##VIDEO ID:8ffXInI76Yg## pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in accordance with app applicable law this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public May access this meeting via virtual means participants May access this meeting through the remote meeting link as posted on the meeting agenda and through the town's online calendar when required by law or Allowed by the chair persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting May do so by raising their hand or otherwise signaling their intent to speak this meeting will be recorded please take care to mute your microphone unless you have been recognized by the chair we will now confirm attendance of members please respond with present if you're on this call Alise mayosi present thanks uh Lucia Lopez present great Matthew Rona present Michael King uh Parker hap mic's unmute but present Jane Moran present Karen Wills present vicaso pry present Rob Benson is obviously present uh and now uh staff John guch present great and Lorie St John think glor is not making this meeting tonight okay all right thanks everybody for being being here um bear with me one second all right I'm going to jump into uh just our agenda um first thing on our agenda is Administrative items and so we um need to appoint uh members to zoning advisory committee and to design review board so these are two kind of subcommittee sub Boards of the planning board and so that's uh that's our role here so for zoning advisory committee there's three open at large seats and two open associate seats so if I'm if I'm understanding this correctly uh associate seats don't vot uh don't vote in the zoning advisory committee uh meetings but they can attend the meetings and contribute um so we have three uh applicants and we ideally will have a planning board representative on the zoning advisory committee John are we looking for three of the four or or are we looking for four of the four with one being an associate member so we're looking at so the the three three applicants that are named uh are for the open seats the planning board rep is a separate seat that the planning board just needs to nominate every year so I think it was Vic holding that seat up until now um and so we would need to do that separately and then the three open seats and the two associate seats all right so we have three three applicants for three open seats as I are they as Stephen KY svana Krishna sad uh mighty on the call Steve K here great if uh if you're on the call would you mind just saying your interest in the zoning advisory committee and so the planning board could hear yes uh thank you um yes I am uh interested in the um open standing seat for the uh advisory committee I am yes does anyone on the planning board have any questions for Stephen Yes actually I do sorry Robert this is Karen go ahead Karen um just why so yes you're interested why why the interest in this in this committee yeah thanks for your question Karen so I've been a you know resident of the town for almost 30 years now raised three children here um had a pretty busy uh professional life I am still working um because of the nature of of my job leading up to recently uh I really haven't had much time except for support of the school system and some of the projects there so you know there's been a lot of activity in the last few years sort of been standing by you know watching things and I have a vast experience almost 45 years of experience in designing construction engineering and uh I thought it this is a good time where you know when I have time that I could bring you know some insight and help uh you know to some some of the things that are going on in town and so forth thank you thank you thanks do we have the other two applicants for Rana I I can't I'm not seeing all surana or sedep on the call I don't I don't see either one of them the reality is we have three open seats and three applicants um I think it's in our best interest that we uh I think I'd like to entertain a motion to appoint Steven kti svana Krishna and S malti to the zoning advisory committee so moved second thanks gonna go through uh just the roll call vote uh Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ronka yes Michael King yes Parker hap I abstain okay Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry I would have seen okay and Rob Benson is yes all right great now we need to decide who is going to be our planning board representative to the zoning advisory committee um this past year has been vicaso uh are you still interested uh yes if okay is there anyone else that's interested in uh in in um kind of throwing their hat in the ring to uh be considered for the zoning advisory committee position all right hearing none I'd like to entertain a motion to appoint vicaso prati to the zoning advisory committee as our planning board Representative no moved second thanks uh roll call vote Alise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicasa I'm voting for myself yes yes excellent and Rob venson is yes congratulations vicaso I know you did a great have been doing a great job and we'll continue thank you all right on to design review board so design review board is a little bit different because we have um like there there's the the slots on the D design review board and people have to have certain qualifications depending on what what slot they are occupy and some people could occupy more than one slot so we want to appropriately get the right people to the right position that are interested um so right now the agenda I'm looking at is this uh this has six people listed but we got a seventh applicant today through the chair yeah uh we didn't get it today we got it Friday after the agenda had been posting all the meeting materials have been sent out so it's Jeff dhy who is um currently on the design review board reapplied uh and then just while I've got the attention of the board um I sent out two statements from applicants I want to make sure everyone receiv received those otherwise I can read them aloud everyone get those I got them yeah from Janette Thompson and yeah thanks foring John so Rob you would consider all of these named people and then also Jeff dhy okay um I'm trying to think about how the best way to go about this uh um May I sure go ahead vicaso any recommend are helpful here I just want to understand because I know that for the zoning advisory commit couple of applicants didn't turn up or what are the reason but we can we confirm are the rest of them for the design review board are available on the call right now that's a good question um I see Curtis uh soab if I pronounce any names incorrectly I apologize in advance uh I believe s is out also he's that's what his notes says here he was on a flight right uh sadip is sadip applied for both positions zoning advisory committee and design review board uh Sue Ellen Stoddard she's on I think oh okay I think I see her uh Janette Thompson Thompson she also sent a statement that she wouldn't be able to attend she sent a statement though okay all right let's um how does anyone have any recommendations about how to go about this uh so we've got seven applicants seven positions but the big thing is two of them are open alternate seats which are um kind of non voting seats they'd be members of the board but they're not considered in voting for decisions so through the chair yep the associate and the alternate seats are they can vote when there's not a quorum of the regular members okay basically fill in if there's not enough or if there's not enough regular members if if one of the five are not present the alternate can vote but but um I think what Vic may have been alluding to is maybe get their the people who are here get their statements and get them to um Express their interest in joining the board uh Curtis would you like to uh go uh you've been on the design review board would you like to go over kind of um I know uh uh you've been on Zach for a while so I know some of your background but for the rest of the board would you like to go over your interest in design review board and uh maybe a little bit about your professional experience I think that's relevant okay I'm um a Consulting civil engineer been doing Land Development for I guess 35 or 36 years now um wanted to help out the community where I could seen a lot of different things um wanted to like I say been doing this a long time figured I could help out wherever I could and uh would say started Zach I think last year I wound up on the design review board and have enjoyed that so uh I would like to continue thanks Curtis Su Allen would you like to uh give a little bit about uh why you're interested in your in your background and your prior experience on design review board I've been on the design review bro since its conception um I own a design firm here in town and I've been very concerned about being able to give back to the community for the community that's given me um work over the years uh my background is an interior design and architecture and uh I taught at Ry School of Design and uh Becker College for 40 years so now that I'm no longer doing that this gives me an opportunity to spend more time with this thanks suelen um how does how does the board want to proceed I think we have um four incumbents that have been very strong members of the design review board we have three new applicants how does the uh any recommendations Rob do the chair yeah um would it help to understand who's eligible for which which of the slot as you put it um in particular do we have anybody from the historic district commission that's that applied I don't believe so janette's not on that John let me take a look I don't believe so but I'll take a look no nobody that's applied is on the hington historic district Commission so um through the chair go ahead Jane I think where