Great. Thank you. >> Hi, welcome to the um town of Swcott um zoning board of appeals December meeting. Um we are going to get started. We have um Tony um remote and then our fifth member for this petition is um
away, but she's going to watch the um watch the video. So, um, our first order of business is to approve the minutes from, um, 9:16, 10:21, 10:28, and 1118. Can we just have a motion to do that? >> I'll make a motion to approve those
meeting minutes. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> All right. And then we're also going to continue. We're going to skip um for right now um our second item. We're going to go straight to the um petition
2518 which is 80 Puritan Road which is uh has requested to be continued to our January meeting which is um >> January 20th >> 20th. Okay. Which is 120. Um so we just
need a motion to continue that. >> I'll get a motion to continue that. >> All right. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Excellent. And then um petition 2519 is also requested to be continued to the January um 20th meeting.
>> Make a motion to continue that. >> All right. And Mark's going to second it. >> Second. >> And all in favor? >> I. >> I. Excellent. All right. So, all the business is done. So, now we're going to um return to petition 2515, which is 10
New Ocean Street and um the comprehensive special permit for Veterans Crossing. We had a lot of very recent um information, so we're all I I not sure how everyone else feels, but um I'm still kind of going through it. We got a
lot of stuff yesterday and today, and um And um yeah, so there's just definitely a lot to go through. So do you want to does someone um want to start with kind of answering or do you want to start with sort of what the concerns were or where should we where would you both
like to start on that? >> Summarizing. >> Yeah. I mean I can do a quick summary. There were I'm just trying to find my sheet here. Okay. All right. So, there were a lot of concerns about the culvert number one about
>> has the meeting started? I can't hear anybody. I think you're still on mute. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. We're going to wait. We're going to hold tight. >> Great. Thank you. >> Can you hear us now, Tony? >> Yeah. >> Oh, great. Excellent. Okay. Sorry about
that. >> Yeah, of course. >> How are you? >> All right. So, um, as far as, um, there were a lot of concerns about the culvert and the design of the culvert and, um, I noticed that when we got the responses,
there was sort of a lot of wait and see, like, we're going to this this is these are problems going to be solved later on down the line. Um, and as far as I'm concerned, that makes me uncomfortable. Like I want to make sure that we have this stuff straightened out before we move forward with the comprehensive
special permit because this is an area where we know there's a lot of flooding. We know when there's flooding, people um have sewage in their yards. We know that this the sewage and the storm are overworked already. So if we're going to be putting an additional burden, I want
to make sure it's all ironed out in this process where we have peer review. We have the engineers here to kind of go through that. So um there was also so there was that those concerns about the covert
definitely some concerns about the sewer. Um and I don't know if anybody wants to highlight the the the top things or >> Sure. Um I do have a colleague joining me. Um Eileen, I don't think she's on yet, but I can certainly get started and Eileen can join me um when she joins.
But definitely the you know the three utilities we were charged to look at water, sewer, storm water. So storm water the big item was the culvert relocation and we talked a lot with Gino and Marzy um last week and the week before about kind of the ownership of
that project. Does it belong in this permit? Is it a townowned project? Should it be on a parallel track? So I think those discussions are still ongoing but my understanding from Gino and I think he's online is that he wants to keep the culvert discussion within the comprehensive permit discussion and
not remove it because we had talked about >> I mean it was definitely brought up on day one of this of this hearing as far as what would happen with a culvert and it it was definitely on the developer side for the moving of it. >> Okay. But the town has received some
grant funding I understand to do it. So to some extent it's going to be a public project, publicly bid project. Um so that's one of the big storm water concerns. Um on the sewer side, we had some concerns about um the sewer they
were tying into on Pine Street is very flat. Uh the existing sewer the the initial tie-in point. So they did since our discussion u move the tie-in point a little further down to where the slope is greater. So, we're going to look at that a little more closely and just
ensure that there's enough sewer capacity there to take this additional flow because there was some flow calculations done and true that the last building was, you know, considered light industrial and there's sewer flow calculations you can do that correspond to light industrial and this new use
actually shows a lower sewer flow um if you use the categories. But we all know that there was, you know, not a lot going on in that building before. So there is in real life going to be a lot more flow regardless of the use and the calculations and >> right rather than these sort of abstract
calculations based on um other other you know it says of they were using the the 18,000 square foot factory in Massachusetts estimated wastewater we we have to have these bills of of these the water calculations in town we can tell what so rather than making estimate you
know estimates I feel like we should just kind of pull those records and find that information so that it's accurate. Sure. And just yeah, true drew that up. Um, so that was kind of our big sewer concern was the tie-in point, but they did move it. And so we're going to look more closely at at where they moved it to. And then on the water side, the
initial plants that had showed a 12-in main in Pine Street where they were going to tie in and um it's actually only at 6 in there. And Gino has had some breaks on that main and has seen the condition of the main. It's not in great shape. So we did provide a comment
saying you know is the is there enough capacity? Um it's not a 12 in it's a 6 in. So those discussions are ongoing. I mean according to the hydrant flow there is enough capacity but we know that the the integrity of that main is not great.
