um because obviously we have incentive to get that project moving along and finished as
quickly as possible, which we'll do. Uh because otherwise our project's not going to be able to move forward on on time. So, um, the review of this, and I know we've talked about conditioning this, but we don't necessarily, I think, need to condition a peer review of this
after this. I think that it's Gino's call. Is Gino on here? >> No. >> If I if I may add something, uh, Madam Chair, I'm sorry. um John Smolac, attorney for the applicant. What we're
suggesting is that the um the design that's progressed so far is generally typical of what we see and maybe it's more advanced than what we usually see at this stage for a 40B project. And uh this design is going to be advanced. Uh
but it is part of a a separate town project that's going to be under the jurisdiction of the town to as as uh Jacob had indicated to to bid out and to before it's bid out, it has to be finally designed. And um I know that the
board may or may not have seen the uh draft of the decision, but there's a provision within that decision that provides for both the fact that this project cannot uh proceed with a building permit until such time as that
uh culvert is relocated. So that means uh designed uh bid out and constructed. And so from that perspective that the town is protected and also as Jacob had indicated there's there would be peer review of that design as well that would
be undertaken that's accounted for under the grant funding that uh Hancock had prepared on behalf of and the applicant had prepared on behalf of the town. So, so um so what I'm saying is is is simply that uh this cover project is isn't although
it's an important project it's something that's being undertaken separately by the town and certainly we we could provide further design information as that design progresses but that would be part of a separate uh process u beyond this this process here and the other
condition that's within the decision is the fact that we've accounted for uh overage in terms of funding in the event there is some sort of short shortfall. We think that's highly unlikely to happen, but it's but it's in there and and so that's an additional condition. Uh but again, the the bottom line is
that this project cannot proceed unless that culvert is moved. Uh so so I just >> understood. Yep. Yeah. The the Culver has to move. Obviously, you can't build the building. >> You you'd have to build a different building. Um if you weren't going to move the Culvert. So the Culver has to move. Um, I think there's still a lot of
gray area as to how the cover's going to move and where it's going to be and what the final look of this covert is going to be, but the reality is it has to move outside the footprint of the building, has to have the 10-ft clearance. Um, all of these things are going to be part of
the decision. Um, but the the because the town has applied for the grant money, the town will be the one taking on the town will be the one getting bids to actually do the work. So it makes things complicated unfortunately because obviously this culvert's only moving for this project. If this project wasn't
happening, this culvert would not be moving. The town wouldn't have decided to take this on on their own. It's simply for this project to make this building the size it is in the location it is. But um it's added a layer of complication because of that. But um but
that being said, like you said, you can't build a building without moving it. So >> Right. And it will be and I think we can we've talked I've talked to Paul a little bit and I think we can talk more on how the wording of that condition um is included so that um it's clear and um
>> and I will say just on the back end as well as that design is advanced and if there's any substantive change from what is sort of depicted on the plans we'd have to come back to the board for determination of any change. So, so it's it's it's daylighted in terms of whatever is being proposed as the final
design. >> All right. Is there anything else on the covert that you would like to know be that you still feel like you need information on? Are we sort of Okay. >> No. No. I think the to go back to your original question about what's open
after our last round of comments. I would say the the mul the bulk of our comments were on the culvert and that's what we've been discussing mostly the last few times we met. Um and then I think the only big other open issue is the water man. >> Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. I mean sorry one thing just to
clarify the profile would be developed as part of the engineering design documents that would be bid upon. It wouldn't be when it's >> getting constructed. >> Sure. >> Just to clarify that. Right. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. >> So that would be part of the design process that would not involve
>> you. This is information that could be discerned without excavation is what you're saying. Right. It's part of the design. >> It's part of the design. It's not part of the construction. >> Yeah. I mean, you might need to get more field information, but um you So, it might require some more test fits, but you would be
>> designing it. I'm sure this the slope would I don't know, but I you know it I maybe they have enough information now, but it would be just to clarify from before. It's um that's the design. >> I think we need to go. I'm sorry. >> Yeah.