suep uh just got appointed to the zoning yep Zach it could be that he might not mind um if we didn't have enough room for him on the design review board I was thinking that too he might be he might be fine to be uh considered a alternate um yeah then I think the only other thing you have to think about is of the two remaining um Shana and soab who would be the alternate and who would through the chair and through Krishna also got app point to the design review board got to point to Zach you mean yes to Zack you're right I just noticed all right I think well it was a good idea let's I think because of that I think svana and sudip because they're not both not on the call they just got appointed to Zach I think if we can if we can uh with the five other applicants if we can assign those to the five positions of need I think it's reasonable to make svana and sud deep the alternates um so let's try to let's try to go through this so um it sounds like Sue Ellen could be uh in the Fine Art in the art of design professions so I believe both suelen and Janette are eligible for the Fine Art War landscape design [Music] um do we think do we think Curtis being a civil engineer could be uh also number two uh the training experience in Fine Arts or landscape design Rob yeah the chair probably question for John what qualifies as experience in the art of design professions that's engineering design there or is that uh so it's usually landscape architecture interior design um okay yeah architecture so I think just to inform the board I believe if I and in my office and I should have printed it out and brought it with me I believe um Janette was one person qualified by training experience in the art of design professions suelen was number two in the Fine Arts or landscape design I believe um Jeff may have been one person doing business in town or citizen at large since he owns Angels uh and then I believe Curtis was a design of the planning board and then the planning board chair or their design was vacant so if if I'm looking at the agenda here um so so Janette could be Phil slot one or uh wait that could be that could be Steven Steven could be slot one Steven kti you're looking at the wrong list of names I think um soob I think was who we were looking at oh yes uh soob soob could be SE uh position one Janette can be position two janette's an architect not a landscape architect okay so Sue Ellen could be position two Jeff D uh Jeff dhy position three Curtis position four and Janette Thompson position five does that sound reasonable sounds right all right I'd like to entertain them can I just use first names here or do I let let me try to go go through the full names I'd like to entertain a motion to uh elect to select soab far Marzi to seat one Sue Ellen daughter to seat two Jeff Dy to seat three Curtis Smithson to seat four what's Steven's last name again even applied for Zach not drb oh um oh to Curtis to seat 4 Janette Thompson to seat five and then Sana Krishna to the alternate and S malti to the alternate positions Z moved all right thank you everybody roll call vote oh go ahead any discussion no I just had a question um which position was Jeffrey Doty person doing business in the town or citizen at large okay all right roll call vote Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker Hab I se okay Jane Moran yes Karen will yes vica South pry yes and Rob Benson is a yes thanks it's not it's not always straightforward you when you have to match them up to their uh kind of their resumés um thank you everybody uh for your service on the design review board all right we're moving on to uh approval not required for 69 Franklin Road agelas energy is there a representative for agelas if I if I'm SP saying that correctly energy on the call yes we have representatives from isas energy this is Mustafa sesin senior project development manager and my my colleague Matt aardi is here he is the project developer for agilitas energy okay did you say you had a presentation you uh we don't we don't have a presentation okay John could you just give us some background of what uh the applicant is uh uh looking to do all right sorry I didn't know I was muted um all right so here's the anr plan so this is probably familiar to some of you this is the solar array over on Franklin Road this is the old Liberty Mutual building over here this has already been sectioned off so that's not part of this uh so the applicant has finished the installation of the solar array uh and now they are looking to comply with the other requirements of the special permit which is to um essentially convey this open space to a nonprofit which is what they had said they were going to do initially uh so they're looking to do that now and they are sectioning off the area with the array as one lot so that's lot one a and then Lot 1 B is the remainder and that's all this around here so uh the anr is just to break it up into two different Lots and it meets the lot area requirement and the frontage requirement so it appears to Warrant endorsement from the planning board thanks John the uh so the the the land they're looking to donate to a nonprofit doesn't completely surround the solar array the solar array land does connect to the old Liberty Mutual parcel building parcel um along they have a shared boundary for some some part of it correct so the right here is where the solar parcel would access Franklin Road so this is all open space down here okay and then the open space comes up it's a little narrow here around so all of this is the open space all this this includes the pond and then this is all a separate lot that's already been uh subdivided so this is not part of it then comes in here and gets that okay are there any other questions from anyone on the board all right I'd like to entertain a motion to endorse the anr plan for 69 Franklin Road so moved second all right roll call vote Elise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Bon is yes sorry Rob I missed the motion in the second who made those Matthew made the motion I think Parker made the second thank [Music] you all right moving on to item uh one C uh Wilson Street road damage discussion do we have Peter beus or I have an update for that for the board on that one um thank you beta talked to um Peter beamus and Vin last week there's still some work that needs to be done so they had a conversation on Friday Peter and Phil are going to work together to try and figure out the resolution to all of beta's comments and then they intend on presenting a resolution at the next planning board meeting on the 23rd so they are not discuss tonight good I uh I hope the next time we discuss it is the final time we discuss it so uh I'm glad they're working trying to work offline to get to a resolution all right minutes of August 19th 2024 uh anyone have any comments or uh adjustments theyd like sorry Rob those are still um being edited so those will be on the next meeting agenda okay all right we're on to Charles uh item two continued public hearing 147 Hayden Row charleswood Elementary School major project site plan and storm water management permit town of Hopkin Public School so where we were last time is uh there was some it was still under review from our peerreview consultant if I if my memory serves me correctly correctly and that's still the case yeah I'm sorry Chris you can take over I'm happy happy to um so when we last spoke we were still waiting on peer review comments I think for traffic and we had just recently received uh or we received right after the meeting we received the storm water comments um so the board should have had those available to them for the last few weeks um at this point we've reviewed those comments but with the delay in receiving them we didn't have time to formally submit with enough Advanced time that we could do a formal review get a clean letter and so we discussed it with John and we thought that it made the most sense for us to appear before you tonight and share some of our responses to those comments and some of the um adaptations that we're adding to the design from both the storm water perspective and also to respond to some of the traffic um comments and uh solicit any feedback that the board might have on the responses or our intended responses and then formally submit it in hopes of accelerating the process the one part of the process that has not occurred and I'm not really sure where it sits is the design review board I don't believe that they have met um unless I missed it John and so I wasn't sure where design review board fits in the process at this point in time yes so through the chair they had not met about this uh we were waiting until the new board got seated so now we can have a a new meeting since we have new board members so our goal would would be to solicit your feedback tonight um we have uh Samy Odis with us to present um along with transverse uh or Traverse um and then we also have venod kiler um from VHB to present on traffic and address any of the questions that are in the peer review I'm not sure if time Bond are with us today no okay yeah this is this is Chris brokas from time Bond I did the um storm water peer review um but did not do anything with the traffic that was another okay another person at the firm yeah so with that I'd turn it over to I think Michelle you're gonna walk us through um how you're responding to some of these comments yes thank you um so actually let me share my screen um is it possible to have the right to share my screen hey John I John will give you that uh permission yeah you should be all set now let me [Music] share uh so this is just the review memo and the first section is uh some of the zoning comments and actually Chris um I might to turn it back to you if you want to address yep um so regarding the um the height um and I don't know if it's been