##VIDEO ID:4akFxjRMwAg## e [Music] [Music] [Music] all right uh good evening and welcome to the December 3rd meeting of the zba I'll go over a few things before we start the meeting tonight um all meetings are held in accordance with Massachusetts General law uh before we begin I ask you to silence all your cell phones if uh you have any conversation to be had please uh remove yourselves from the room you can talk in the hallway if need be um comes to exiting the room please do that quietly uh let's see here tonight we have several continuations we have two continu continuations at 5:30 and we have one continuation at 6 we have three open meetings or new applications um CBA is held with conducting hearings for special permits variances and appeals from The Building Commissioner and uh can introduce the board to our far end we have Mark Co who's an associate member uh to my immediate right we skipping over one we have our vice chair Ken Foreman uh I'm Terrence hry I'm usually the clerk but for the first couple of continuations I will be the acting chair since our chairwoman Kimberly Bean is currently stuck in traffic to my left we have Ed van Kieran he is a full voting member of the board and we also have Paul Murphy at the end he is also a full voting member we have S bu who is the zoning administrator and dra geeker who is our recording secretary uh so we'll start and get right into it we have starting with our continuation uh application 90-15 tomstock vix gereral 16 and tuav and U there will be four voting members myself Ed van Kieran Paul Murphy Mark Co and I will appoint Paul Murphy as as the clerk for this application Paul is there anything new for the application we do yes we have some revised plans submitted um 11:30 and 122 and we have a letter of opposition from Suzanne turot and that's all the new information thank you record name is Tom Bunker with BSS design um I also just like to ask might be confuse came in on 12 they were your plans from 121 but we received them on 122 revised plans okay um the bulk excuse me bulk the bukk culations bulk calculations sorry Paul oh no that's fine right uh three weeks ago I it was three weeks ago we had a hearing um which we requested to be continued after some discussion uh um so that we could make some revisions there were concerns over the uh amount of uh whe whether the third floor would constitute a bedroom how much space whether it's a loft or a bedroom and um there was a concern about the setback uh where we had a stair Tower making use of the footprint of what had been a u a bulkhead to the uh s which is only 4 feet approximately 4 feet from the property line the uh designer has Tom more has changed the plans where before this stair Tower came back is where the bulkhead and and the seller access are over here stair Tower in this location and closer to the property line uh so been rotated and moved uh to go out over up and over the mechanical room uh so it's it's sticking toward the backyard a little more see on the site plan on this site plan where they had been 44 set back on the property line the distance was 3.9 ft and we had reduced 4 ft the year before and now um by rotating stair Tower increased that set back to 8.3 ft so added added 4 feet to the setback decreasing amount in that location couldn't quite get it to meet the zoning requirement we made an improvement in application sorry we came out this way it's closer to the septic system but because that fair Tower uh will be on posts there's no setback requirement for a structure on posts to a uh the uh the the leeching part of the the septic system so we could do that um and get that closer in that way um other than that the the site plan didn't change except that a decreased the uh the lot coverage changing that decreased it by 16 square feet um which I can't remember it it changed the uh percent coverage uh by a small amount and decreased the bulk by a small amount but not enough to change its spot in the order I think we had it as one two 3 four the six it's 44.9% is our calculation of the of this building now where before was over 45% the next one below it is 44.7% so it's roughly equivalent sort of tied with between sixth and seventh place which is the other one is a 15 Pennsylvania F in the around the corner in the same neighborhood or um so anyway keeps the same spot in the bulk calculation the other change when this stair Tower got changed around it um decreased the space on the first floor and the second floor because of the rearrangement um so the uh laundry room had to move from the first floor up to the the third floor The Loft um so you know being up up here the laundry is up here now so I would uh say putting that up there would make certainly make that space less likely to be considered a bedroom because there's a sort of a more or less public not public but a a family use on this level where doing laundry is less likely for somebody to think that this Loft area has the uh requisite privacy to be considered a bedroom um it already didn't we believe because this is an open all of this is an open stairwell and it's open here to the hallway below uh as it was before but it's actually open a little bit more than it was before and and with the laundry facilities uh I think previously this had been changed from a full bath to just a powder room and the uh sort of wet bar facility here um because we just had the changes uh the architectural changes just received on Monday uh we didn't have a chance to get to the board of health because there wasn't a hearing on Monday it was last week um well know there was I think there was one on Monday but we didn't get a chance to apply to to file for it we had just gotten the the the drawings uh um any those are the changes we made uh reduced we in increased the uh setback uh to the North Lot line by 4 feet and uh and also reduced the uh reduced the lot coverage which uh reduced that non-conformity slightly and um I believe made this the third floor Loft area less less likely to be considered or or more definitely not a bedroom in in this change um so I'll I'll hand it over take any comments questions you have any questions from the board yeah I got some right um um good evening um since uh the chair lady is here tonight some of our questions one that I didn't see was um have we received the deed restriction file the the Board of Health agent is by himself and we have reached out to him several times I even went down there today and asked him when he was busy if he could talk to me the deed restriction is filed with the registry of deeds okay so it's not and I asked I was asking him too to sign off on that but he never made it up to the office so it's not in the file no but remember the Board of Health has to sign off prior to issuance of a building permit um the other uh question I have is regarding was you can clarify but I think I found an inconsistency on the elevation plan A4 um it describes the building height as [Music] 31.4 314 in okay from the top of foundation from the top of foundation okay uh and then on the site plan in the comment area says the building height is 33. three3 yeah uh the 31.4 that's how it was before the the 31.4 is from the top of foundation right the 33 um I have it on a me the building height is the building height is measured from the average grade not from the top of foundation so the elevation plan 84 is from the top of foundation top of foundation and the top of foundation site plan comment area is making note of 33.33 from grade from average grade that's I mean I have the calculation here the uh we have the top of foundation on this these common are right here on the side have the uh top of foundation is elevation 13 right and the average grade is 11 uh take top of foundation and uh at 13 and add the 31' 4 in you get 44.3 three that's the elevation of the top of the roof and subtract from that the average grade 11 get 33.33 okay just needed clarification on that um so with the the um revised lot coverage um trying to become more conforming in the actual footprint um the bulk calculation basically puts it in the same rank yes okay lowered it slightly but it's still the same rank all right all right that's all I have no questions question thank you uh since our chairwoman is not here I believe one of her concerns last meeting were some of the rooms on the first floor I believe was one was the office whether that could be on the second floor on the second floor I'm sorry uh whether that could be construed as a bedroom it's got a case opening case opening opening four foot wide that doesn't for me uh would the board like to proceed with the application discussion discussion sure Mark do you want to start us off um in the absence of the chair lady um my concern last time as well as this time is um for the bulk um I've gone out to that property or that site now five times trying to get a feel for um how 33.33 offgrade will fit into the neighborhood um there are large large in um keeping with height build structures in the immediate neighborhood however none have the diminished um lot size and and so my feeling just in general and I'll throw it out to the board is um the structure as proposed is too big for the lot just by virtue of of both all right um my feeling on the project is uh maybe the first time around you know there there were some issues with the bedrooms I think that's been properly addressed I think they applicant has proceeded in good faith with the revisions to the plan it's a tough lot it's a small lot uh they did provide a decrease in the non-conformity uh the bulk has gone down slightly although it hasn't changed in rank but um I think this is a good project to go forward I agree it's a good project to go forward and I also think that they've done everything in good faith and there there's other buildings in that street that have been in that area that have already been approved by this board so I don't see why this one shouldn't be done I'm in favor of uh of the project as currently proposed I would just add I mean just not to a raate a my dead dog but um we don't make decisions um based on a good faith there has to be uh regulatory instruction and I think um in this circumstance Tom did revise the um the a lot coverage chart however um it doesn't change and um since it's ranked number six or seven depending on how you look at it it doesn't meet the statuto not the statutory the the wording of average of the neighborhood and that's that's what's necessary to I mean we're instructed by I think it's uh 24068 24069 e to take into consideration size and structures of the average in the neighborhood how it relates so just to throw it out there again um knowing that it's ranked sixth or seven though you know all the good intentions were there it's still six or seven so that's that's all I I say on that subject I understand saying about it is up there in B and and you would say particularly because it's a small L also think because because it's a small lot it could be l a little more leeway High bulk on a small lot is still a small structure well I mean I think I think what I'm I'm kind of moving towards in my comments is there possibly could have been more moderation instead of going right up to the limit of um what we can approve I mean you're within a foot and a half almost two foot of our