>> Sorry. Um so okay so so the um so that's good clarification that some of this I mean there's been I think there's I think there's a we definitely have a little bit of a disagreement as to how much could have been done now and how much um
should be done later. I think there might be a little bit of a disagreement there. Um but what we have is what we have at this point and we're going to try to do our best with the information that's been provided to us to make to move forward and um trust that because this covert does have to move. It has to
be engineered. It has to be bid on um by um for the town to spend the money to move it that we are um that there's a lot of more checks coming down the line. um that the fact that we don't have all the information information we wish we
had at this point, we will be gathering it as we go. And I just also wanted can you just talk a little bit about the um about the flow um the sewer flow study because that was another thing that came out last meeting that I just want to make sure that we talked publicly about as far as what
everything was. >> Yeah. Um we we looked at the um recorded sew flow results and it looks like they're um was it like an inch or three inches high in the sewer at peak flow
the highest. Um so pretty low flow. So there is there wasn't a storm event a significant storm event in the time. I think there was like what was it like a less than an inch or something but um but even looking at the area that's flowing to the sewer in Pine Street it's
not like there's a lot you know I didn't count up the lots but it's not a huge amount it's just two different pipes flowing into it. Um the sewer has been lined which really increases the capacity. I don't know what this what
caused previous problems and if it was in this back neighborhood behind Pine Street, but as far as the um sewer metering, it seems like there's capacity in the sewer for the for the new flows, especially tying in after the manhole
instead of um before like was originally shown. Um, so we've moved the tie in or the sewer to be lower than to be after the manhole. >> Yeah. Because originally it was shown >> tying into like a really flat sewer um
that flows back to Erie Street, but it that was corrected on the second, you know, in response to a comment. Um, so as far as the sewer metering goes, it shows that there's capacity at that location >> and we're continuing to monitor that mon
monitor that flow. hoping that we get some sort of rain event. >> Yeah, we've got the uh both the flow monitors still in and the rain gauge still in at the DPW. So, as soon as we get a a sufficient rain event, we'll share the results of that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. And then the other was the um water man, >> right? >> Yeah. Um originally the plan showed a 12 inch which was um just an error on the plan. So, it's actually a 6 inch water mane
in Pine Street at this location. And I don't feel comfortable, you know, it's an old 6 in. Um, typically new mains are all minimum 8 in. Um, I don't feel comfortable saying that that's okay even though the
fireflow availability is there. So, that's just my comment. >> Okay. So, that's something that we can condition to replace that. I know that um Hancock had some thoughts as to um and we have not reviewed we reviewed
that that sort of um secondary. So >> yeah, we have a potential alternative connection to New Ocean, but uh Gino needs to review that with the town records to check into what the condition of that main is in New Ocean. >> Okay. So I guess we'll kind of wait on
that to see what Gino and and our peer review think of that other that alternate. If there's if if we can't come up with an alternate, that's a um condition as far as upgrading that to be um either upgrading that to be the 8 in
or having money aside to upgrade it when um Gino does the upgrade for that area. We can kind of work >> is is that something that's unique to this project that's causing the need for the upgrade to the 8 in or is it a townwide issue? seems to be a townwide
issue. I mean, I think that in terms of obviously we have flow capacity. We've done the hydro flow testing. Gino, I guess doesn't isn't commenting on the condition of the pipe. I've heard that
there haven't been that many issues, but then I've also heard that there have been issues from uh peer review. So, um >> I think the I think the idea the the peerreview thought is that um that you
wouldn't put a 40 plus unit building on a 6 in for fire reasons, >> right? But there there's case law. I mean, we can ask Paul about it about that type of condition if we're permitted. I I I know there's case law from other projects I'm familiar with
and we had it with um the last 40b. Paul, could I ask you about that? About this upgrade of the water pipe offsite if that's something we can properly we have jurisdiction to condition here.