submitted because we're going to include it with our formal response but we did meet with the um board of appeals in um the fall of I believe last year and or it might have even been a year and a half ago now and they did um come to a finding that the do Amendment applied to the height of the building based on these circumstances which should um we'll include the um minutes of that meeting in our formal response but that should address uh item number one item number two and item number four were also addressed by um the do Amendment letter that should be in your um packet on this that was sent by the zoning enforcement officer in town um we do still plan to do what we can to address the number of parking spaces and that'll be part of our formal response um because we heard the committee and we feel that some additional parking spaces are necessary and um I think uh Ashley we did end up changing to the parallel parking spaces to make them 22 feet long is that correct uh I believe that is correct yes so we go ahead and we are still working towards increasing our landscaping and parking lots too um as we were pretty close before so that's something we're working towards as well um and I think that covers all four of these items thank you um and so now let me bring up the site plan so for the storm water comment um this so in the general layout we presented last time that we shifted the road up the rotary came up and we added these two additional parking so vehicular so we've added we added previously we presented that we added these two um we shifted and reduced this parking area the gravel over lot we created a paved parking here uh per the comment and then as part of conservation comments we shifted the road so that we would stay out of their buffers um and so it's balanced between the two Wetland here but the same general layout uh here so for going through and addressing the storm water comment um the storm water systems are really unchanging uh We've added additional um uh biofiltration units to be able to address some of the phosphorus so that's just underground structures that we've added in a few locations in where uh the storm water is being retained but not infiltrated um and then to address um and to uh so some of the comments were about the velocity of the water so to make sure that we've reduced the velocities as well um so to really prevent scouring and um to make sure that we're protecting in the neighbors we added a stealing Basin so it's a shallow Basin with some rip wraps um and it just allows the water uh that overflows from the larger Basin to kind of uh slowly kind of uh release into the woods and so there's RI WP to kind of help with that um so in terms of storm water design those are really the major changes um in the design from the piew comments and um we met with DCW and so we reduced previously we had two water lines tapping off the main and we have now combined that into one so now that one water line still follows the same path and it loops around the building and it goes into our fire pump here um and then so part of those changes were uh marking out where we have snow storage uh so so there's snow storage in the plans that we will be submitting the snow storage will be marked out and flagged on the site um and those are out of the storm water BMP area so any storm water bmps like the rain Garden or the bio retention Basin or the Swale snow storage would not be allowed and then it would not be in the Wetland buffers um so those areas would be flagged throughout the site um and then there was some layout changes in terms of um making sure that uh where we have all the curve cuts that they're Ada accessible um and then there were some planting changes for screening and so Ashley um if you're on the call and you wanted to kind of absolutely thanks Michelle uh do you mind zooming in just a little bit I hope everyone doesn't mind but I just not marked up this plan so that you could see in red exactly the comments we looked at reviewed um and and are starting to incorporate into the plans and I'll also not we've been getting great feedback from conservation as well as a butter so you're starting to see all these comments um filling in some of these blanks so up at the top I think we had some great feedback where um we are closest to the property line You'll see that north parking lot um about what we were doing there previously it was just a restoration mix but we are trying to add increased buffer there so now you'll see a very dense buffer planting combination evergreen trees some shade trees as well as an understory planting um so I think that's a a really big benefit and positive change similarly to the south of the site you'll notice along the parrot Loop uh we have also added additional buffer plantings which will be located along the slope and again that's just reinforcing the existing vegetation there and creating a a denser buffer for any of those abutters uh the South side's not as close as the north U but still a great benefit snow removal was noted um as a comment so we have started to locate snow removal areas within the parking lots on the plans um and then also trash enclosure was just another comment since feedback so we've located that and just marked that clearly off on the service area that any sort of dumpster will be covered with an 8ot trash enclosure as Michelle noted just trying to clean up some of our circulation the Bus Loop around the rear of the school uh will be closed during the daytime however we have still added ada8 tip downs and crossings into that play area too to make sure that's fully ADA Compliant um and then as I mentioned previously you know we were really close in some of those initial stes and getting the 10% so we're still working towards that and beefing up some of the parking lot planting to get some more shade in those parking areas and hopefully meet that 10% requirement um there was another comment in question about if our bus Loops were um accom it's okay you can stand this one accommodating enough um length for those buses so that they would not spill off into adjacent drives they are the Bus Loop has been um sized to accommodate 19 bus buses which is actually more than um currently planned for so it's slightly oversized um which we think is a positive and also going to help alleviate any sort of concerns with overflow into drive lanes and then Michelle if you just skip to the next uh plan I think the biggest change and I think one of the most positive changes was based on some conservation comments again realigning the roadway to stay out of that buffer zone um which was a major adjust adjustment but think a positive one and then at the entry or the secondary entrance from Hayden row we've also received some comments from a Butters so looking at uh increasing that buffer area on both sides of that entry Drive which has uh been another benefit to the plan um and then again noting snow stockpile areas across and then finally as Michelle um mentioned we have heard loud and clear the need for some more parking specifically maybe more paved parking spaces so you'll note that the Overflow parking area has gotten slightly smaller but we have Incorporated additional parking spaces closer to the school which we think will be much more functional for everybody and useful um is there any questions I can answer in terms of landscape um and then if there isn't um so some of the comment um from the peer reviewer and when we spoke that we have asked to be conditions of the approval is um a sequencing sequencing plan um for the construction so as part of the set um we did submit a general erosion and control um plan and a site prep plan and this just shows the overall site um and we do not intend uh or want that the entire site be uh clearcut and uh LOM stripped uh because we do understand it's a large site and to be able to control the site um would be challenging however um the contractor is not on board as part of uh unlike some of other projects where they come on early um so we are asking that as part of the condition of approval that the sequencing of uh the work be submitted uh prior to the start of construction but when the contractor comes on board um as part of the comments or response to the comments we will will be submitting uh a draft uh Swip uh so the soil erosion um uh plan uh would be submitted as a draft and then once we get the additional information of um contractor contact information and start date uh that would be then finalized and it would be submitted to the EPA and then uh submitted to the town uh prior two weeks prior to the start of construction um and then another um item that we're asking to be conditional of the approval is the infiltrometer testing on site do the chair I'm sorry I just go ahead Parker could you clarify that last point about the sequence of the contractor requesting for what they they want to not have to agree that they're not going to clear I just you you just lost me a little bit there if you could just go through that point again I'll take I'll take that one Michelle um so this is a publicly bid um job so we can include within the design documents what um we request that the contractor do whether it be uh provide a dewatering plan that addresses how they're going to deal with uh water on the site or provide a um site clearing plan for approval as part of the onset of construction but we will be required by law through a public project to award to the lowest um responsive and responsible bidder through a public bidding process so we are somewhat um tied to the winning biders approach to how they will address the site it can be conditioned as all things can be conditioned similar to how they'll have to go before the um or through the Conservation Commission agent to get approval of their erosion control as they start but um where we don't have the