limit on a small property and so I'm I'm just looking for a little bit more moderation but if everybody else a small property it's also the second or third smallest house has a footprint area in whole neighborhood and you because it's a small house on a small lot you know some say well the only only way they can go is up and you know it's possible they could have cut I think uh your last um one of your comments or somebody said it's the way the neighborhood's going and so I kind of uh don't necessarily agree with that nor should be going that way so but that's that's true thank you Mark MH and just a just for a clarification Mark when I referenced earlier um the applicant going forward in good faith um obviously you know when it comes to the bylaws you did cite the bylaws we have to point to something concrete um I did take the decrease of nonconformity into account with my opinion so and the Chang just so that's there um anything else by the board no all right uh like to entertain a motion I'll close the hearing CL move Tove to close Okay second Mark moves to close second by Ed all in favor I I okay hearing is closed um would board like to proceed from here uh Motion in favor motion against motion Motion in favor second so that is a motion in favor by Ed and that would excuse me I hate to interrupt before you do anything but you're a four member board right now if I I think in all due respect to the applicant we can ask the applicant what they want to do in case this ends up in a 3: one if it ends up in a 3: one then this applicant cannot come back for two years right so I don't know how Mr Co is going to vote [Music] but before you do take that vote I suggest you find out either a general consensus or ask the applicant how they want to proceed I would get a general consensus and then ask them the applicant has reworked things and brought it back to the board um things like this have happened this is the fifth house in the general area that this board has seen in the past two years I believe we looked at that two and a half years it is in the AE Zone does have to come up to compliance so all things considered before you vote either get a general consensus of the board or talk to the applicant please I I realize you closed the hearing so you can either get the consensus and then reopen however the board would like to proceed but I think in all fairness to the applicant the Board needs to take into consideration that this applicant cannot come back for two years if this is denied all right and my apologies with the proced there being a clerk um you want to talk amongst the board first and then possibly reopen or sure uh we do have three members in favor of the application I think we do Mark is there anything that would turn me that would turn you to persuade you uh your last comment I I I get the fact that he there was concessions made but I don't think think reaching my satisfaction with regard to moderation as far as the bulk structure of the circumstance so I would say I don't think there's too much to turn me on okay I'd reopen the hearing all right can I have a motion to reopen the hearing please motion by Ed I have second second by Mark all in favor I I okay um so with three you're saying it's it's a done deal it's denied 3: one is a denial so you can either ask for a continuance to work on it or you can withdraw and come back to the board well as it stands now so Kimberly wouldn't be able to vote either because she wasn't here for corre one so we'll always have three to one yes so would you like to withdraw and reapply I'm sorry I how it just so happened that she was stuck in traffic tonight how about if I ask for continuance I mean it's still going to be a four I know it won't do any good but just you I'll probably talk to my client and you tomorrow decision withdraw all but just to that's absolutely fine uh the continuation with have you seen our schedule lately no I haven't um I am sorry I just it looks like it would be January 21st I've got a pack and that's with every week in January having a hearing well withdrawing and reapplying would be later than that so okay so January 21st you want to do it at 6 p.m. board January 21st excuse me I think I'm gone is that something you've given me [Music] yes Mark is out on January 21st um the 20 do 545 on December 10th I don't um you're obviously not going to be revising the plans or well it might I mean it's it's either obviously you have to revise the plan or or something to get within January 28th January 28th at 6:00 is that okay with the board fine with will you be back yes January 28th I mean so if the board would make a motion on that all right just before you do let me look at my schedule real quick yes I'll be back all right somebody could make that motion I'll make the motion to uh make the continuance until January 28th at 6 o' in the sele all right so that is a motion to continue the hearing application 90-15 to 6: pm on January 28th that was made by Mark and I think I heard two seconds over here that I'll give it to you uh all in favor hi thank you Tom um Mr chair yes Madam chair is here good timing not your fault okay Madam chair we have a continuation at 6:00 pm. yes so in lie of starting up on the second continuation Paul Glenn I was going to ask you since Paul Glenn is present if we could put that off for another 15 minutes maybe or to continue him at 6:30 put Carol off to continue Paul Glenn till 6:30 okay yeah I think that's fair is that okay me that way we take the car the 23 yes I think that's so the board has to make a motion and Mr Glenn if he agrees is there a motion to that effect I make a motion to do it to um continue the 90 application 9515 to 6:30 right okay is there a second second I'm allowed to second that right okay so that was Ed all those in favor I I okay thank you okay so that means we are now on 9115 Carol 23 zel Street um this is a continuation as well and it is myself TJ hurry Ed van Karen Paul Murphy and Mark cool sitting on these applications or this application good evening Joel cubic with hes McGrath um just to bring you back up to speed um this is a pre-existing dwelling non-conforming because there are two dwellings on this property uh currently the the main house doesn't meet the setback to the uh the Waters of buzzer of Vineyard sound um and the the relocation of the house the the raising of the the demolishing of the existing house and the Reconstruction of a new um main house uh further back outside of the Velocity Zone uh is what we're proposing so the footprint hasn't changed since the last time you saw it um there was one modification uh to the steps um over here and the layout of those and and the steps have been modified to uh reflect some grading that's also shown on the plan as well as the uh the realignment of a proposed driveway through the carport and uh over to zel street so um I have some small color plans if anyone would like them do we have plans I'm sure we have the revised plans in the file yes um we didn't get a chance to ask the clerk you want to go through what was submitted yeah we've got U emails from Joe curi on Board of Health yeah we've got uh revised plan submitted uh a revised plot plan submitted 121 and revised architectual drawings um submitted 121 as well we have a letter from Mimi Gregory uh that came in on 123 and what else do we have and emails from Joel cubic regarding Board of Health and email from Joel regarding Board of Health okay thank you so let me see um if anybody has any questions for you with regard to the new plans Mark um with regard to the new plans or anything anything you want to ask about I do have a few um traffic was brought up to be an issue with neighbors so my my question to you Joel would be um during construction all all construction vehicles will be yeah um required to be on the subject property uh that was mentioned at the last hearing and I believe that's uh okay so you're uh um the the foundation plan can you bring that up I don't have it up there but I have uh the only question was um the the exist basement is going to remain correct no no the the entire structure is going to be demolished it's too close of the water for one all right um looking at the the site plan can you tell me because it's not depicted um the I guess it would be the western edge of the circular driveway what's the distance between that edge and the uh um property Locust value Valley reality trust it's approximately two feet fo and a half two feet okay um and then just verify for me the existing driveway as it is now is going to be removed which um is adjacent to Westminster Street uh the extension the circular portion of it that's on our property those concrete papers are going to be [Music] removed what what's is there anything that's going to take place with that hedge that sits basically in the middle of um Westminster Street uh that that's been discussed again that's off of the property that's a private roadway um and would need to be worked out with the neighbors and and okay others the septic um remains um 10 bedroom capacity we're not changing the existing septic system other than moving the tank uh as it's shown on the plan the uh screened in porch it'll be unheated three season yes yes uh let's see here so we don't really have a health referral uh again I I didn't notic this this last minute and I I went down to see Dave carrian today and LU enough got is here for a second because he is very busy but I did bring in this plan and discuss that with him uh and his only comment was even though it's a perious driveway he'd like to see that uh soil absorption system vented which is easy enough to do when we okay so that brings me to the next question where would the vent be I mean the reason I asked is we want to prevent nuisance and I know those can be very odorous at times uh they can be I mean they can be piped remotely uh off into a treed area out towards the Hedge there do we have any plan for that uh typically just say that it's going to be located in the field um and it's determined by the installer when they they do that work I do you have a preference as to where I mean personally um I would like to see it um on the plan so I mean if there's if there's the budding neighbors that might take issue they would want to know as well and if I were a nature I would too we could install carbon filters on them that OB you know that that often takes care of any odors and hopefully there's no odors because it's usually the sign of a system that isn't working completely well uh and again this isn't right into the the uh Chambers themselves this would be stone that that surrounded them so there usually isn't much uh major air exchange of of the odorous gases at that point usually um here okay so that's that attic plan how many square feet in the Attic uh I know this's uh and that question was brought up earlier um I we don't have an attic plan there is a lot of cathedral ceilings and bolon ceilings there is no real usable attic for storage uh I believe there's access hatches as are required by the building code just because it is in En closed space but there's no intent I mean especially with this lower level as as large as it is there's plenty of storage St down there there's no intent to have any storage or other um anything else up up in that small attic space okay