>> Yeah. Can can you give me a little bit of better background as to what what the type of condition would be? What would be the nature of the condition? Well, the request would be that the um main in Pine Street, the 6-in main be replaced
with an 8 in um to increase the flow capacity to the new building. >> Well, the contention seems to be that it's a 6 in pipe. Um but I personally I don't really see how that's an issue if we know we have flow. I mean, obviously it'd be great if the town had upgraded
water pipes everywhere in the town to 8 in, but this is what's existing here. Um, unless there's some sort of condition of this pipe that's outstanding other than what Gino has said, I don't I don't see why there's a
reason we can't tie a 6-in pipe into another 6-in pipe if we know we have the flow capacity. >> If I may add to that, I think member Corninski was was hitting it right on the head. Uh the question is uh if this is a a a uh line that has deferred
maintenance as opposed to something being unique to this project, is this project causing the problem with the with the water line or is it just a matter of general long-term capital maintenance or improvements that need to be undertaken? So I guess the case law
the case law is differentiates as to what what the applicant's obligation is. I don't want to speak for uh Paul, but I'll let him speak to that issue. It's a again, it's a question of whether we're obligated to replace that entire line or
or provide sort of the our share of the cost to upgrade that line based on the amount of flow that we're adding to it. >> The fees of the town has >> ini fees as well for this, >> right? I Yeah.
>> Do you follow along, Paul? agree with attorney Smolac that the board is limited in imposing a condition to requiring the applicant to fund its fair share of any upgrade. It can't require the applicant to fund the the
full upgrade for something that is not solely needed for the benefit of their project. >> Okay. Well, I guess it it depends on how that's how that's viewed. if um the risk of kind of fire safety for this particular building is great enough that
um >> I don't see if that there's a risk >> well that that's the analysis that's going to need to be taken is really to what extent is what's being requested necessary for this project and to what extent it's really addressing a greater need. >> Okay.
>> And to confirm the the flow tests that were conducted show that you don't need any fire pumps or anything like that. you have that >> we have add plenty of water pressure and flow. >> So I think the entire contention is just that it's a 6 in tying into a 6 in and
we're not comfortable with that but I don't know why >> this Vicky Mason with VM Consulting the town's peer reviewer there is a history of breaks there and Gino's actually seen the inside of the main and the condition of the inside of the main. It's severely tuberculated and choked down. So the old
building there was taking something like 250 maybe gallons of water per day. This new building is taking something like 4,500 gallons per day. So a prolonged extended use on a mean like that could be what
it's going to take to compromise it. And then Gino owns it. So we're trying to protect the town's best interest going forward from the impacts of this building. That's where we're coming from. >> And I think in I would say that Gino already owns it, right? It's a it's an
existing town line. If we're just going to say that because we're using the water line, eventually it's going to wear down faster. I mean, you could say that about anything. You could say that about the roadway, about the sidewalks. I mean, we're using it, so it's going to
in increase the wear to some degree, but it's not going to compromise the entire pipe just because we're tying our project into it all of a sudden. If the flow is there, the flow is there and the condition of the pipe. I mean, I think
that Gino needs to um needs to chime in on that uh a little more clearly. Yeah. >> And I will say our comment only asks for the upgrade to Eerie Street. So it's really just the block that the that the building's going to be on. So their build their building will be the primary
user that section of Maine and then the the hand >> it's not to upgrade the whole neighborhood. It's literally just to get from Eerie to >> New I mean from New Ocean to um the project. >> So however many houses are on the other side, it's not that many. >> Yeah. It's very small. It's a
substantial amount of work >> to upgrade >> to upgrade the waterline of the street, close down the street, cap or cut and temporarily cap. That's why there's also the option that when um when we've talked about when Gino is doing this project and we talked about this in in a
meeting with you um putting money aside for um for the the portion um of the project that falls under um under the responsibility of this development and the town taking on the
responsibility of the remainder of the upgrade. So that you know it would be done during it wouldn't be necessarily um the developers responsibility to um you know time and plan that repair. It
would be a repair that the town was doing on a larger scale of the neighborhood, but there would be funds set aside. >> What what what is the Have you done the calculation for what the tie-in costs are for the INE that we have small Scott? >> I don't have that off the top of my head.