flexibility that a private developer has who can select um their contractor at any any point in order to do this at Hopkins we had the opportunity to bring the contractor on in advance and develop their approach to the site with them but that is not how the town has elected to bid this project okay that's Crystal Clear thank you all right um and then the other item that we're asking to be part of a conditional approval is the infiltrometer testing um that was part of the comment so we did do the uh deep test pits to classify the soils and to uh see where the high groundwater elevation is is um so we're showing that and that was part of the previous admission and how we've designed the uh systems uh to keep that two feet of Separation um and when we were modeling the recharge we're using a very conservative rate um but part of the peerreview comments is to do infiltrometer testing to verify the rate and if we used a rate that is equivalent to um um the soils just based on soil classifications it is a much higher rate and we weren't using that we were using a a much lower rate um so we are in the process of scheduling the infiltrometer testing um however we are requesting that it be a conditional uh approval item um as part of this process we aren't sure that we're going to be able to get that scheduled within the next six to eight weeks so that's part of the reason for the ask there we have to seek a um a proposal for someone to perform the testing as well as um get access out to the site for what I think is the fourth time to do additional um investigation um and so because that will take some time to set up we were um requesting that the board allow us to make that a condition of approval and not a um a completed and and a submitted thing we did a similar thing at Hopkins with the board as well as it relates to um test pits for the infiltration system um and that was successful on that project as well so uh I have I have a question can we uh in terms of I know I've seen this plan uh or with maybe some modifications several times can we talk about the queuing of buses versus the queuing of cars that pick up and drop off again so the buses are going to come on on around the the front of the school I guess I would call front Rob if I could we have venod um here from VHB to talk about traffic okay well hold I'll hold my question like to hold that for a second and we can talk about traffic all in one instance and sort of wrap up um storm water if if that's all right with the board yeah all it's all right with me so that is just running through kind of the general um plans and then so I don't know if there's any specific questions that relate to storm water or soil erosion or utilities um if not then we can just jump right into traffic or if there's any observations from the S sidewalk that you all had with uh Chris Kenny a couple of weeks back I think the only I think I think you covered this but it's gonna um once the developer is chosen there's going to be some um review by Conservation Commission because I think there's some concern with a a large area like this the transition from basically a what it is now a wooded environment to um basically being a construction site to actually a built out project what happens with the water in between um like being AI a fin a finalized project versus uh woods and then the construction site but you're going to go through Conservation Commission to to again for that transition period I I didn't fully understand no so um as part of we're gonna present the same storm water presentation to Conservation Commission tomorrow as part of the startup of the project Conservation Commission typically will include a site walk at the beginning of construction with the agent um what we have sort of discussed as an approach amongst the team is the idea of prior to mobilization or prior to allowing mobilization as a condition of the plans and specifications we would require them to submit and have approval of a dewatering plan for the site dewatering is design build by the contractor so we can give them parameters that they need to follow um but they ultimately did based on how they plan to approach the task of dewatering the site we don't tell them explicitly how to do that it's a designed build for lack of a better term of the contractor and so the thought is that we could include as a condition of the plans and specification certain items that they'll need to submit and receive approval of as part of the ramp up into the project um and then it's on the contractor to submit something that they feel will be accepted have it accepted and that would allow it them to begin their U mobilization on site and it would be something that um they would be held to in terms of are they meeting their requirements under the um under the contract okay all right I we we game planned a couple of different ways to do it and that's the one that sort of kept rising to the top okay it's that that uh seems to make sense to me so uh I'm happy with that any other questions from the board someone was gonna starting to make a comment who who was that oh that was um Michelle um from samis and so as part of the uh site preparation plan we do show areas uh called out for temporary uh dewatering basins and for um sedimentation basins um and we do size out the areas based off of the cgp and the Swip um based on how they recommend to size it for volume um so we do call out those areas um throughout the plan uh so the contractor is aware that um they are you know significantly sized areas um that would need to be used and to have swes to be able to direct the water there um so we are in development looking at the grades on the site on being able to place them while accommodating that you know it's not there's not a basin in the middle of where the building would be going um so we are looking at the existing and proposed topography to be able to place them throughout the site um in numerous areas uh because we do understand that it you know as they move through the site um they're going to be needed and they will be shifting kind of through construction okay so I'm going to stop sharing in venue you can take [Music] control thank you Michelle um uh this is VOD Kik with vhp I'm a senior Transportation planner and um the traffic engineer of record for this project uh so what I was hoping to do today as as uh Chris mentioned early on during the meeting um we haven't fully wrapped up our responses to comments on the PE review yet including the traffic peerreview comments we are close to finishing them and uh we we should be submitting them to the town uh in the near future but what I wanted to do today is touch upon uh some of the main themes that that we uh that we have outlined through the peer review process uh it was a very thorough and extensive review of the traffic study that that was included in the filing uh we have again the TI and bond comment letter um it's it's very technical as opposed to the site plan comments where you know you have a Graphic to see and and can understand what what's happening with drainage or Landscaping uh traffic peer viiew comments are are I would say uh very Tech technical in terms of like the methodology the assumptions that went into some of the analysis that that we presented in the study and some of the findings and the results that that came out of that analysis so uh just briefly uh if I were to categorize or group all of the comments that we received from tyan B into uh different uh categories I'd say there are four main categories of comments that we received uh the first set of comments uh are primar request for clarification so these are things like you know how did we do the seasonal adjustment of data like you know how how did we account for uh traffic variations during the course of the year uh how did we account for traffic growth in the future uh what analysis years were used and and why were those specific years chosen uh you know the questions uh related to whether or not the cues that would form at the new traffic signal at the marath on driveway whether that would impact adjacent intersections in that area uh and there were questions about clarifications for you know whether the two schools Marathon school and uh charleswood School whether they would operate during the same uh times or same hours of operation or if they would if there will be an offset in their operations uh there are whole series of qu uh clarification requests of that form which we we are going to go through uh and provide detailed responses with all the backup for each of those um then the second category of comments that we received was where they asked for additional information so this is where they reviewed the data presented in the traffic study and and asked for for more information and this has to do with uh the crash rate so there was a crash analysis that that we included which is a part of a typical traffic study we look at crash data over the past five years and kind of provide an analysis of of any patterns or any any uh recurring themes of how crashes are happening along this Corridor so we provided that analysis there's one year of data that we had skipped in the analysis it was 2020 which was it was a year where uh the data was uh as as you may recall was significantly affected by covid conditions with the travel restrictions so the data we felt was not usable for that reason but we analyzed everything else that was available but at the peer reviewers request we included the 2020 data uh they wanted to to include that information in the analysis in the crash analysis uh even though it was uh it was an atypical condition we we still included that um they asked for a traffic signal warrant analysis this is a justification for a traffic signal control so there are federal standards that Define when an intersection can be