so the next question would be well I mean is there an intention to give us a add explain or no I didn't require it when I got a response from Joel because the hatches will prove that it will remain unfinished and it's according to building code no he that's fine yeah there's no intent finish that off um any idea as to what the ceiling height might be of the attic yes from the sub floor to the at the highest point again there are boled ceilings in the second floor realiz the entire area um that's all my questions for now okay thank you um TJ uh can you touch upon the believe there was an issue with the grading uh there was uh the the architectural plans and again this is um kind of a work in process as things been working out with the other boards and and everyone involved um but uh the architecturals showed less steps as was um indicated last time uh that's because they were hoping to do some grading to because this Foundation is now so far out of the ground due to the the flood zone and the conservation requirements um there would be a lot of exposed concrete so they wanted to you know soften that up with some grading some landscaping around it that grading is shown on this plan and and that's why the steps match the architecturals and the elevations all right and a follow up to that can you just hit upon uh you know the the height restriction and let's see believe there's some note about the uh the FEMA basement as well sure um so the height restriction is from natural grade as it is right now doesn't take into any account whatever grading might be done on the site uh the grading is not to remove this from a flood zone area this is an a Zone we're not raising this grading above that flood zone based flood elevation um it's um just construction type of uh grading um the existing uh sorry the the proposed slab on the lower level is at elevation 8 the lowest grade next to that is at 7 and half therefore it's not technically a basement by the building code uh there would be flood openings uh throughout the the foundation that would allow flood waters to pass back and forth through that that whole lower level uh and those would have to be within a foot of grade um either the inside or the outside of the structure okay thanks was there a hearing held with the Conservation Commission with this new we've gotten an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission uh based on the plan that you saw previously with this new driveway uh we have not gone in front of them we've talked to the agent uh we can't even apply to amend that existing order conditions until the 16th so um we haven't been able to to modify that as of yet that's all thank you Paul no questions thanks okay and I just have a couple was there any consideration um just as to screening of the I know that the now the driveway's been reworked is there any room there for any screening because I know we've had some concerns uh like a fence or vegetation vegetation I think would be that that could be considered certainly okay is the vegetation that's shown on here just for illustr of purposes or is it green yeah it's it's not I'm not landscape AR right okay um and I just want to clarify the ceiling height in the Attic what was that uh I believe it's seven at the at the highest point possibly be and again there's vaulted areas below and cathedral ceiling so there isn't that's not the entire um floor space of the of the second floor there's portions of that that would be set okay okay um I guess the question that I have or the concern that I have about the plan and it was the same as last time and still exists today that you're working from a 35 foot maximum height and then you're kind of just working within that kind of whatever you can do so you're not coming to us with a a building height of 34 ft so could you just come or you know another set Building height so could you just walk me through the each floor's height and how high you have to be above grade and and what the exact plans are do you have a better answer if yeah if you're going to speak then you just need to come up and provide your name and name is Neil curan I represent the building contractor uh the the prevailing grade the pre-existing average grades begins at 8 and it would make the maximum height 43 would the slab it at 8 ft the basement or the the storage area slab at 8 ft is roughly 7 ft to the bottom of the framing of the first floor top of the first floor would be at 16 or 8 ft above if we I don't know it's difficult if you want let's work in terms of the 35 ft so you're totaling up to 35 here okay we're starting at 8 and going to 43 but let's say 8 is now zero so it would be 7 ft in the lower level about a foot of framing then a 9t ceiling on the first floor floor another foot of framing then an 8T ceiling on the second floor another foot of Framing and then between s and 8 ft we as you recall we did with the in order to meet the conservation Falmouth uh velocity flood elevation we eliminated a third floor there was originally a bunk room on the third floor it was eliminated and the master bedroom suite on that end was converted to a full Cathedral and there actually a dmer that lights the uh uh the bedroom from above it's it's floating in the uh in the roof so the attic to the 35 ft is somewhere between 7 and 8 ft and uh and we would oppose to what we've done in many of these we just doing one now uh on Foster Street where we do the elevation certificate when we get the ridge frame and we measure up from the point and do a confirmation of the within the 35 ft maximum height level and get us certified elevation certificate so there's no question about exceeding those zoning and you would get that certified elevation certificate prior to filling the grade around the base yes yeah 8 ft it begins at eight yeah that's a locked in number and the the the way it's set up now it can there doesn't have to be any excessive grading can be veneering of the foundation but uh it's really more of an architectural landscape architectural decision and how it's only water side how it uh it Leets conservation restriction on the rules okay but we could build it as is the way it is now okays 35 ft thank you yep all right that was all of my questions to Joel did uh Conservation Commission mandate any mitigation plannings on this slot and are they shown they did not no we're actually uh reducing the amount of impervious area within their jurisdiction because are moving back from the water so we're losing like 250 55 uh 714 Square ft uh what would have been plantings we not so that's why there's no mitigation all right thank you thanks sir sir any um public comment on this anybody want to speak in in favor of thises anybody want to speak in opposition okay um I'm me Gregory I write to you all every day um mitigation planning yes there is the youu the tree from uh there was a mitigation planting when the cottage was built and conservation said that you had to move that tree had to be moved or mitigated is that through this are you talking this project or but what I'm asking for is any additional plantings not what's existing any additional okay just as long that that tree it's a continuing mitigation problem I guess right [Music] um a setback from the this is a question uh the existing leeching field which is it's double the size of what it was uh does that have to be 10 ft from the property line that's bard of Hill and I think he got clear ification from the Board of Health on it's an existing system that's in there we got better records of the asilt um if so so how we'll handle excuse me so we'll have we'll have Mimi ask her questions to us and then we'll have you answer the questions and that way it's clearer for the record as well no that was I could have stopped it before so all I I question the uh diagram for the leeching field because the original plot plans um that were submitted um the leaching field and I was there when they put it in um is half that size and it's up towards the cottage if you want to look at the L she means the length of it and isn't it a 10t setback from property think that's oh again that's health so and it's existing me yes but the other half of it is not existing that they have proposing now but that's I guess I guess what I'm saying is I'm until everything you know is all all the Ducks are in a row I would ask for a continuation I just I think it's hard I let me see if anybody has questions for you is everybody else that I know I do yeah so um you heard me just ask since the driveway's been relocated would would screening be preferable to you as an a butter or are you concerned about water View and you'd prefer the less screening the better it's just I'm not Terri I certainly don't want any screening on the Westminster side because they're already taking about a third of our view that way I mean if she wants to put you know a hedge or something or there but it's going to be raised right I I guess going be a gully going towards the property line because our property is higher my I guess my only concern would be or what I'm viewing as a concern is where the the driveway's been relocated towards zel Street and I was just asking not that way that doesn't bother you or no okay no all right um we don't have any you know kind of view that way in a garage over there okay all right I think that's all I still I'm not sure I totally understand the um the 35t elevation I thought you started 35 at the average grade which is eight but then if they fill or do grading up against this basement then did they start measuring from the top of that grade firm no no well that's what the elevation looks like I it might be an old I don't know if that's an old elevation this measured so the 35 ft is measured from the average grade so that's the height of the the structure will be 35t but they won't they won't be building up and what the testimony just was they won't be building up the grade and then measuring that the foot is the is set and then yes question um I don't see how you can do this when conservation hasn't signed off on them we yep just to answer that we have a different purview so we can condition that they need to receive con conservation right um but we're looking at it for different things we're looking at it from a zoning perspective yes yesk thank you does anybody else have any comments no okay do you want to address anything or does Joel want to address M's concerns as far as the tree that is a condition um that there's an existing tree that's not a mitigation plant that's new for this uh approval uh there is an existing tree that's uh close to the footprint of this proposed uh house location and it needs to be moved if that doesn't survive uh there's a requirement that it's replaced uh with u um equal value trees uh as far as the septic system uh it is a little bit bigger as it's shown because we had tie cards of the as built um which gave us one dimension we uh received the title 5 inspection uh that actually had the dimensions and showed what type of uh structures those were because we want to make sure that that was H20 uh capacity uh leeching system um and that showed it as being much larger which calculates out to be the the 10 bedroom Capac um and that those Dimensions were shown in that title 5 um so that's why it's shown as it is on there and again we're