>> The but there there may be a workaround also if we're >> Yeah. And there also may be a workaround that hasn't been reviewed yet. So I think both these things should be or I think all these options are on the table. The the developer actually doing the upgrade, the funds set aside for the town to do the upgrade um when they do
them and the possibility of the tying in further down and not actually touching that 6-in pipe at all. Um those are three options that are on the table right now that we need to kind of work out. >> All right. Is there anything else from from you? Thank you so much. So,
>> um All right. Next, I wanted to go through um a portion of the draft decision so that in front of me. Um so, Paul, if you don't mind going
through it with us. Um you know what? We don't have the waivers right now. If you could go through the waivers. Um and um uh Christa, if you can put those up for us. >> You can kind of go do the waiverss first
and then do the conditions. Is that good, Paul? Or is would you rather do the opposite? >> E either way is fine with me. >> All right. Go through them just one by one. Well, um I guess anything that um there were a couple that I had some had had some
questions on um that I had asked you earlier that we might want to just discuss in front of everybody so that everybody's clear and then um anything else that you think should be clear to both residents and the board? >> Not to interrupt, but just so the board
is aware, I do have copies of the stuff that we had submitted. So if anybody wants a copy um I can give that to them. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Of the um >> just the plans and the reports and everything that was submitted with this last submit.
>> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> So yeah, we >> so just let me know when you're ready for me. >> Sorry. Yeah. Um Yeah, I'm ready for you. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, there are basically two
different types of waivers that an applicant will request. The first is what I call procedural waivers. And those are waivers that request relief from other permitting requirements in the town.
Um and those are technically not waiverss that need to be granted or requested um because a comprehensive permit is a master permit that subsumes all other local permitting processes in the town. So, for instance, um looking
at this particular waiver list, if you want to just scroll down to the first group of waiver requests right here, um sections two and three of uh excavation of a public street or way, trench safety. Um and this is says it's
what's required is written permission from the director of public works. And again a comprehensive permit uh is all local permits necessary. So that written permission is not necessary. So generally what my recommendation to a board in that circumstance is to deny
the waiver request as unnecessary because it's a comprehensive permit that subsumes all other local permitting processes. Um then we could also add in the fact that any of the safety requirements of um whatever particular
entity would generally oversee this must be met and you can have um administrative sign off by those groups as part of your post-permanent process. >> Okay. >> So while you wouldn't necessarily I'm sorry
>> sorry just one quick question. Would that be um would would that sign off process or that um that sort of um uh just reminder I mean it's it's the reminder that yes all the safety things have to be followed would that be um
under the waiver list or would that be then put back into the conditions list or into the original special permit? >> It it generally I would take care of it in in the waiver list. Um that being said, if there is any particular provision that you are concerned, you
know, you want to make an emphasis about can absolutely refer it back in and include a specific condition. >> Okay. >> All right. So, so sections, so the first two are things that you would say were would be denied because they're unnecessary because they're already part
of the comprehensive special permit. >> Correct. And and the same for section 4 again. >> Okay. um select board approval for obstruction of a public street or sidewalk. That's a local permit that's granted as part of this process. >> Okay. And
>> but again, you can have you can have administrative review and you know, assurance that they're complying with any safety requirements. >> Okay. So, so again, you could have the director of public works review the
final plans um and provide feedback in instructions as it relates to the the blocking of public streets and sidewalks. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> And if you want to scroll down,
same thing on uses land soil removal. That's a a permit. um that would be part of the comprehensive permit. Um so we did talk about the historic district. We have a request earlier today and the
question is whether that is necessary. Um I don't know if we've gotten a response yet in terms of whether this constitutes a historic building >> and whether the demolition delay would be applicable. >> Madam Chair, if I may respond to that.