So um and it's only a 6 in that according to Gina was choked way down just because it's so old. So that's kind of the high level things with the water sewer and storm water. And um if Eileen comes on she can chime in but maybe we
can start there. I mean there's a lot of details in each one but right >> those were the kind of the high level things we've been talking about the last couple days. >> Go ahead. >> Good evening. My name is Jacob Lemieux with Hancock Associates. This on is
everyone hear me? Okay. um civil engineer on the project 315 Elm Street in Marboro Mass. So uh as far as the covert goes, we understand that the board wants Shy before they move forward in issuing the comprehensive permit that
that replacement is going to be able to be done in kind and within the scope of the project which um is understandable. Uh the reason that generally for this type of a design we would ask that the
it be conditioned so that we can move past the comprehensive permit stage and get into the stage where we pull in contractors who will do the specific design. So we're planning on pulling in a company such as Conspan who does groundwater culverts and they have all
the calculation and design manuals uh to calculate the capacity properly. We can do a preliminary capacity study uh which just shows the amount of flow that that that section that we're replacing of covert
can handle and that we can replace it with the sections of covert shown on the plans and uh mathematically match those capacities. So um we we would not ask that you go forward
without assurityity that the culvert's going to be done as part of the project but rather that it be conditioned in a way that allows the project to continue and getting to that stage um with you having assurityity that that's going to be done even if it's as simple as a
condition saying um it'll be replaced in kind with equivalent flow at a minimum or to rep to be replaced pending peer review. And ultimately what generally happens and what we've done over at Elm Place and Swampscott here uh for the
previous filings is that we work this plan which is the preliminary plans that shows the feasibility of the project and the waiverss that are required for the project. um the zoning board of appeals will make that that uh comprehensive
permit issuance with a condition that um well we'll work through each individual condition. So, if there are specific conditions like you want uh so many parking spaces or so much lighting, you can we can work through that and John and I can work through that with you to
come up with specific conditions and also some general conditions such as maybe uh conditioning that the um building permit be issued only upon the submittal of a final conform plan set to the planning board to I mean to the
zoning board to then be peer-reviewed. ed uh in its finality as it as the design plans rather than just the preliminary schematic plans. >> I think this is a great area to ask Paul about >> his thoughts on those types of conditions. >> Yeah, because in general this is our
this is our time to do the peer review. This is when we have those resources. So the concern about waiting to as a condition of the special permit is will this peer review ever happen? We have we have someone here who is telling us that the engineering you know that the the concern there's concerns about the two 90° angles in this short amount of space
and there's you know a bunch of other concerns that like I said we just got a lot of this information so we're still kind of going through it all but the response was we'll figure it out along the way or we'll wait and see and that for for some of these things I would love to >> right but I'm also my understanding with
a lot of I I know from like the Elm place one that we did learning that um with if there's something that's a a townwide problem, putting it on the developer to do it.
This is different because it's actually on the land that's being used. >> It can't. The the town would not be moving this culvert if this project wasn't happening. So, the the culvert is being moved to make room for this project. We know there's problems in this area that are long that are
>> right. But I I don't know if we are we also know we are we are adding there's that there is going to be huge increase in >> in strain on these systems that we know can't handle the they can't handle the capacity they have now. So, if we're adding adding a strain and not doing any
of the infrastructure to support it, it it's going to be it's going to cause, >> right? I'm just wondering about what our what our jurisdiction is here and authority. And I think Paul could really help us out. He probably has a great idea about that.