not we're not modifying that soil absorption system other than possibly putting an event as required by the Board of Health um but we're not relocating anything there we're not increasing the size of it we're not increasing the number of bedrooms or anything to that go to it so um I understand the question about the setback to the property it's an existing system mhm okay that it okay okay sounds great let's see how the board would like to proceed any want have discussion or Mark I think you had the most questions so if you want to um all the okay I guess I'll we'll discuss yeah you can discuss um do you think we're ready to close I don't have any more questions okay so does anybody want to move so I'll move to close Okay second okay so that was Mark and Ed all those in favor I I okay and discussion Mark um starting I mean the revision and now with the uh explanation by Neo with regard to the elevation certification which makes me feel much better um I think I could move forward on this project I think uh well I mean we'll make findings but that's that's where I'm at Paul yeah I I I'm I'm very comfortable with it I think it uh looks great I agree DJ sure my issue was with the heighten I think with the certified elevation um then we're good yeah and I think that we can make certain conditions to make sure that everything is complied with so findings and conditions okay or do I take the motion first motion first to approve then findings so does any have a motion to approve make a motion to approve okay so that's Ed is there a second I'll second up and T okay all right um testimony had um this green in porch will be remain unheated three season porch um testimony had that all staging of construction equipment will be on subject property and Vehicles right and vehicles well I think that's y that's that's good all vehicles and Construction and Equipment okay that sounds good um that they'll be applying for an amendment to concom yes and and where did it go with regard to Board of Health they they'll have to buy off on or have they through conversation I'm sorry what was that I mean will they have to um make an official Board of Health meeting oh no no no the Board of Health um will have to sign off prior to issuance of building permit okay that's not to us that'll be but he's it's an existing septic system yes so the only thing that they have to do is put in that vent that vent M and that vents according to regulations so can that be a fin finding oh sure it should be a finding finding be um testimony had it that they will um put vent the said the requirement would be a vent yes I wouldn't get into conditioning it where well that's out of our perview right it is yes yes um any others Mark finding was um attic will um be unheated uninhabitable however accessible and access through hatches um that's all I've got for now okay uh finding that in the structure is going to be wholly located in the a Zone and that it has to be elevated um is it it has to meet regulations way to say way meet flip regulations and the finding is that the height will be measured from the average grade prior to any fill too because that's all according to building yeah another Finding was did we already make that a finding with the elevation certification no testimony had testimony that there will be right submitted yeah prior to befi or grade changes prior backf sorry can you make a finding that there are two dwellings on this lot yes and the special permit before the board previously acknowledged both dwellings yes I need to that so we carry it forward so that that's a non-conformity that's that's why that's one of the reasons why it's before us anything else no I was just thinking about number of bedrooms but they have septic for I would I would make a finding that the septic system is for 10 but there will be plans show four bedrooms in the new dwelling and three in the cottage seven total seven total not that you're going to condition it to seven CU right right okay anybody else any others no okay I think that's good Mark um per plans per plans um oh finding 24216 yeah 2426 findings very good so uh per plans um conditioned on comc con's um uh condition or order of conditions this this decision will be contingent on approval for changes as stated modific the board should modification of uh the order of of amended order of conditions call it amended and that this board adopts those that's okay that's a condition um I would like to condition asilt plans due to the height can we require asilt elevations or no well it has to be certified so I would ask for the certification okay that should be prior to prior to issuance of the final inspection well because they're not going to get a final inspection until that grade is changed CU they had building inspe they should be checking that grade I'm sure to make sure that the runoff is right so prior to okay prior to final sign off by building or zoning board of appeals um can I make another Finding just to back that um 243c has been met it's not substantially more detrimental so other conditions would construction traffic and or vehicles and equipment on site I you said that that was a finding that was a finding but we can condition I want to make a condition oh testimony had it that they were okay so that's going to be a condition as well all staging of construction vehicles and equipment on subject prop yes do you want to I yeah go Ahad uh are we going to condition the screened in porch to remain unheated and cuz it was a testimony you can you can you can condition that the screen porch be unheated unheated and I mean it should be conditioned that it remain a screen porch unless it's brought back to this board yes because screening should not have any Windows that's correct so let's uh should be screened we can do that screen only and they have to come back to this board for any modification to the screening including any window inserts all right do you want to condition I don't know if we need to condition the attic being uninhabitable your your findings substantiate that [Music] plans okay and we're saying per plan per plan so and we don't I sir I'm asking um we don't need to to condition that the certified building elevation certificate be obtained prior to change in grade no it has to be prior to changing grade am I right so we don't have to condition it right you just condition that we get a copy of it okay then let's condition that we did prior to final sign off Perfect all right I think that's everything does anybody else have anything no sounds good good Mark okay I think I think there should be a finding because the West Minister Road seems to be a contention that there was um testimony on I don't know how we put it uh just that West Minister road is a private road and any changes alterations or whatever you want to call it are between uh the people that have rights to the private R and not part of this right of passage I think was the U the term just leave it private yeah private why yes because that's a civil matter certainly not before this board right yes okay so that was I believe I forgot to write down Ed and TJ okay all those in favor I unanimous you're right on [Music] time well we're a half hour be well yeah but I mean [Music] [Music] throw that in yeah okay should give these back to the Clos okay open this here thank you I messed everything [Music] up this also thank you [Music] he's got those files this one all right did you get all the extra plans for the 40b are they there three okay three of those although these are dated October 7th well I think only oh some of them I think DJ it's the only thing that these are the uh yeah these are the uh architecture yes thank you all right [Music] here's P set too all right so the next application is also a continuation number 9515 Village at Old Main 41 Old Main Road North fouth and sitting on this is the regular voting numers Mr Glen okay thank you madam chairman so we here tonight um with Mike solomond The Village at Old Main at 41 Old Main Street in um North B old main road and um we were here last month and you asked if we could consider making some changes to the plans and um we have Mike belli is here he can go go over them there are about six or seven changes that I think you ask off and they've all been made um also uh there were a lot of regulatory documents that you asked for at the last meeting and they've all been submitted it's eight units and I'm not sure what you if you have questions would you like Mike to just start showing you the changes in the plant that be the best way to cly and and the clerk is going to read my apologies for getting caught up here uh just to read into record what we've received uh received a draft uh condo Master deed uh memor memorandum regarding the 40b application correspondence between the application and the board monitoring and a affordability monitoring service [Music] agreement Madam chairman members of the uh board my name is Michael Borelli from Falmouth engineering and I represent present the applicant uh we did make some changes to the plan subsequent to our initial hearing and in questions and matters that you raised and I'll uh you have revised plans they were delivered um time we last Wednesday actually so I'll go through the changes F first uh the original plans showed the bulkheads on unit three and unit um 3B and unit 5B less than 10t from the property line we made adjustments to those bulkheads so they now conform to the minimum of 10 foot uh from a property line so all buildings on all sides meet all setback requirements of the ton ofma zoning bylaw we were asked to consider uh reducing the number of parking spaces we eliminated the parking spaces from this Center Island there were four and that made this Center Island a larger more uh uh wider uh has a higher potential to be landscape so we eliminated those spaces um there's actually a net decrease in spaces of three there's Now 26 there were 29 each unit has um two spaces associated with it the units that have a single car garage also have a space counted within the garage so when when considering the number of parking spaces on the site I think it's important to realize that uh one two 2 3 4 five six seven of them are actually not in the parking area but they're in the building uh for reference we added the neighboring houses and structures the neighbor to the South his house is here the closest Corners to our land are here he also has a an outbuilding or Barn not a dwelling and we show that for reference on the North side we show the some of the well all the houses that are on this side the closest part of it part of the houses for reference and if you recall the back is the bike path which is elevated from our site significantly um I think it was uh board member foreman asked us to show areas where the trees could be re uh Remain the darker green on these plans um are the areas that we're supposing to uh retain the vegetation um we modify the uh site lighting it's on the landscape plan we had originally shown uh just the street lanterns we've now added um to demonstrate that each building will have lighting at its entries um in addition to to the street uh lanterns if you will or or lamp posts and um above each garage door there'll also be a light it'll probably be like an onion lamp style uh light that's um