Um we we the only information that we have is from the assessor's card and that assesses card suggests the building was constructed in 93. So it wouldn't be uh one criterion is that the building must be at least 75 years old. So it probably isn't
required. We just want to double check to see if that information from the assessor's office is accurate. >> That's correct. Yeah. All right. Thanks. >> So in most it most likely does not need to be there. Although um that is something that if it if it was residual and hung on it wouldn't doesn't really
affect anything. Um >> and again that would be a procedural waiver would actually issue the demolition delay determination as part of this decision. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Oh >> earth removal requires a permit from the
select board. this instance that permit would be granted by the board of appeals. So this is a procedural waiver again storm water management. Um I I don't see a specific
um substantive storm water provision that they're looking for relief from. This looks like it's again a procedural waiver from the requirement to obtain separate approval. Um, Attorney Smallac, I don't know if
>> you agree with that or not. >> Well, uh, what what I would suggest is that we take a closer look at that. Um what I will say is that just as an overall point um when when this board was reviewing the Elmplace project um I
drafted those waiverss and um and what's being suggested is modified and it's it's a matter of I guess matter of style as to how how you approach it but uh all these waiverss that uh were just identified and a few going forward were
were granted as very substantially similar to to what we had proposed. That's why we styled these waiverss and this because we felt that the board would feel that it would be consistent with its prior decision. But um in terms of uh attorney HD's approach, we could
we could work work on that. And um it appears that the storm water management bylaw does follow the D storm water standards and uh and some standards under the uh federal USPA nifty's construction permit. So, we'll just have
to reconfirm on that to see whether it's actually uh something that we need to wave. >> Okay. Because the um the D storm water management standards can't be waved obvious by us obviously. >> Correct. We we're going to have to comply with those through the wetlands
order of conditions through the through the commission or otherwise. And >> so it's just if our standards are somehow different from that from theirs. You just want to confirm that. Okay. >> Right. And actually the um the federal standards wouldn't be applicable here except to the extent limited extent that
I that was mentioned in terms of total phosphorus >> and that we'll just have to uh have that discussion and get back to you on that. Otherwise, we're less than an acre in size in terms of disturbance. So that federal permit would otherwise be required.
>> Okay. >> Next waiver is the same thing. Tree bylaw. board is acting as the tree wardens >> can require administrative approval by the tree warden post permit as part of the process.
>> We've talked extensively about the tree situation in these movements >> and the town owns all the trees on the property. So >> yeah, they're all town own trees. >> So the next waiver looks like it is a substantive waiver. Um, so this is the type of waiver that is actually
requesting specific relief from specific provisions of your bylaws. Um, so in this instance, it's a use waiver that would absolutely be necessary in order for the project to proceed. Um, so this is a type of waiver that would generally
be granted if the board is granting an approval with conditions. Uh, same for the next one as well on the use requirements. Next one is accessory uses and again this is a substantive
provision to allow the the applicant to construct the project as proposed on the plans. Um they've identified the specific waiverss that they're looking for. So this seems appropriate table of dimensional requirements. So they've provided what the requirements
are and then a list of whether waiverss are necessary or not. So, no waiver of minimum lot area, no waiver of minimum frontage, um waiver of maximum building height, no waiver of minimum open space, no
minimum of front yard setback. There is no sideyard setback requirement and waiver from 20 ft to 17.7 ft for the rear yard and a waiver of maximum building coverage from 30% to 37%.
And again, all these waivers would be necessary for them to be able to move forward as proposed. >> Yeah. >> So, M man mad, I don't know if you want to continue going through all of these like this or if there's specific ones that you want to touch on.
>> Well, there's a couple specific ones. Um the the one I mean I do think it's helpful to sort of have everybody know what's being waved and and um have the public know what's being waved as well. Um the the lighting requirement we talked about um and that was something
that we we believe um is unnecessary in the sense that um they're not actually in violation of our lighting um bylaw. But if there there there was maybe some debate that that there might be a couple lights that are going onto the public
way and but not onto any houses. I just want that to be very specifically um laid out in our final decision what what relief is being asked for and what relief is not not needed. >> Madam chair. >> All right. So this so that particular waiver request can be paired back significantly.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just I just wanted to mention just something quickly in terms of building height. the um the the zoning bylaw measures building height by whether it's a flat roof or whether it's a uh you know a
sort of a peaked roof. >> And so what we want to do is is get confirmation with the building commissioner as to how building height would be measured in this particular circumstance. So we'll get back okay >> after we have that discussion. So we wanted to clarify that so you're not surprised. >> Thank you.