>> Hi, Paul. >> I'm not sure I have any great ideas, but I'm certainly happy to help out. So in the first instance um the board has to issue a decision at the end of this process and that decision has to encompass everything. You cannot leave
for later peer review of any subject. Um any peer review that's going to occur has to happen as part of this hearing process. It can't happen afterwards. Now, you can try to craft a decision um that addresses concerns and and requires
additional information to be submitted with the final plans because again the board is ultimately issuing a decision on preliminary plans, not on final plans. Um so there is some leeway there, but you cannot do a peer review of those
final plans. So which is which is to say you can't leave for postpermanent review whether or not the the stormwater system is going to adequately function. That has
to be determined as part of your review um while the hearing is still open. Um I think that the question as to whether or not um the town has some responsibility for addressing this issue or whether it's on the developer is an interesting
question. Um there is certainly significant amount of housing appeals committee case law that says that um you know municipality can't require an applicant to be responsible for more than whatever their fair share
improvement is. Um so to the extent that there is some improvement needed anyways irrespective of this project you can't place it upon the burden of the applicant to make those fixes. Um but the board certainly can require the applicants to contribute its fair share
upgrade as necessary. >> Thank you Paul that's really helpful. >> Welcome. So, >> I mean, we can rather than go through all the everything one by one, I think that there's um there's a lot there that
like I said, I don't know if even everyone on this board has digested it yet because it just came in um today. But um I think that my feeling is that a lot of these questions that were brought up by our peer review need to be resolved. They can't just be we'll wait and see. Um I don't think that's fair to
the neighbors. That's what Paul's telling us, but we don't have a second bite at it. >> Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to do a second peer review. So, um, >> so I don't know where you want what you want to do. If you want to more
thoroughly answer the, um, concerns of the peer review and we can then discuss those answers. Hopefully, we'll have a little more time to digest it before we meet again. Um >> my my thought on it was that
after this meeting we really should have Marsy peer review Hancock working and perhaps with with Paul trying to figure out when all the facts are known as to what we have what needs
to be done what can be done and working towards what's an appropriate condition to assure the we be able to issue this permit um or not um at the time that we need to vote and really trying to get the
process um on the right track because it seems like there's a lot of moving pieces with public funding with design testing. It it really seems monumental to me. >> Yeah.
>> That's why I'm a paper guy, not an engineer. Well, if I if I may say something, uh John Smolac, attorney for the applicant, I guess I you know, I don't disagree with what what Paul had to say and I think it's worth uh further discussion
uh in terms of uh you know, what needs to be done to resolve that particular issue. But I mean, there's also a protection for the town to ensure that the matter is resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit or some other milestone. Um, and I've been in
circumstances where, you know, limited peerre has been done to assure and satisfy uh that that concern um in in other in other decisions that I've that I've dealt with. So So I'd like >> that's voluntary, right? >> That's true. >> I think that's what Paul's saying is
that >> we if that we could put the condition in, but it really doesn't have any teeth >> because we we can't have it. But if the if the applicant voluntarily says, "Oh, yeah, we want to make sure this is right." And does it
>> it's it's voluntary, they can do that, >> right? Well, you know, certainly we want to resolve this uh and uh you know, we also have a a situation where we're I we certainly understand the fact that we want to resolve this particular issue. On the other hand, too, we have uh sort
of deadlines for filing uh for our uh for the state filing. So, so we certainly, you know, we certainly have the incentive to uh, you know, resolve this issue and and to perhaps throw some funding toward it for it dedicated uh for peer review and and such that there
would be a a situation where we could have a precondition of the issuance of the building permit. The um the sewer matter has to be satisfactorily resolved. So >> to the satisfaction of the uh >> what about so >> I know we have this tight time frame for
voting but I know that the and I understand you have a a time frame for permitting or for looking for different funding. Um, I don't know where both of those are lining up right now and if perhaps if this issue does continue to
present a problem if the petitioner would extend their time >> voluntarily for us to act on the comprehensive permit if it looks like everyone's working to try and get this solved. >> Yeah, we have in what when do we have until February? Our February meeting
would be would be when >> today we're at day 116 um for the permit and then we have until um um February 19th I think I believe um we work we have the timeline if you just bear with
us for one minute um because I thought it was February 19th I believe >> it's actually yeah it's actually February 18th >> 18 >> and that would be 180 days since the since the hearing opened up.