works with this architecture we adjusted the location of one of the affordable units if you recall the existing single family dwelling is going to be an affordable unit originally this was proposed to be affordable so unit 5B was originally proposed to be affordable as the second unit it's been redesignated to uh unit 4A in this location so the existing single family dwelling is one and unit 4 a is the other I don't know what plan you look this November 25th it's the other Corner one right still that's the colored PL yeah which do show the changes the landscape changes and so forth but the 5B is still designated affordable on this one what's uh what's your date here um if you look at sheet revised plan sheet one that's a standal on landscape plan we might not have made the change on a landscape plan all right Standalone sheets okay affordable the ACT site plan the landscape plan doesn't I'll make a note to fire my draftsman for that tomorrow fire um and finally with regard to the landscape plan there was a request to consider adding some shade trees to the property which we also we added a series of tin workus trees throughout the site in addition to the other trees so they're scattered throughout the site and they're designated U with an L um for honey Locus there's there's several scattered throughout the site and that summarizes the site plan changes um happy to answer questions okay let me see if anybody has questions oh I'm sorry I'm add one more change if you remember we we were hopeful we could keep this unit on its own sub system because it the bo of Health didn't allow that so this building is now connecting into the into the onset here okay Paul do you have any questions no questions thanks Ed TJ ask a question um each unit will have the same amount of parking per unit even with the elimination of the parking spaces yes okay Ken well I would come back to the the request that you consider a denitrifying system especially in view of effect you have multiple houses so that the flows are likely to be uh at least somewhat more continuous uh and that you're in a sensitive area um where according to our Coastal Pond overlay bylaw if you have five Lots or more uh uh and this is five more than five units certainly so in in the spirit of that uh you should have a denitrifying system uh we did consider that uh Mr foran and we submitted a memo and I think Mr I thank you um so Mr salamu is here he has a new hip since he was here last but he's the same uh person he's been I think very Cooperative has tried very hard and he wants us to be he wants to continue to be cooperate with the town and make this a very good project I submitted a onepage memo on the issue of nitrogen as part of it there and technically the bylaw doesn't even require it if this was not flb they're on five Lots and there aren't more than five acres you know so you know that that's a technical argument but I think the more important argument is it just this is affordable housing the and normally in in your regulations you have would you supply a list of waivers that you're going to need from bylaws it usually anticipates and really just about every every affordable housing project looks for a lot of waivers I think the only waiver we're looking for is more than one unit per L lot and the part about we think makes it nicer is instead of asphalt we're going to have shells those are the only two things that really vary from the strict interpretation of the bylaws it conforms with it conforms with um bulk regulations and it conforms now with every sideb in set regulations we try to landscape it they're going to be beautiful buildings but just to try to keep the same street scene from Old Road he he is willing to do a lot of landscaping that will do it so he's trying real hard so in the memo and and Mike is here tonight he'll talk more about it but in the memo it it the the budget for title five for wastewater treatment there was 50,000 the best deal he could get and looking hard um over a couple of weeks or three weeks uh is $80,000 additional to D night so I I think that that you go from 50 to 130 it just makes it it just makes it uneconomic and to impose that on something that doesn't technically even require it if it wasn't affordable is just an undue burden that you you're putting on the putting on the applicant here and he's done the numbers it's uh he just can't do it he just can't do that U the nitrogen I think Mike had like to try he's had experience Mike solando the applicant he's had experience with actually installing these and seeing how they work he'd like to talk to you about that as well as the economic issue um OB twoo um you know I I I can talk more about it I but I I think I put it in that memo if you look at it if you look at the the whole idea of 4B is you have to get some concessions from strict regulations if you're going to be able to build affordable housing you we understand it you like it in other situations but that's what makes housing in many ways unaffordable complying with everything so 4B is a means to come up with a good reasonable plan but it doesn't comply with every thing that you might like in an expensive home there and I think we've done that and I I put in I just made a short quote from the statute the statute doesn't even mention um the only environment the statute is concerned about is the environment of the people that live in it you know if you don't have any open space if you crunch them all together that's the only that's the only environment that the statute is is is concerned about there the regulations mention environment um but they has to be weighed against the regional need for affordable housing and it's necessary and it's just consistent where there's a need for affordable housing that you can't impose something that makes a project on economical you know so that you know that's my part of it Mike would like Mike the applicant have a question go okay um and that's I looked at the 40b Fairly thoroughly yeah and in section 21 it says it authorizes the zba to impose conditions in matters of clear local concern and I think environmental um or environment is is how you phrase it but I think one of the clear local concerns of our community has been uh Wastewater and water and I think that's what you know Mr foran is and it is and it's very important for a certain section of of our town it's it's very very important but when you weigh it against the need for affordable housing it's consistent that something distant from the development itself um is an unreasonable um something that would have an impact away from the development would create an unreasonable burden um on a developer to to do that you know and I wonder what percentage of the houses in norment are Runing night you know I haven't done no there's no doubt that uh uh that uh there there aren't very many and uh but also the density is significantly less and it's the increase in density that prom me to request that denitrification be considered I mean you know following up on Mark's comment we're we're currently spending as a community $40 million to uh build sewers in just one of the in the smallest of our Coastal ponds so the the request was definitely respected and and the applicant would like to talk to you about how much it cost and perhaps the effectiveness of it here as far as the density goes I would also ask the applicant what the bid was what type of system was looked at uh so i' be happy to hear that uh I I do believe there are are good functioning systems out there now just one more I mean I just as a point of clarification no well yeah um Mass General law 40b section 20 the need to protect the health and safety of occupants which you spoke of immediate or residents of the town so that kind of goes beyond the immediacy of the local I would think if I'm the idea of imposing a condition on affordable housing because it may have an impact on water Beyond well beyond this it be consistently rejected con consistently rejected it is an unreasonable regulation to to do that and there have been cases where somebody crammed so much on it that there was no open space our project here complies with the bu not the bulk the law coverage regulations for the town of fouth we're not even looking for a waiver for that so it's not unduly it's not unduly dense most affordable housing developments look for that waiver how how else can you do it you need a waiver from the lot coverage to to build affordable housing but just it's consistent to put a regulation to protect an interest beyond that project it just con consistently rejected and and you know I think the applicant will convince you you just can't do it we didn't we showed the we showed the request great respect before it was even made and then try it again after it was made it just that the extra $80,000 or more or or more U you know that's where you start if nothing goes wrong and there run it just makes it just kills the project and and that's what the affordable housing statute is about and technically even if this if this were allowed on dis zoning it it's not five lots and it's not five acres and it there is more density than one house on a two this a two-way a lot you know there is more density than three bedrooms on two aakers but the the to start imposing a dite requirement here when the neighbors don't have that it's just an unreasonable it's just an unreasonable regulation it is my argument but I think I'd rather you look look at it from just a practical point of view don't you want this built this is a very nice project these are very nice houses it it's going to create a couple of affordable housing probably for families that it's necessary and that's what it's about okay so let's hear from M I just wanted to add one thing for your consideration about that byw about five acres or five or five Lots just north of this property on Old Main Road by that I mean less than a quarter of a mile um uh a cluster subdivision was reviewed by the planning board for nine lots and it was in excess of 5 acres and I represented the uh applicant on that case and we we're in a coastal Pond overlay District but if you look at the coastal Pond overlay District Maps throughout this Con ofth virtually the almost the entire towns in the coastal Pond overl District of one uh way or another um the self fating pawns are the most critically most sensitive ones that's why we're sewering that planning board decision on that nine lot subdivision we were able to persuade them that um and they made a finding in the decision that um the uh location of this land and the geology relative to Coastal ponds um combined with um its distance from the coast and the fact that it was uh very densely developed um in fact the the new Sila Beach wastewater treatment plant is Upstream of this location ation they made a finding that the groundwater uh quality was uh not as uh as sensitive to nitrogen in their opinion and they they made a finding that daites weren't necessary on that actual ninot subdivision which wasn't even a 40b so there's another board in town that understands the groundwater conditions in this region and made a decision where they they could have required it uh that they didn't require it I just thought that would be important to know thank you Mike see if the applicant wanted to speak let me see