Yeah, that that's a good idea because I have seen that come up in in previous projects where there was a specific waiver requested and then there was a different interpretation of how the height was measured and they had to come back. So >> So can we bracket the height for now? This >> Yes, sir.
>> Great. Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> We have the waiverss for parking. Those are all things we those are substant substantive. Um the lighting like you said you you'll make that so that it's only mentioning the specific relief that's needed.
Um is there anything else that was >> so the the parking lot landscaping requirements that's a substantive waiver. Uh the parking setbacks is a substantive waiver. And then we just had we also had some
questions about the um flood plane and wetland protection overlay district um because the project was raised out of the flood plane. Um so we just want to make sure that there's no relief needed for that. Um >> one comment I I'd make about that. We
had a waiver with respect to the wetlands protection overlay and the flood plane overlay. um we couldn't find the the wetlands overlay district refers to a 1976 map that we haven't been able to find and so that's why it's waved. If
we find that map and and it indicates that it isn't applicable, then we withdraw it or okay, >> the board could deny it. >> And correct in terms of the flood plane overlay, we'll look at those performance standards to see if there's anything in there that >> Yeah, we we are before the commission uh
who also review those standards. So, >> okay. >> Will be reviewed. >> All right. Was there any other specific waiver anybody wanted to questions on or anything? And then as far as the rest of this
draft um um decision, there's a lot of conditions and I have not because we just got this today, I haven't been able to go through it all and and see all the conditions. The one I did want to go through because when we had our very first meeting, we had some
feedback um and one of the um one of the questions um was about here we go. um the concerns with noise from the rooftop mechanicals and the response was that um roof well cross-sections, acoustic notes
and demonstration of mast EP noise compliance will be provided and submitted for building commissioner approval as a condition of the building permit. I just want to make sure that was something that was agreed to early on in the process that that just didn't get lost along the way because we haven't talked about it in a while. So I'm not sure if that is in there, but I
um I just want to make sure that that is I know the pest plan is in there. I saw that. >> Is there anything else? Um I mean if you haven't if like me you have not had a chance to go through all the conditions thoroughly. You may not know but if there's any conditions that have come up
that want to make sure to highlight. >> I haven't been able to go through it yet. >> Yeah. Okay. Madam Chair, I I would uh mention just a couple quick things. Um there are some placeholders for fire department comments and also VM consulting comments
and we did get correspondence and actually I think Marsy did receive correspondence from the fire department indicating that they're satisfied with the sweep path analysis and so on. So we probably don't need that uh condition in there and and and to the extent that
there is anything else for VM uh based on what we find in terms of particularly the water line then we'll we'll certainly work with the board and also with uh attorney to craft something. >> Okay. >> So I think our work is to make sure all
the conditions are accurate. Like I said, the board needs to read through them and and um um we do have we have scheduled two more meetings instead of one to try to make sure that we have the time to
make any changes um before we vote. Um >> yeah, I just think it was just in my brief review of the decision and comments uh and Paul conditions and uh Paul's
comments in the decision. Excellent. Well done on by both. So I think it's moving in the right direction on that part. >> Oh, I I I did also want to just mention one thing also. We acknowledge receipt of uh there was a comment letter from
December 16th, actually December uh 19th that was from uh Alicia McCarthy that we'll plan to respond to in writing. We're we're almost there and have that completed. We'll have that submitted to the board as well.