signalized um obviously we we did run the analysis we included a summary of the analysis but the appendex uh backup worksheets were missing uh so they asked for that analysis worksheets and we we are going to be including that as part of our response so uh and then uh there was a question about you know whether uh you know whether it would make sense or whether it be helpful to look at Police Department crash records the data typically required from a for a traffic studies is obtained from Mass do uh which is RMV data uh the crash data uh and the peer viwer asked if if we should be be reviewing uh police department crash records as well and um I'll touch upon that and a few other items at the end but uh one of the things uh that we are including in our response is that uh similar to any other project like this there will be a requirement for a post construction monitoring review of projects like this uh where you know the study itself is prepared based on a lot of technical assumptions and methodology that are all tied to National standards and and do guidelines uh but there's always a need to come back after the site is up and running the the school is occupied to come back and look at traffic volumes traffic patterns and see if we need to tweak anything as we go through that process so there are a few things that we are requesting that that that some of these uh comments be tied to that post construction monitoring and I'll touch upon those one of those being this looking at actual crash data from uh or crash data from the police Department in addition to looking at data from Mass do um then there were a series of comments that relate to suggestions or recommendations that the peer reviewer had uh and again this included things like you know that that the crash data should be monitored in the future uh compared to how the crash data uh looks now without the new school uh they recommended that cues be monitored in the future to compare to cues under the current conditions that we observed uh they suggested that crossing guard locations should be maintained in the future uh they asked or they suggested that future needs for changes in traffic control at other locations along the corridor for example at the high school driveways or or the Middle School driveway uh they asked uh you know that those should be taken into consideration uh as part of the future planning uh for this area uh they suggested that the design for the new traffic signal adhere to mass do standards which which it will be um one of their comments was uh was a suggestion to consider alternate intersection control rather than putting in a new traffic signal at the intersection of the marathon driveway and Hayden R Street they asked if other alternate Solutions like a roundabout should be considered or has that been considered for that location and a response would be that that intersection that area is severely constrained in terms of environmental uh considerations and right of impacts so we looked at various uh constraints I guess and came up with a solution that works best for that for the uh conditions that we're dealing with uh so we'll have a response to that effect saying that the most appropriate solution for that intersection is is a traffic signal control and not not something like a roundabout um they recommended that school zones and speed limit designations along the corridor be reviewed and we did acknowledge that in the traffic study that that should be done but with the changes that are being planned both in terms of the roadway traffic control as well as the new school and the and the future traffic patterns that's again one more area that that should be tied to a post construction monitoring study as opposed to looking at speed zones and and school zone designations under current conditions because the current conditions are what they are and the goal would be to see if we can use some of the improvements and some of the solutions that we're implementing along the corridor can help change some of those metrics the speeds and and traffic pattern so that we can come up with a solution that works for the future condition not not for what's out there today um there's a comment about Lane widths we are working uh both with DPW and Engineering uh on on the lane widths along hi rad Street and what what what makes sense both from a capacity point of view in terms of being able to process the amount of traffic that we estimate for for the corridor but also from a traffic caling perspective I mean the the intent is not to create a wide roadway with too many lanes and wide shoulders and and lanes that are too wide than they need to be because that'll again promote higher speeds uh for the corridor during off peak conditions so it's it's kind of a a delicate balance between capacity needs and traffic calming needs on on what what the appropriate cross-section for the roadway should be so we are working again with DPW and Engineering as well as with tyan one uh to make sure that the design that we're proposing which is essentially 10t Lanes with 4ot shoulders is is an appropriate solution for the corridor so that that will uh we continue to work with that uh comment with engineering and DPW as we go through the process um and then the final set of comments category of comments we got from the piew was related to the site plan uh and those are site plan related traffic comments uh one of the comments they had was about you know whether there should be a raised Island on this on the new driveway that that's being proposed uh for charleswood school and our recommendation position is that that Island should not be put in at this stage the intent is not to actually physically create an obstruction but rather use wave finding and parent instru ructions to make sure that they use the correct driveway when they're coming out of the site and not to put in physical obstructions that that would limit the potential to be flexible in the future um there were some comments about straightening out a crosswalk on the site we we're taking care of that uh they had recommended uh that we consider including uh the flashing beacons rapid uh rectangular rapid flashing beacons across the new driveway in addition to across headden R Street uh but since there is no sidewalk on the east side of Hayden R Street uh a flashing Beacon across the new charleswood school driveway does not make sense there's no sidewalk to control with that RFB and so we would clarify that uh and then the last comment I would say that they had on on the traffic studies related to what the chair was uh talking about uh I asked about which is the uh the bus circulation and the parent circulation uh around the site and I do have a couple of Graphics that we're working on that I can share um me just see while you're doing that venod one one of the things that Veno didn't mention but is definitely a concern for the esbc is the impact of this traffic on the neighbors and so one of the reasons that we're trying to strike a delicate balance with the lane width on Hayden row is to ensure that we um don't take more of the right of way than is necessary to meet the requirements of the project it's always a balance between safety um not affecting your neighbors and the sort of uh design intent so we're trying to strike that balance as best we can and that's part of those ongoing discussions with the DPW about what should be built in those locations thank you Chris um so are you able to see uh the site layout on the screen uh we have the list of peer review responses oh okay sorry all right if you can see it now correct there we go thank you so this is the overall site plan there are a couple of Graphics that get into the traffic circulation the first one that I mentioned uh just now was about uh one of the comments that said uh whether they should be a channelizing island on this driveway coming out of the site that would force all traffic to turn right because this is an unsignalized driveway the signalized driveway would be farther to the north at the at the marathon driveway so this driveway would primarily uh serve right turning traffic though that's really the traffic that would benefit from coming out of an unsignalized driveway anyone that wants to turn left could and most likely will after the first week or two to use this cross connection to use the marathon driveway to make a left turn at a at a protected traffic signal control at the intersection of the marathon driver and Hayden R Street uh but uh I think our our uh response would be that this restriction or or the right turn should not be enforced with a with a physical Island it's it's more of a suggestion that that you know parents should use the cross connection to make a left turn uh there there should be you know a physical restriction here would essentially reduce the flexibility to modify the the circulation in the future should we find a different circulation pattern works better for the actual operation so that that was the first uh first point that I made earlier uh but when we come down to the actual uh site layer around the building so traffic coming into the site either coming off of Hayden row Street or VI the internal cross connection would travel through the roundabout uh on the site the new roundabout and then drive past uh uh the the Wetland areas that Ashley mentioned earlier and then once you get to this point right here in the bend in the road uh that's a decision Point parents would peel off and travel to the left of this area and they would go down uh this driveway to go around clockwise uh the building that would be the parent drop off whereas buses would continue to go around the bend and then turn around here at the the front of the school and use the the oneway loop the counterclockwise Loop that goes uh in front of the school so those two movements are