if any has questions mam chair is the board my name is Mike solomond and U uh to approach uh Mr Foreman uh you know I understand this was done on the fast system uh and I just got I just have direct knowledge of this because where I live now and in which is the project I just completed and it's a bigger system because there there's more units in this particular one so it's a bigger and it was you know was $80,000 to buy another another uh it was approximately almost by the time we got through with everything it was around around around 40 40 something thousand uh uh additional just to do the install and attach it to the existing uh set of leeching fields and that included but it's not only just that cost now those I could spread over um 14 units and the units ranged it ranged from 700,000 to a million dollars they're a bigger unit we could absorb that and we had no affordables on site the affordables in that particular one I could I could do off uh uh it wasn't a 40b by the way but it was a a self not a self-imposed but a town emplo a friendly 40 so to speak where we could do it on site cuz we were on a barrier Beach all right in uh in in a little uh Village called hok uh off the coast of Marshville part of situ so we did in the main we did the affordables on the main uh on the the main part of situ closer to the schools and that type of thing but the cost was like I was like you know I was stunned to be honest with you because I hadn't done uh one of those before but that was again that was approved back in uh uh that was approved in those uh in uh 2010 is when we got the approvals and then we went into the system there and and things have you're right Mr pman things have changed and they are getting they are getting better as more and more things become online but the problem that we have here in in in on an 8 unit 40p is there only really six units you're not spreading this cost over you're not spreading it over eight units you're really spreading it over six and I know you when when the board sees it well there's eight units but the cost I mean the first unit the units we lose money on on the affordables what you're supposed to do all right but you don't like to you like to lose as little as you can but what we you know what we have is I got to spread that cost over six units and for me that's that's that's close to $115,000 per unit I mean it's thin as it is because they got you know there's uh I'm lucky in that I'm the Builder as well as the developer so there's only certain aors where you can take the profit out but um and uh you know because of the location of the land and everything but there's only uh it's a good it's a good project and uh and I I think it's uh you know and and it can be good it's not going to be a huge Money Maker by any means and this kind of like just really you know takes it apart uh by by that much of us so so can I ask you a little about this quote because I is this the item that you submitted yes water so so this shows 77,000 I think as the cost well with the taxes and everything I think it's almost 79 uh so but is this the total cost or is this additional because additional the implication uh from because what I'm reading is one 5,000 excuse uh I presume gallon primary septic tank uh which sounds to me like the part of the standard title five standard right but that's wrong and it's in the get go I mean that that was wrong I don't know why because maybe he didn't know all the different bedrooms cuz the real Count should be it should be a 6,000 gallon tank I saw that too and I and I did catch that and that was that's a $7,000 uh that's probably a 775 instead of uh so the difference may be about three or 4 thousand but that's it right but so I'm I'm just saying to me that sounds like it's part of the yeah but it isn't standard Title 5 system I was trying to check with uh Ted on that very item but he believe it or not he went into hip surgery I was trying to call him because I and I did pick up on that but he's been out commission uh and I haven't been able to check back and this is just one type of system right I mean there are other systems out there many there are many types and the cost but I'm I'm giving you my firsthand knowledge on the one that I know there are cheaper ones they are much more expensive ones this is kind of the fast system is kind of the middle of the road but also it's not only this cost here but to continue to run them our our Bild okay and in and I'm sure that this would be it costs over over it's a $300 junk uh on the uh On The Electrical uh on our on our outside electric a month all right as well as we have to have an inspection okay and the inspections of 1500 1575 bucks for twice twice a year inspection that requires and then any general maintenance that has to go into it although ours is fairly new we haven't had any maintenance to be truthful with you but it's still it's still another 1500 that goes on the HOA it's another 300 uh a month for the uh on the hoa's back I mean that's all goes it's um you know it's expensive and then where do you put the fan uh and uh and that muffles the sound uh it's a uh because those fans well there are new there are newer ones there are new there are newer systems that you can get but these are the more expensive ones all right that the fans only go on intermittently all right but the ones that run2 47 burn and allowed so I I I mean just as uh contrast and I have no idea about cost but there's a a 3,000 gallon per day or gallon uh system that I know nitrex based system which our County uh health department has been monitoring in mashby that achieves better uh nitrogen reduction than our centralized wastewater treatment facility here and uh that uh is in a similar situation where there's a number of of residences hooked up to it that so there's a system that's in place operating um so I know there are examples uh of such systems in place that are working uh and that have been installed and I presume they must be somewhat economic or they wouldn't have been installed in the first place so I don't know I'm just telling you what my numers I can only tell you what I but again this is one one quote this is one quote you asked me to give you I gave I didn't give you the the most expensive I didn't give you the cheapest I said I want something that's dead in the middle that's what I asked Ted for and that's that's what it is but it's considerably are are you saying that if if uh that the project could not go forward if this was required think of you know doing something else let me tell you it's it's it's like I said it's you're making money you're making money on six units all right and you got to build out the other ones so it's it's there's a point of diminishing returns so it's something that you cut away uh that's the best I can do for the bo I you know vend over backwards to make it right make it good but I mean there comes a point where you know what if this was on a a bigger project and you can spread that cost over more uh it makes it makes good sense especially where I was in on on a barrier Beach all right where we're nothing but sand and we we got a river on one side side in a in in a uh uh in coastal zone management and I had a lot of people that went in that uh that I worked with on it and uh they were pretty happy but I I I was I was shocked at the at the bottom number but now not only that is I got the HOA that I still run today as a matter of fact this is my last month thank God after three years of running it that I get to step down but and then you see the the jump and the cost in the electrical and and people care about those things I'm just telling exactly what it said on Mr foran and uh that's what we came up with the existing building yes sir how much renovation is occurring in there we're going to do the whole outside skin and uh and keep it in compliance I've got some uh I mean it's it's the guy it was it's a beautiful little building inside and it has a walk out basement that uh can be you for future right uh for future use I know you mentioned that it's uh it's pretty nice the guy was a cabinet maker who had it so I'm going to update the uh the heating systems already started to be updated and put in air conditioning system and uh pretty much into the entire outside so that that's uh at least one one thing that helps you out is you have an existing structure that's right yeah but I paid a lot for the land okay well that's my primary concern okay your questions then at the moment y okay Mark yeah I'll ask Mally some stuff I think okay yes Mike um you're did you um happen to see the Patty Delaney Cape Cod Commission report in the file I read it I I did read it the only reason they bring it up is is she says in it um project site is located within a sub ement requiring 56% nitrogen removal require significant nitrogen loading reduction from new and existing development so my question then is the proposed system will it reduce and not add nitrogen loading to that area I I said no that it will it will not do what you just said it will not reduce it won't reduce it it will will it will it um um neutralize or will there be be any input there'll be nitrogen loading into the ground and it's it's would a would a dite system do that no right no a dite system will just reduce it it doesn't denitrify the the recognized levels of treatment for like a traditional Title Five are like 30 to 35 milligram per liter and the recognized um um Productions they vary but there's assumptions when you do nitrogen loaning calculations for a project that nitrogen across the board reduction systems are uh reduce it to 19 but we we all know that there's better results than that I I I do think you also need to consider um and I know every site's different but you just you just approved an 11 unit 40v in a coastal pondway District on one road too long ago and there's no dite on that so I know I know every site's different but I think it's important to listen to what the planning Bo's finding were right basically next door 100% AFF as well so that's all I have right now was that 11 unit what percent affordable was that 100% okay well if the applicant would care to make this 100% affable I would be happy to the environment doesn't know what is Affordable no you're right you're right you're right so that is where using Mr Glenn's arguments I would say there are trade-offs but in this case we have six market rate units and two affordables and I think the environment still needs to be considered I just think you need to listen to what uh the town planning board Mike I have one more um the significance of reading the October 15 Department input um letter um Scott schler y he said that uh the test pitch shows groundwater potentially being at 6 foot below existing grade what what significance does that have on the system that you're proposing um well we did the test hole we did test holes a series of test holes cuz you want to know where the ground water table is and there's a minimum separation from that that's why we do them and we dug at that test tole it's the it's the shall it's the lowest point on the lot is sort of our um minimum design standard so we have to provide a minimum of 5T separation from that okay and that's what we I don't really know why he just made that just statement but we provide all the required