>> All right. So, we're going to um I'm going to if if no one from the board has any more questions or about the >> Sorry, I couldn't hear what in response to the letter. >> Oh, sorry. So, he said that he is um crafting a response to that letter and it would be available tomorrow. Did you
say or later this week? I'm sorry. I didn't this week. >> Probably by early next week or so. >> Yeah, I would say this week. >> Yeah. >> Monday, Tuesday next week. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I'm going to um open up to public comment. See if we have um
anyone here who would like who has any questions or like to comment. If you do, please raise your hand. If you're online and you'd like to comment, please use the raise your hand function. >> Can you just clarify the comments about the water line? because what I picked up
was there was a flow test and the flow test says that the flow is sufficient going from 6 to 6. Um and I also heard that the one of the issues is the fact that we've
had so much deferred maintenance on the water lines over there that it is a town issue and not an issue on the actual new building. And the other clarification I'm asking for is is this within the zoning board's
purvey to put a restriction um if this is a deferred maintenance if this is a town if this is a town issue. Just like to get a little bit more clarification on this. >> There is a little bit of debate as to how what percentage is town what percentage is going to be exasperated
exacerbated by a new building. So there's definitely I think a little bit of disagreement between the um the our our town um uh engineers and the developer engineers. So >> my concern is that we're just um we're
just staying within our legal >> our legal parameters. That's going to be my concern. I mean there's also um opportunities for um many times developers will say yes this is something that the town needs to upgrade um but it will benefit our building dramatically if it is upgraded. It'll
make our building safer. It'll make it um you know fire prevention and protection much better in our building if this is upgraded. So it's worth it for us to do this upgrade even if some of it will benefit the town at large and not just our building. So developers have the option to do that as well. It's
not just um it's it's an agreement. It's not necessarily Yes, we can't force and impose something, but an agreement can be made that benefits the project and the town. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody else have any questions or
is there anyone online? All right. Nothing for me. >> Nothing from you. >> I want to read this. >> Okay. Yeah. And um and um just to confirm, we have two we have we're just to confirm for everyone here, we've um our February meeting, we'll have a
meeting on um the second, >> third, >> third, thank you. A meeting on the third and a meeting on the 10th. Um and the hope is that I mean, if everything's worked out by the third, we may not need the meeting on the 10th, but most likely we'll have both those meetings. Um actually no because you can't be here on
the third. So we're definitely going to be here on the 10th. Okay. So we'll definitely have have both those meetings. There is a there is a chance that that third meeting will change if the if all the um voting members can agree and that in the um you know petitioner can agree on another date. Um
so uh just just check in with with the town website to make sure um if we because we'd like to have Mark there. >> But the 10th is confirmed. >> The 10th is confirmed. on the 10th. Everyone can definitely be there on the 10th. >> So that so that would mean that the second or subsequent hearing date would
probably be sometime after the 10th as opposed to >> No, no. If we if we changed it from the 3rd to the fourth or something like that to to accommodate, but because >> if it were on the on the second, I could do it by teams. >> Okay. >> Or if it were on the um the fourth, I
might be able to as well. Just the third travel day. >> Okay. So, we'll we'll do some emailing to figure that out because Susan's not here to and she definitely can do um the third. So, if we move it that you know it'd be nice to have everybody. Um
so that's that. Any more questions? >> Just just >> Madam Chair. >> Yeah. Well, I think attorney Hav will mention >> Okay. Yes. >> You do have to continue to date certain.
So, if you continue to the third, that's the date of your next meeting. You can't meet sooner. >> Thank you. >> And if if if you don't have all of your members present, you know, you you certainly can simply show up and continue to the 10th at that time or to,
you know, to the fifth or the 6th or whatever. >> Thank you. That's >> But you can't meet sooner than the third if you're continuing it to the third. >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. So we will continue it to the third and then we will um if by chance we have to continue it beyond that we'll just proceed we can do that procedurally um
>> and continue continue it to the to the a later date but for now it's the third. >> Okay and >> and no sooner >> and so if attorney Kerniski isn't here then the question is do we have the number of >> Yes we do. We do because we have um he's
he can watch one video. He can >> have a quorum for the hearing. >> We will because um >> because everyone else will be here. >> Susan will be here. >> Susan will be here. Yeah. Everyone but you will be here. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So then we would have the third and possibly the 10th. >> Possibly the 10th. >> Okay.
>> All right. >> So if you reached I'm just thinking, are you able to if you decided to vote? >> We can. So if you're not here and we reach a decision on the 3, we'd still have to continue to the 10th for the final vote. Whereas if we are able to find a meeting between the 3rd and the
10th that works for both, >> but I'm just wondering if you had four votes, >> if I wasn't here. >> Yeah, technically you could. >> Technically you could if you decided to. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I think it would be preferable to have everybody.
>> All right. So do we can we get a motion? A motion to continue. I'll make a motion to continue to February 3rd. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Have a motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. And >> thank you.