>> And then we have 40 days after >> Madam Chair. >> Sorry, who's that coming from? >> Joe from Hancock Associates. I'm also working on the project with Jacob. Um just wanted to kind of offer
my my input here um with regards to um to the process. Um we understand the concerns with regards to the the three main issues which are the culvert um the water supply and the the sewer. I
think we're on we we've got we're on top of the sewer. I think some some of the sewer issues in the area. Gino can tell you um there was a lot of clogged pipes in the area. Um and he's his uh department has worked um diligently to
not only clean clear those pipes but also slip line those pipes. Uh and when you slip line sewer uh you do increase the the capacity. Um we've taken the peerreview comments and and moved this
move the connection point into I think a a pipe with more slope on it. Um, and we can continue to work with with the peer reviewers to to to work that out. So, I think we can get on top of the sewer fairly fairly quickly. Um, as was said
with regards to the water, um, hydroflow tests approximate to the site, uh, you know, do show good volume and and pressure. Um we'll continue to work with with Gino on on any concerns that they they he has with regards to the to the
age of the pipe. Um but as uh as Mr. Havdy said um you know we've got to separate what might be an existing condition from from something that's um that's born or or caused by the the
project itself. With regard to the the culvert, um it's important to note that we're not adding any water to this culver and it has uh it has a capacity. I think the peerreview team their concern is the introduction of these
angles um in the culbert to to relocate it and the impact that those additional angles will have on the culbert's capacity. um it is it is our design premise here
to not decrease the capacity of the culver. So the way we do that is to to make up for the fact that there there are these angles which introduce some restrictions some head losses uh is to
is to widen the cover. Um we ran some um we were asked to do some preliminary calculations. We just ran those today and it's looking like the that the culbert could be um would have to be widened to five or six feet from 4 feet
to to accommodate for that. We can share those preliminary calculations um u with the peerreview team to to to make sure that they're comfortable that that it's that it's technically pos
technically feasible. So unlike a storm water design that might you know that that we need to uh treat storm water and recharge storm water and attenuate storm water. This is
a a fairly simple question which is what's the impact of uh putting some angle points in this culvert to the to the capacity. We can answer that. we can get get our arms around that. What we're asking the the
board to consider is to condition that final details of that which is which is um something that is baked into the 40B process you know only requiring preliminary plans. Final plans will
detail, you know, physically how how the the culbert will be constructed. But the but we can answer the question during the process. How do we maintain capacity? How how do we make sure that
um there's no reduction in capacity and therefore there's no change from the existing condition. Again, we're not adding any new water to this uh covert. So, it's not a question of of analyzing that. It's just a question of analyzing
what is the current capacity and what is the capacity of the relocating cohort. And as long as we prove that they're equal, >> um I think we've we've passed the test and we can get to that that point of uh of comfort. So I think what we're what
we're looking to do is is define um define the level of detail that we need to provide to to get to that comfort point. Uh and then as as is the normal process within 40B condition that
final plans and details be provided to um um provided uh after the comprehensive permit but prior to um prior to the start of construction. I I I will um
I will challenge um uh Mr. Herty on on his point on peer review. Um I've been involved with literally hundreds of of chapter 4 RDBs across the state. uh both in a capacity as a design engineer but
now also in a capacity as um as advisor to zoning boards and I've seen countless u comprehensive permits issued that have a peerreview element in it um that is postisssuance of the comprehensive
permit. The condition has to be carefully crafted though to not be a subsequent approval but um be a peer review to verify that the conditions of
the comprehensive permit have been um has been have been satisfied >> and that the elevated um construction level detail is consistent with the approved preliminary plans and and I and I think that's um totally acceptable.