separations all right yeah that that was kind of like six4 so yeah all right that's all okay s do you have any questions no okay I have just a couple of questions I guess of Attorney Glenn it might just be one question or two um or three um you submitted the master deed are you also planning on submitting the Declaration of trust to the board beforehand I wasn't planning on it okay so is that do you usually require I know you said condo docks you the master deed and the monitoring agreement regulatory agreement okay are the main things that the board we want to know who the monitoring agent is right we want to know what the master deed says about in perpetuity for the ratio of the affordable versus the market rates things like that okay and and one change since we were here um we've been in contact with Falmouth Housing Trust and no they weren't they are not at this point approved by Mass housing to do the monitoring that's why we originally went with another organization but they're working on that and they'll have it done way before um way before the any houses would be complete so we're going to work with fouth Housing Trust to be the monitoring agent to make sure that the homes stay affordable okay it's nice to have it and a good organization okay I'm sorry was that a change from what you had before yeah I think you suggested it and uh I think you suggested it so I I look and that's what I was told that they weren't um eligible they weren't on the list that they could do that or I would have called them right away but um the executive director she's called up Mass Housing and um she's filled whatever application she needs to to be on their approved list excellent and she doesn't seem to think there'll be any problem to they do monitor other projects in town good okay um just a question for you with regard to I think you said that if and I might I don't want to misquote you I'm not I won't quote you I guess but you said that impacts such as these with the denitrification system obviously member cool and U member form in are concern concerned about this and you said that concerns such as these have been consistently rejected would you if I because I would like to see the law on that I know that you cited to the provision but would you be willing if we contined this or if we closed or well I guess we'd have to continue it to submit a memo substantiating that the that position cases uh now there may not be one exactly on denitrification because this is something that hasn't been required before so why would the are on on that right but consistently those I I can I just assume assum not you know would like to get working but I I could do that um there was a point where I think I could tell you every case on um FB but there've been so many of them in the last uh 10 years I I I can't do that uh anymore but they are out there and a lot of them um people people Town people the environment um had a much stronger interest in that and it's consistent where the town hasn't met its threshold of affordable housing that when you weigh the need for housing versus this environmental need the housing wins that that's what I mean consistent so I I won't I'm sure I won't I I doubt I'll be able to find one on nitr but um there there'll be other concerns like that and and that's what I see well I I think that there might and I and I I freezed through it so I don't even think but there was a recent 40b decision involving a board taking some other considerations into account so I think that might shed some light and I the name's escaping me right now but you mean the economic viability in the project yes I have a couple um but a really recent decision within the last couple of months that might I'm recalling we'd rather the board make the decision on just the practicality of and this is a good project but I I could do that if the board didn't just say this is what the law says okay okay I mean I could that that isn't my main argument I think this is a very good project and it should be approved just because because of that right um Landscaping I just had some questions uh obviously it's been improved um are you're proposing Arbor VY along the property line is that true his landscap okay hi PA musovski hi the uh the armori that that we're talking about is it's called thya Pata which is giant Western armori which turns into a very large tree it's not a a an upright ftig or columnar plant it has a um in fact there's a there's one on Elm Road that's about 60 ft and it's about 50 ft across and out you know out west they get the trunk get from me to you enormous so it's a tree that uh and there's some variable varieties that have different types of foliage colors so we have the ability to plant a number of those particular plants because they're insect resistant the deer don't like them they are really solid Growers you don't need pesticides or anything to have them and uh once they're established you you look the other way and they do get large and they're not like as you would said I think in the last hearing like your grandfather's uh Arbor hedge it's a they're real trees so if if that answers that question it does yep okay and then just lawn proposed in the new center where the the parking spaces have been removed no that's going to be a uh like a raised BM planting with some trees in it grasses uh perennials you know all low uh low care high yield plants okay relative to the plant list that we we submitted okay in fact exactly like the plant list we submitted uh the th you plat I'd change I'd switch a couple of varieties as some that are within that that have different characters to them okay all right that was all of my questions you're good everybody else is satisfied I could ask one of okay um which is since the bike path is right there is there any proposed access to the bike path yeah I'll let Mike address that you said that it's there's a substantial grade so we talked about that Mr salomo and I in the beginning we recognize there's a challenging grade in fact this the the elevation of the pavment on the bike pass 33 and the average grade on our proper is 24 25 so I I know the bike pass used for more than bikes um we talked about um building a set of stairs with Landings up to it so you could get to it it's in anything that you do like that you'd have to go to the state to get permission to put a structure in there so it's not real easy to do so we considered it and then we considered that not too far away there's easier access like Winslow Road there's a connection to the bike path that you could you could bike relatively safely too um I suppose you could walk up all main road to it too um but we kind of decided against it in the beginning because of a challenge and getting up to it okay okay all right so let me see if anybody's here to speak in favor of this project in opposition to this project okay let's have some board discussion I think because without closing because I want to hear obviously you both have questions about the dentification system Mark you want to go first um I'm on the fence about because um a critical local concern is and it's in the the local comprehensive plan is is U the coastal water ways and estuaries and Wastewater and things like that and just as important and critical there's another uh local comprehensive um element that involves affordable housing so whether it's reasonable or not that's what the board has to contend with and I and I think it's even though the local comprehensive plan isn't a regular regulatory to tool I think you know the the the the planning Vision has to be taken into consideration and so that's why I'm trying to figure out knowing what the Cape Cod Commission said about you know in new and existing developments there should be consideration of reductions and Mike testimony had it that the present proposed system isn't going to reduce then you're you're going against as far as I'm concerned you're going against potentially an element of your local comprehensive plan I'm just thrown it out there I mean I I'm for affordable housing I think we need it but then you have to give due respect to other goals and and that that the town had the community has set out there so do you have any other concerns about the project is that your primary concern that's the everything else looks wonderful it's I mean he the the uh the two the 240 68b compliance he brought the bulkheads back I mean that's that's wonderful and you know the the loss of two uh parking uh or the three parking spaces um wonderful you know but geez you know as a board I think we're charged with considering all aspects and one of the aspect aspects that is dear to me in addition to affordable housing is Wastewater and it's you know it drives tourism the quality of our water systems here so that's where I'm at okay Ken yeah so uh you know I I agree with Mark uh perhaps even a little more strident I I don't think I can vote for this unless there's a denitrifying system I believe that you know we've only seen one quotation I think there's many systems out there actually the uh George hoelder at the county brille county health officer has shown done a great study where he's shown which ones seem to work well and which ones work less well um we're spending as a community tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars on this problem and I just don't think it can be ignored uh we we can't keep finding excuses for not uh controlling nitrogen inputs to to Coastal to the sensitive Coastal embayments um and I believe that the two are are not incompatible I I just I think there must be some ways to economize within this project so that this could be affordable do you have any other concerns or is that I I in all other respects I think the applicant has has listened very nicely to us and responded well um I I think the flow actually works better without all those parking spots in the Middle Island uh it's great that he was able to pull back so that we don't have the non-conformities so um Landscaping certainly um you know it's nice to see that there is indeed a plan so so otherwise uh you know I think it's a good good project okay anyone else like to speak on it Paul yeah I mean I understand the concerns with the dite system um no question about it um but some I'm pretty sure that if I mean if we if this fails um if if this doesn't carry um due to the denitrification system and this is this project is denied it'll go to the housing appeals committee and they'll they'll overturn that decision that I that I know for sure um I don't think that a denitrification system is going to be a watershed moment up at the uh housing appeals committee um so I mean we can either you know I mean it'll be back before us again or the developer could do something different um th those are just my thoughts on it I I think it's a great project and I think also so dite systems have to be monitored um you know and um they're not they're not the Magic Bullet either uh but you know I'm a Title 5 inspector but I'm not an authority on denitrifying systems but I I do see a lot of this stuff go up to the housing appeals committee and 95% of the time it's overturned but so I mean if we those are my thoughts and if we want to put the developer through that uh through a vote that's fine uh but I just think that um we you know we're going