shown in this graphic in color so the parent operation once you get past this point and there is on street parking uh or uh perpendicular parking along the driveway so this section of the driveway would be two-way operation uh but once you get past the parking the rest of this Loop driveway that goes around the school would be a one-way one-way driveway for parent uh queing pick up and drop off operations so can I can can I stop here so the buses the buses are going to C where the blue dash line is the buses are going to be in queue in that in that location how many buses can be fit there uh So based on the number that Ashley mentioned earlier this has been designed for 19 buses how many buses service the school I believe it's about 11 or it's two waves of 11 because they also service the marathon school and so there'll be a wave of buses that will come to the charleswood school and at the same time there'll be a wave of buses that goes to the marathon school and then they will when they've each load they'll swap uh similar thing is done now with marathon and Hopkins so rather than having the buses continue down Hayden row between marathon and Hopkins the buses will now circulate with marathon and charleswood and it should actually reduce the overall number of buses that are in town or bus stops that are in town okay so the buses once they leave they're going to be trying to make a left turn with parents trying like fundamentally parents trying to go in front of them to to basically to pick up their children at the back side of the school so the the parents will um there's a couple of things here that I just want to highlight so it's clear because the teams discussed this at length um over the history of this job there's a gate at the end of the proposed building I don't know if you can highlight that venod um there's one gate down at the bottom and there's a gate up at the top um basically where that new highlighted Edition is and that would be closed during the day so that during school hours these roads would serve as um closed to the public so that we don't have safety concerns with the kids the end of the school day those Gates would be opened and so parents could queue up to those Gates um at the top of the plan and wait and begin to form the queue by moving the gate back that que could form all the way down what would be staff parking um and I don't know ven note if you have the number of cars that can fit in that length from but I I guess my my question is there could be parents queued all the way up blocking the ability for a bus to leave that would have to be managed with um striping and and it's not um it's not that different than what's going on in a lot of the other schools currently at Hopkins it has a shared driveway that everybody comes into the parents are diverted first they do back up but the road is wide enough so that they can back up with the buses can still get by um there chair wouldn't we we drop like where the crosswalk is on the top left of the map you zoom in yeah right there like we already know today there's a crosswalk guard at like Marathon for example that's you know stopping you know parents from coming in and allow buses to go so it's like could be reason to assume that there could be Personnel to make sure that happens but I see I see your point I see what you're saying how there could be a choke point but I just I don't know I feel like we could expect like somebody to be to be there potentially directing traffic well like as soon as like with that blue arrow is the bus is going to exit hit the stop sign go to the stop sign and then yep then there's there's going to be parents without any mitigation or any any without some type of human control from my point of view there potentially could be parents just queed in in front of that intersection but we're we're assuming that they're queuing at the bottom correct and they're looping all the way around or opposite way yeah right at that wrong yeah they're queuing clockwise and the CH that's I think this you rightly pointed this might be another choke point at the start of the bus where bus entry and yeah that's the way there might be also challenging out there so if the parents are leaving and the bus are coming across you know this might be a choke point again could could I ask one other question where is the kids actually going to be picked up in the back of the school like where where is the like actually do you do you have the specific location it's going to be the um the South right there where you are vode so the um the intent is that they would Gather in cafeteria which is to the south of the building and load in that area so the line of parent starts at that point and wraps around the back of the building so once the gates are open and once the gates are open from that point all the way to the uh staff parking how many car yeah how many cars do you think can cue there so this is Ashley I just measured that number because I figured it would come up so there's over 85 cars that can Quee up so if you see where my pink line was sorry I was drawing doing a terrible job drawing that length but if that's where we say the drop off is going to happen for the cars you have over 85 cars are able to stack along before you get to kind of that intersection that we were discussing at first so just part of that parking lot up top just past that orange line Ashley is that the intersection at the end of the parking or the intersection at The Rotary and just the end of the parking I'm not even counting the rotary yeah exactly so that's your end point and then if you move that cursor straight up page North yep all the way around keep going going going going going I would actually say that the que is really going through this parking lot too so I think all your conversations and these comments are really great and we flipped this drop off multiple times I think the reason we ended here is the ability to cue um many more cars um with this length and dropping off the same point the other thing that this allows us is the parent drop where the cars are actually dropping off you're much more proximal or you're pretty proximal to the building so you actually have this drop off where kids are really exiting buses cars at the same time the separation between buses and cars and how the stacking is being organized here is is substantially better and more stacking here than what what what you currently observe at at uh Elwood and one of the reasons was that you know one of the design criteria we we made sure we used righton early on in the process was to make sure that there's enough stacking distance to be able to accommodate the long cues that that Ashley is talking about um I mean 85 I mean you 85 car even all of this area this whole area can be stacked without any interference with with the intersection out here uh and and the buses can come out and leave so I think from a design perspective this this length of stacking uh is adequate to accommodate the needs for this school for the future projections 10 years out that that's the design criteria is there any analysis of like the likelihood of a parent dropping off or picking up a child in this school versus say like the Middle School which is historically been Sixth sth and eth this school is going to be uh 234 or that is that Hopkins I'm confusing Rob is your question is the likelihood that parents will have to pick up at multiple schools no my question is like for every 10 students in middle school maybe one.5 parents picks up in this school is it three par three parent visits for every 10 kids is it higher or lower than like say the middle school because like I personally have just experienced that the last three years so I know what that's like um so I'm trying to compare it to something I'm familiar with is the propensity parents pick up kids more at younger ages or or less um I don't know if anyone from the school would have a an answer to that we could certainly ask them that question I I would answer that from a a traffic study perspective and I know the school staff that that's here might might have more specific answers to that question uh uh but the way this traffic study has been prepared we actually measured we actually counted the number of vehicles that each of these schools at Marathon at Elmwood at at Hopkins at at high school middle school so these are based on actual Camp so you talk about you know is there a higher tendency for parents of students of a certain age to to drive versus versus use other modes like bus or or other modes of travel uh that's already built into the data the analysis is based on actual traffic counts PR rated for the future enrollment projections that we have from the msba so that that metric is built in but I don't have an exact number as you know three parents for every 10 students type of a metric but it's it's built into the actual data that we observed at each of the schools okay one one more question and then uh I'll open up to the rest of the board if they have questions so this is going to adding a traffic light at Marathon school is going to basically now bring traffic lights at the center of town at uh the traffic light right kind of in front of the exit from the Middle School traffic light at Marathon school and then a traffic light at Chestnut the intersection of Chestnut Street in Route 85 and there's going to be approximately four thousand or so kids entering this area and exiting this area on a daily kind of a daily basis throughout the school year I'm assum I'm I know you talked about the traffic signals being in in kind of in coordination or that's what the peer review consultant asked about but what about like specifically for Marathon school when it's not uh start of school or end of school is the traffic light going to be active so is it going to be active at like 8:00 at