It's something that that the applicant would be bear the cost of or that the applicants bear the cost of when such a condition is is placed and it and it allows the your team to stay plugged in um as that um a as those details are are
provided. Um, but the big questions uh have to be answered as we're still in the process and I I think within the next um within the next couple weeks we could do that. >> Okay. Thank you, Joseph. It sounds like um what we have the responses we have
here that are sort of these copy and paste. This will be done further down the road that you are actually working on those things and so there is more information forthcoming. What we got as a response was basically um on C1 through 4 the same copy and paste of this will be figured out down the line.
But it sounds like you are working on figuring that out now and that you will have more information for us um by our next meeting hopefully before our next meeting so that we can have time to review it rather than getting it all this all of this last minute. So that sounds before your next meeting and and
madam chair this is this is we're evolving on the fly now know hearing your concern hearing Mr. Hav's input hearing um the the peer review input um and and appreciating uh your concerns that that that the um the answers to
these questions um come come forth >> within the confines of the public hearing. >> That's what that's what we would like. we'd like to have answers to the questions that haven't been answered. And then um to for the one that stood out to me um was the answer to the
question about the sewage capacity. I would really like the the question was the question was um the proposed housing will significantly increase water uh waste water flow from the land's previous use. have any studies been performed to determine capacity of the 8
in sewer um in Pine Street? And the answer was there is no increase in capacity and I think that answer doesn't sit well with us. Um so we really want to answer the question which was have any studies been performed to determine capacity of the 8 in sewer in Pine
Street and the and answers to that question we know there's an increase. The answer can't be there is no increase because and if you want to verify that, please use please reach out to town hall and get the billing for the for those spaces um the the VFW and the garage
that was pretty much not in use um over the past many years. So, um, that would be the way to kind of answer that question >> from from the from the standpoint of when the sewers were put in the in the streets and and what the flows were at
one time. That that's it. But but today um to understand the capacities of the of the sewer um we would have to do simple something similar to what we did on on the wind project um and do um and
do flow monitoring and then understand what what the the peaks in that sewer are to then understand what what um capacity is uh what capacity is remaining uh in that in that system. and how does how does our adding capacity?
So, it's not really um something that we could do, you know, with within this time frame. So similar to when that was conditioned post-p
permanent that that study be done um and that we prove that the the capacity is there and what the what the developer the risk the developer bore at that time was having to increase that the size of
that pipe uh and should the study find that there is insufficient capacity >> but we then run into the situation because of the time >> we may not be able to peer review um that study which we would like to do. So that's why we'd like it to be done before.
>> Well, what I'm saying is that that's what that's what happened on on the wind project that was done before after the issuance of the comprehensive program. the um you know essentially
the information that's gathered at that time is what is the peak flow in the sewer and the the available capacity is a is a fairly simple um
a simple calculation and at that time Gina was comfortable in in in reviewing that and saying okay there's there's still capacity here and in that that case we didn't have to uh increase the
the size of the line but if um just the flow monitoring itself um takes takes six weeks. So I I think for us to engage somebody to go out there, you know, we're we're talking
we're talking well beyond February um to be able to to do that. And I think it it is appropriate as it was in when to um to condition them. >> Um I mean if there if we don't have time to do all these things in the length of
time and we need to have an extension then we need to have an extension. This this neighborhood is very different. this there is we there are known issues there's known capacity issues and so if we don't document them now um and then
document what the added flow is I mean the neighbors have a right to have a a a concern about the added flow to in the capacity of these >> and and and madam chair I'm not suggesting that that that we are not going to do our due diligence and and
and make sure that there is no detrimental detrimental impact I'm I'm just talking about um the the timing on that study. Not not trying to avoid the study, not trying to avoid the subject.