to run run into some hard luck up in Boston and I think it's a great project and it meets the intent of the bylaw and I think that I'm not an expert on the D nitrogen subject I kind of got the impression it was a wash whether it's going to make it any worse or any better you know okay CU I vote for TJ um I'm happy happy that the applicant got the uh the bulkheads to meet the setbacks and U the site as it is it is uh densely wooded so I appreciate the update and especially with the testimony that was given tonight with the arbor V it's the sort of species that will fill in well with the site um I think the applicant listen listened to us last meeting uh listen to our concerns as far as the denitrification system goes I'm a little on the fence about it because it's the site as it is it's not within Conservation Commission jurisdiction I do realize it is in the overlay District if the applicant were to install the denitrification testimony also added that some of that cost would be passed on to the homeowners and not forgetting this is a 40b project it would be passed on to the people in the subsidized housing as well so a little on the fence about it okay I too am I guess I suppose on the fence about it as well just as to the denitrification system um obviously we only received one quote and we were told that more were obtained so I think it might be helpful to receive other quotes um testimony certainly was that it would become uneconomical um I would like to see the calculations and and what that does to the bottom line and I know that's something that we've wanted to see in previous 40b projects and then really I I mean and I'm sure we all do this that we make decisions based on what we think the law is and and that's really my primary concern so if this is a concern and it's something I I would like to see case law on it this is a real concern and this is a concern for the town and certainly we understand affordable or I understand affordable housing is also a real concern in town but it is Our obligation to balance those concerns and I don't think that the mere fact that it will be you know appealed um is justification to to make a decision that the developer wants us to make or you know that overlooks some other some other aspects of the project so and and and it might be that you know I I get a memo and the legal memo says you know this absolutely won't override and if that's the case then then that's the case and um but it's just something that I would like to say prior to making a decision um and I know TJ said he's on the fence um Ken you said you wouldn't vote for it I can't vote for it unless unless that's included um I would love to see the applicants uh rep you know maybe Mr boreli come back with some some guidance on uh you know based on some of the uh work that's been done at the county level on what the best systems might be I know the efficacy is much higher than 19 milligrams per liter I've seen uh 5 milligrams per liter I was personally up at the mass alternative septic system test center and measured one system at half a milligram per liter which is uh you know so let make one I want to make sure I wasn't misund uh misrepresented in what I said there's no question most of the systems treat better than 19 but when you go through calculations what's recognized by D as treatment in general is 19 I I know that there's local uh systems that are doing much better than that I me and also I'm not against dite I just think you need to consider it globally and think about other the surrounding environment and the fact that there's there's many substandard SE systems in around this area that's right but it's it's Death By A Thousand Cuts cuz we always the excuse for not doing it is always that you know it's not being done and as a result we can go to the Little Pond Watershed and look at a 40 plus million doll project where each homeowner has to Pony up 30,000 bucks to tie into a sewer system and all that's happening is that Wastewater is being moved to a different part of town which also has sensitive embayments being treated to some level but it's going to have impacts uh in that area so you know we we we need to deal with these problems on the sites okay when we can and this is an example of when we can attorney yeah sure if I think everybody said kind of where they are so sure um so if if the the the choice of coming back with more facts and more law is much better than the alternative I think for everybody um yeah so that's one thing and and just on this issue um if you go to an envir environmental con conference this is what everybody talks about the environment they just get through an affordable housing conference up in Boston this week who was front page of the globe br about it and they comment upon the environmental conferences and the conclusion is it's just used as a way to prevent affordable housing you know they're both extreme situations I I would call that extreme you know there is a balancing um so we'll come back and maybe there are some facts that can convince you that this is uneconomic but you know I think that's an understatement it won't be a shed moment at the housing appeals committee it it just won't the idea of here is a here's a new it's pretty new invelopment that you'd be imposing on an affordable housing development that hasn't been imposed on other ones it just that's quite a this is quite a jump um to impose this type of burden on it and I I can come up and you know I can come up and with the cas law and the housing appeals committee um decisions and they'll you'll see the consistency that you you see it from the one point of view the the nitrogen I want the Clean Water other people could care less I just want a house you know and that's just people you know with dirty pollu polluting beans and and when you when you weigh it when the housing appeals committee weighs it they for the housing it just you know that that's what it is and we triy to balance this real well a project with no with no waves really um is is as good as it gets you're imposing something that wouldn't be imposed you're you're thinking of imposing something that wouldn't be imposed at market rate situation little bit of a technical argument but that's okay you know I can make a technical argument on it this is not five acres it's not five Lots but in a market rate situation you wouldn't have eight units on two acres we wouldn't so if you had eight units on8 Acres uh in a subdivision that would be different I mean a a more typical thing would be like 16 units here and then the D9 that would be a typical 40b you know and this one fits into the neighborhood nice so there are a lot of different types of neighborhoods you know there's the neighborhood in the immediate neighborhood that people will like this and it's still creating affordable housing and I understand d nitri ation is real important but it's not the only thing you know that's what we're hung up now it seems but that's not the only thing that's important so I mean we we can do that to to try to convince you more that um this is a good project and it just is going to make it uneconomical if you uh if you impose that condition on it and I can come up with the case law that says with the limits of impositions can be okay I think that that would be helpful and you certainly heard what our concerns were um so I think that would be helpful so you also want quotes on other systems but the quotes should include the yearly cost call they should include what the monthly their quarterly monitoring is the light exchange everything to get a full thing of what the board wants to see the full cost that affects the project because on top of the 880,000 that he's saying I think he put it in there there's a monitoring fee that's done quarterly right for three years and then I think $50 a month for the affordable people too to right but I'm just saying they're asking you for that information so don't forget that fet of it okay to show the overall cost effect yeah cuz you were asking for a a breakdown on the cost well yeah I just would like to see that needs to be part of it for sure yeah okay all right so continuation date will be in February I have every week in January you guys have hearings every week and they're already full well what about I was going to say what about the 14th the 14th is wind turbines yes but we we've narrowed this down to dentification system we're going to have the the information submitted to us in advance well I mean above and beyond that I remember this a three to two vote as well but I'd like to see case law where um it's put before whoever the deciding judicial system is where one local critical concern is put up against another but they're going to look at they're going to look at what's in the zoning what they asked for waiver it is not in the zoning that a d nitrification system is required for this 40b project they're going to weigh that and they're going to weigh the cost of things there I myself like Paul haven't seen anything on a dite system so any case law you're going to get is going to be based on economical feasibility of the project and the demands that the board is putting on somebody and they'll weigh that yeah there was that recent decision though and I wish it's not about well well I think January 14th sounds fact that it's not about dite doesn't mean that wouldn't have applicability no I didn't say that I said the case law that he's going to get is going to be based on economical feasibility because I haven't seen one for D night right that's exactly what I'm saying same thing yeah so what day did you say I I think your idea of the 14th of January is fine I by that time where where will we be I told the town that we wouldn't have any hearings on the 14th because of what we ran into last week because they've got Representatives is coming and talking well who that's why I was just going to ask so who's coming at that do we know I know that we have the sound experts coming we got a couple experts coming I'm not quite sure because I'm not privy to all the attorney conversations we find out later but I told them that that date would be set aside so if you want to start at 5:30 and do them from 5:30 to 6:30 I'm okay with that okay okay so we'll do that is that giving you enough time I I think so there's not time to waste but I I think that gives us enough time yeah well I prefer that a little over a month like a two-month extension you know when this is a 180 day process so we don't need an extension unless no but I mean a two months continuance from here would be would be tough so January we prefer January yeah so January 14th at 5:30 if the board wants to make that motion and I would move that uh we continue the uh hearing on this 40b project to January 14th uh at 5:30 here in town hall okay is there second second okay so we'll say um Ken and Ed all those in favor I I okay Madam chairman would it be we narrowed to that issue do we have to bring the landscape um architect the I don't think that would be necessary all the other things we'll bring PL so you can see it but okay Paul can you have that stuff in the office a week in advance I will thank you I appreciate it okay thank you and let's take a a quick break thank you for [Music] okay [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] I [Music]