night uh the recommendation would be that it be uh active in the sense that it'll stay on green when there's nobody on the D there are sensors that are built into the driveway so that there will be sensors that would detect if there's a vehicle leaving marathon School driveway at say you know 315 or or 245 uh the sensor would trigger uh the the traffic controller and that would change the light to Green for the signal heads uh pointing towards Marathon school but let's say at 7:00 p.m. if there's no one on the marathon School driveway the lights just stay on green for uh hidden roast strey just just as if there was no signal uh and the reason I would suggest that it be left on as opposed to uh put it on flashing or some other mode is that uh for the crosswalk to benefit the the proposed crosswalk across Hayden Rose Street to benefit from the push button actuation uh currently the two signals the one at grow Street by by the middle school and and the one at Chestnut Chesnut Street the distance between those two signals is just over a mile so in that whole one mile stretch of road currently you you don't have a a protected signalized crosswalk you do have a flashing Beacon controlled crosswalk Marathon school you have a couple of unsignalized uh Crossing controlled crosswalks but but the only signalized crosswalks that you have in over a mile of a roadway Corridor out there today is is the one at grow Street and the one at Chestnut Street and what this design brings is is a new traffic uh signalized Crossing almost halfway in between those two signals so it's about uh you know it's probably a little bit closer to to the grow Street signal than Chestnut Street but again this this signal would be the the the crossing the protected crossing that's that's been missed for for quite a while and we've heard a lot of comments about the need for a safe pedestrian Crossing along this section of Hayden R Street and this design brings that and the only way you can have an actuated crosswalk with pedestrian indications working at any time of the day whether it's school hours or not is to actually have uh the signal operate you know in a in a regular fashion 24/7 in an actuated Moree but the expectation is that outside of the school hours the signal would would rarely get called so it would stay green for Hayden Rose Street north south for the most part of the day except during school hours through the chair go go ahead Karen thanks just quick question is and I appreciate the explanation um but in terms of the the crosswalk at that at that signal or at that light I thought you had indicated earlier that there there are no sidewalks there right so isn't that going to be kind of dangerous for people even crossing the street than they're just walking on what the side of the road especially if it's I mean adults are going to be bad enough but having for bid to be kids is that is that true that there are no sidewalks there there are no sidewalks on the east side of Hayden R Street there's a sidewalk on the west side of Hayden R Street and then there's a sidewalk along the marathon driveway can you go back to the last uh plan you had up the overall that way we can sort of highlight where the sidewalk sorry thank you that'd be helpful yeah so uh and I apologize the intersection itself is cut off here but but this is where the the marathon driveway intersects with Hayden R Street there's a sidewalk on the west side of the road that runs up and down the corridor on the west side there is no sidewalk on the east side of uh Hayden Road street through this area but there is a sidewalk on the marathon School driveway and it does loop it around and the school property and there is a connection to EMC Park so there's always been uh there was discussion about like you know is there another alternative a safer way for pedestrians to access for example the EMC Park WEA the Gated access as opposed to just walking uh along Hayden row Street on the sidewalk and then Crossing at a busy section without a protected uh crosswalk and this would this Crossing would provide that opportunity to access some of the amenities on the east side uh but yes there is no sidewalk on the east side of of hro Street as as you pointed out but that sidewalk would feed into Marathon school and we are proposing a sidewalk that would feed into charleswood school and we're proposing a sidewalk along the east side of the Connector Road between the two okay so there'll be a sidewalk on this Edge there'll be a sidewalk on the south side of the new driveway that would wrap around and bring uh pedestrians to to the childwood school as well and that would replace what are currently the rapid um beacons that are at the marathon driveway now that is correct all right does anyone else have on the board have any other comments or questions Jane I did you raise your yeah I was wondering if there is a sidewalk around um the drop off line uh Po in in the back you mean yes there's a sidewalk that runs uh yes but not if I made there's a sidewalk that runs the entire length of the drop off so ample Plaza space that you see in the front and then also you know cars aren't promoted to be dropping off in the rear of the school they should really be going up to the drop off where they'll have hopefully management of kids getting out of the cars but there is a sidewalk that runs that whole length right okay the chair how wide is that driveway Michelle do you mind confirming that I believe it's 24 feet hold on one second let me pull that up yes uh the roads are 24 okay thank you so emergency vehicles would be able to even if the cars were lined up emergency vehicles could get around them yes that's the intent it's single stacking so there'll be you know a whole side for emergency vehicles thank and also for for bypass generally if someone in the back of the queue wanted to leave they would not be stuck behind you know 40 or 50 cars that they there's there's a way for them to leave safely and Ashley do you have the um the Q length in feet that you measured that got you the 85 cars I think it was 17 don't quote I like 1,700 so just for comparison um we just opened the revised Queue at Hopkins for any parents who have been dropping off there and the revised Q is about 300 feet um which is I want to say about probably don't quote me on this 150 ft longer than it was before so we're significantly longer than what the queue that we just added at um Hopkins is and when Hopkins is done it's going to be at 450 for just uh comparison sake yeah so 1,700 feet is a really long carc go ahead any Lucia go ahead um I just wanted to get more information about the speed limits because I think there was some um explanation as to not changing speed limits until after the schools open and some studies are done so I just wanted clarification on that um so again the the official the speed limit signs that you see on on public ways the the the white sign with the black lettering and says speed limit 30 m per hour speed limit 40 m hour that's that's governed by state law and when an official speed limit sign needs to be changed there needs to be done uh there's actually a prescribed process that mass do recommends that that the applicant follow one of one of the requirements is to actually measure the speed on the road and and use that as a as a benchmark to understand what the speed of the road should be uh what what the prevailing speed is on the road so if you were to go out and measure the speed today and if the complaint is that people are speeding through that Corridor the chances of being able to convince Mass do that the speed limit should be reduced for traffic caling purposes is are slim however if we are able to implement some of the measures that we're talking about traffic calming the new traffic signal that that meters the traffic between the two existing signals the speed profile and the traffic patterns on the Road are going to be different once charleswood school is open and up and running so a speed study done at that time with with the new traffic pattern and all these measures in place would have have better chance of of you know for us to be able to make a better better case to mass do that the speed limit should be reduced through this Corridor and not not maintain it for example there are some 40 m per hour speed limit sections on this section of hiden R Street and the goal would be to help reduce that and and the chance are better if we did that after after the improvements are in place and Veno just to emphasize that it's not within the Project's ability to change the speed limits on Hayden grow okay so through the chair that means that then that driveway is going to be 40 miles an hour I'm sorry not not not the driveway no I mean the the road like as you're coming out from the school or going into the school you're going into 40 m hour traffic H row Street you mean yes H row Street uh it's part of the traffic study I don't have that graphic but there are it's it's a mish mash of speed limits it varies from 20 M hour when flashing you know the school zone speed limit to 40 so there's a 20 m per hour there's I believe there's a 30 or 35 and then there's a 40 there are multiple speed limits in this section and it does get quite confusing like every several hundred feet you encounter a different speed sign and the goal would be to make it all consistent and keep it at a speed that's that's reasonable for a road of of this type so it's not all 40 mile per hour it varies and venod we would recommend that we extend the school zone speed limit to include that driveway correct is correct yeah this again this this driveway with the crossing across uh hro street that we would have would require that we change the school zone designation on Hayden r stre Street to include this driveway within it so the limits of the school zones would be shifted