um we're we're just trying to um trying to work with with within the the time frames and it was as I said it was it was um appropriate to to do that post issuance of the comprehensive permit on
um on win and I and I I see no difference. I think I if if we could hear from from from Gino on this, um I think some of the prior problems in the neighborhood with the sewer was was due to the clogging and um that has been um
rectified and and many of the lines have been slip lined. So um that that's the first step. I'm not saying that that's the only step. We're we we will commit to do the study and
commit to um to improve the infrastructure should it should it be found that our project sends it into a um into an over capacity uh situation. And and if I may add um and and add to
Joe's comments, I think that it's it's perfectly reasonable to uh proceed on on the basis of of what Joe suggested uh even if it is uh post decision because you're we're not going to get a building permit unless this the town is satisfied
as to that capacity. So So I think there is a protection there for the for the town and and and again we're not trying to skirt anything. We're just trying to sort of uh sort of extend the conceptual plans into a final stage such that the
board feels satisfied going forward that all these matters will be resolved prior to a shovel in the ground or pulling a building permit. >> Well, I think that there's a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet. So, I think we're a little premature with this conversation. Um I'm hoping that we have a better response to
the peer review um so that we can discuss it further. Um, and I'd like to hopefully meet um when when you're meeting so that I can kind of hear where we're at along the process between now and next meeting so that we have time to kind of say what um what I personally
think we I'm only one person on this board, but what I would need um to feel more comfortable because I think at this point um there's just not there this isn't a great response to our peer review. Um it's not thorough enough. It's not it has just has too much
waiting. But it sounds like that's stuff you're working on. Um and everything's happening trying to you know happen very quickly. Um I don't know if any >> we hear from Gino that suggestion about the issues in the that are existing. >> Sure. Gino are you there?
>> Only in name. >> He's here in name. >> I am here. >> Hi Gino. >> I'm hearing you. Um, so do you ha do you have anything to add to the I mean at this point there hasn't been a flow study or a flow moni monitoring of that of that um covert. So I mean sorry of
that sewer drain um on Pine Street, but do you have anything to add about what you do know about that drain? >> Yep. Well, one thing I can do, I can't unequivocally state that we have resolved the sewer issue over on Pine Street. But what I can tell you is we've
made significant improvements by removing all the debris that have built up in that man over probably the last 100 years. We did split line the mains. I am confident that we have made progress. However, we haven't hit a real
rainstorm with the high tides over there. one the issue is with the sewer. I am comfortable with that. Uh and then the other comment I would like to make is about the drain in the back. The drain has nothing to do with the
flooding issues. So once they we come up with a design for relocating the drain pipe going through the property and we remove all the bends, I'm comfortable that have problem there isn't problem that um we're not adding any capacity to that. So, we should be in good shape
with that preliminary design, although I'm still waiting to see the final design. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Does anybody else on the board have questions about the >> I agree with >> your review?
>> All right. So, I feel like we have a lot we need a lot more information at this point. Um, and we can hopefully review some of it between now, but a lot sooner than the day before the meeting, so that we can all kind of have questions and have time for you to actually respond to those questions before the meeting so
we're not um running down the clock because I know that's a big issue. >> Um, and um, I also want to open up to public to the public comment to see if anybody has any questions. We're you've listened to this and we're working on it
hopefully. this was enough for you and we're going this conversation isn't ending today. So if if that makes you comfortable, we can go to Okay, thank you. Um and then is there anybody who is online who has a question, they can use
the raise their hand button. All right. Is there anything else? Oh, Paul, I was wondering there's there's a um there was a new um sorry, a new list of waiverss. Do you have that?
Sorry, we can't hear you, Paul. >> Now, >> Yep. >> Yep. Okay. Sorry. Uh I had I did get that. I have not had the opportunity to review it yet. >> I have not either. So, um, if that's something if you if you don't mind reviewing and and then sharing comments,
comments that we can then share with the board so we all can can look at that, that would be great. Um, >> certainly. Um, and I can actually get going on drafting the decision if you would like or I mean I don't know when you wanted me to begin doing that. >> I I think that's a great idea. I know you might think it's premature, but with
such a short time frame. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's fine. That's fine. We can start working on that. That would be great. and we can um >> certainly and and I I did just want to um respond to Joe Pesnola's comments as it relates to the the timing and the sort of the um the ability to do a a
post permit peer review. Um so the decision that that's really controlled is 8 Board of Appeals of Ames versus Housing Appeals Committee. Um and in that decision, the the Supreme Judicial Court uh determined that a board of
appeals when issuing a comprehensive permit has to make all decisions that are required um for all local permits at the time that they're issuing the permit. So you can't delay an approval to post permitting. So that's sort of
where I was coming from and saying that you really you can't do a peerreview post permit in the sense that you once you issue your decision the approval has already been issued. So if you come up with a peer review that states that
something you know doesn't work um there's nothing you can do because you've already issued the permit. >> Yeah. That being said, there is certainly a fair amount of leeway to create, you know, conditions um that don't require the applicant to fully
design um during the the approval process and instead require post-p permit. So some of these issues with regards to whether there is sufficient sewer capacity, well the issue is whether or not they need to make upgrades to the municipal
infrastructure. Um that potentially could be resolved through conditions, you know, in your decision to state yes, we are approving a connection to municipal sewer system. However, the final plans have to depict, you know, that there will be adequate capacity and
if not, what upgrades are necessary, you know, to create that additional capacity. Um, so there are ways of handling it where you can, you know, make your decision, have that decision be um solidified, but still dependent upon, you know, additional information.
>> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, I think the I do I I would want the capacity to be and I know you said it's a six week process, but if you know that it's a six week process, it should probably be starting because I think
that's an important thing to do. Um, so I I would recommend doing it. >> Sorry, >> the flow capacity. >> The flow capacity. >> Yeah, I would recommend doing it. And I know you said it's a six week process, but it probably we probably should have started it four weeks ago then. But I think that should be a priority because I want to know if we need upgrades to
our um I want to be able to condition that, but I also would like to know if we if we see upgrades needed >> um and not have that be a surprise. >> We we certainly want to make sure and assure the board that whatever we're going to do is going to be conditioned such that the board feels satisfied that
we're going to be able to resolve those capacity issues. Um, one other item I I did want to mention is that uh coming into this evening, I was going to volunteer to draft the decision. Attorney HD is is I guess already drafting it. But if the board would allow u between now and the next hearing
for for myself to have a discussion with uh with Paul about the uh contents of the decision and waiverss, we'd be happy to try to sort of uh deal with those details uh and bring something more final to the board for the next meeting if we are able to resolve these other
issues in advance as well. >> Yeah, that's fine. Um I think we I think everyone here everyone on this board needs to look at those list of waiverss and make sure >> Right. Right. But letting them collaborate on a decision I think is great. >> Yeah.
>> Any other questions concerns? >> No. All right. Um we will continue this to our next meeting. Um, I am also not against scheduling meetings with the whole board if the
board's available um that are separate from our regular monthly meeting because I know that we want to get this done and we and so if there's a bulk of information that we have time to sit and review and we think we should discuss it publicly. Um, you know, I'm I'm not against that. We've done that before
with 4B projects. um especially when there's a full docket just to get it not with everybody else but luckily it's been pretty light but >> but I think we some additional information that they're going to be looking for. >> Did you have a question? >> Progress meeting. >> Yeah. So would it be make sense to have
a progress meeting or would it make sense with the board or for internally for the the peerreview and and Hancock to progress um in the next two weeks and have a have a meeting? you you mentioned that you would also like to participate. Would that be a board? Would that be a
>> Well, we can't have the whole board there unless it's a public meeting. So, I could go um but we can't we couldn't all go otherwise. >> Board so that we can all understand sort of the what level we need to bring the design to where the board feels comfortable that they're covered by whatever conditions are in the
>> comprehensive. And I just just this I do think this particular area of town is more sensitive when it comes to um water capacity, sewage, and then we've got the culvert on top of it. Um I don't think it's this it can be
well it's the same as another project. It's just not this this neighborhood is very unique um in the issues that they've had and adding to the capacity is something we have to really think about a lot. So I just want to make sure that um that's why we might be seeing
this differently than we saw on project. >> My but my understanding is they the what we have for authority is only if they are making it worse than the existing condition do we have the ability to condition it and make them make
improvements. But if it's a systemwide problem that we have >> Yeah. No, I very I understand that. But if >> it's a proportionate share of >> it's a proportionate share. Exactly. And when we like I said when we look at the answer to um I think it was S1 sewer
one. Um I think that answer needs to be flushed out as to what the actual change is because because common sense says something different than what this says. So we need to make sure that that's so that then we have that documented. >> All right. Do we have a So, we will
continue this to our um >> January >> January 20th meeting. >> I'll make a motion to continue to January 20. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Okay.
>> Second. Second. All in favor? >> I I Thanks. Um