farther to the South to include this new driveway okay and through the chair that's done after the school is open or before the school is open or the speed zone designation that can be done by the town as part of the school project that's that's usually done through the board of Selectmen uh when there is a speed limit school zone speed designation that needs to be implemented that that doesn't need to go to mass do uh that can be done by the board of selectman okay thank you all right uh Chris did you have uh did you or your team have any more uh to present tonight um I I think that was it I think we wanted to just understand the feedback from the board and um if we can certainly try and answer some of the questions that were raised as part of the various discussions but our goal would be to submit what we've presented formally for the peer reviewer to um weigh in on and additional supplementary information if there is any to address any of the questions that were raised and other than that um we'd look to come back to you at your next meeting um having given you enough time to re review the formal sub submitt and um hopefully begin to wrap this up pending our appearance before the design review board okay one last opportunity uh going once going twice going three times on the questions from the board we ready ready to move on for tonight do the chair go ahead Lucia so I think my only um other comment would be it sounded like DPW and hopkinson's police department we're both in favor of the raised Island for that uh no left turn driveway so that's one of the things that I feel like we should consider that if DPW well I think maybe DPW said we should plan ahead that they don't necessarily know if that's what we should be doing um but that they think that having a no left turn sign is not going to do it is kind of the gist of what I understood so if we're not going to do that then we need to have some other alternative option the chair could could I respond to that comment sure go ahead yeah so again the intent is is not to force vehicles to make a right churn I guess the intent of showing that right churn restriction on the driveways is to suggest that the best movement at that intersection would be a right turn only cu the left left turn at an unsignalized intersection as as you would have experienced along this Corridor is is going to be relatively more difficult than making a right turn so that's really the only reason why we were showing the the right turn arrow with the no left turn sign I mean it it's it's conceivable that you don't Implement any restriction you know the the school will go through uh internal wave finding signage and parent Communications before the school year begins on on the the movements that parents need to make to travel in different directions and I would say that within the first couple of weeks parents will figure out the best movements that turns that they need to make a different intersections and then we would come back with the traffic monitoring study after the fact and if it makes sense to physically restrict that right churn I'm saying that that's the time it would make sense to put in the island uh alternately we might find that you know allowing full access at that intersection still does not you know make parents go there because they know that it's easier to go to the marathon driveway to make a left turn at a signal so why limit the future uh possibilities by building a physical Island on the driveway when you still have the opportunity to put that in you know 3 months after the school opens or six months after the school opens I mean there is we will be coming back to look at traffic in the future after the school goes in and I would respectfully submit that that would be the time to consider those types of physical restriction ious Ju Just to kind of uh my my perspective is at the high school they have a a sign saying don't exit the main entrance to the high school between certain hours and they direct you to like the the Loop Road exit that's the like you enter on Hopkins that's where you exit during school hours I don't know I I'm envisioning something something like that um only difference is that there is no signal at either of those intersections today whereas here you would have a signalized left turn at the marathon driveway so that that's that's really the primary difference here okay uh John do I need to continue uh either the decision date or uh I need to I need to continue the the hearing I guess yes you need to continue the hearing date I'm just looking for the decision deadline uh we need to extend the decision deadline for the storm waterer management permit the site plan is not uh does not need to be extended and what's the date for the we need to extend the storm water management decision date um we usually do it like a week or 10 days after the next meeting so if we have the meeting on the 23rd it would be October 2nd I don't know what's the weekday in October let's see October 2nd would be a Wednesday so that would be fine or October 3 all right I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for the new charleswood school to September 23rd uh and for major site plan review and storm water management plan and continue and extend the decision date for the storm waterer management uh permit to October 2nd so move thanks thanks Matthew all right roll call vote uh Elise mayosi yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prati yes and Rob Benson is yes thanks thanks everybody thanks Chris and everybody for coming and uh giving us an update thank you hopefully we can uh get something and wrap this up next time all right great all right next thing on our agenda is zero Benson street we uh we H we had a discussion about this at one of our prior meetings um Mr KO are you on the on the call uh Donna are you gonna speak on behalf of Mr KO yes thank you chairman Benson how are you this evening I'm good good um so I sent submitted a letter to uh the board at the end of last week just I think highlighting what the concerns of the board are which are number one the completed gift to Halt and number two the ex exceptional circumstances which the original plan were um approved on in my letter I just highlighted that it's our position that the gift to Halt was a completed gift um halt did not lead the need the land their proposed Greenway never transpired and halt released us of that gift so therefore reverting the lot back to us to be able to do what we wanted to do that's the first item that I've addressed the second item is the extenda circumstances now we have a situation where the gift is not necessary we gave money to Halt and now Mr KO and Mrs KO have a lot that they've been paying on for a number of years as a buildable lot that they would like to use and it's a burden it's a burden it is a hardship to them and I think the board has to look at the extenuating circumstances of the hardship that this is going to have on them does any does any member of the board have any questions for Mrs Miss Mrs wolf um I I'll just provide my my feedback uh I I don't see it that way um I don't agree with your uh opinion on this matter um if anyone on the board does they are welcome to come forward um that's that's my current current way uh thought thinking so there was an understanding that the land would be donated and in put in conservation restriction uh it wasn't done it should have been done um it doesn't make it now just uh in my opinion a buildable lot um well it is a buildable lot the Town recognizes it as a buildable lot Mr Benson it well they tax it as a buildable lot maybe I misspoke but it's not uh able to be built on right now because of that decision through the chair and I think go ahead go ahead Parker is conservation land taxable no well so it's right now applicant so the applicant if it was as the intended a land would have been taxed it wouldn't have been their they wouldn't have owned it anymore is the difference either thank you go ahead Matthew um so looking at the letter dated September 5th um it it sounded like the applicant was looking at other land that they could have swapped out so I'm just I'm wondering how that's going as a potential certainly I'll be glad to address that um we are talking to people we are trying to find an alternative if the board is unwilling to um you know approve the plan as it is but I think the bigger question um Mr Rona is if we find this land are you going to approve our plan that's that's the question and I think that's a legitimate um thing that we need to address I don't think we can make a decision based off of a hypothetical and um it's unrealistic to think we're going to provide that uh on a hypothetical all right so we are we are trying to talk to a few people we do have um one piece of land that actually may a but current open space that the town has um but again it's it's a financial discussion that the komos have to make um to be able to do this okay Jane go ahead um I would suggest if you're talking to other people about looking for some open space that you actually talked uh to the chairman of the open space Conservation Commission um they have an active ongoing list of various properties throughout the town of various sizes and shapes that AB but certain open space already and that might be would be willing to discuss we can certainly you know my client would certainly look into that but at you know at this point we have we have started the process to look into that because it would have to be accepted through open space if that were the case because they take on responsibilities of conservation restrictions as well I understand that thank you any other comments from the board or questions from the board Mr antonellis go ahead yes Mr chairman thank you for the opportunity I just want to note for the record that uh my client appeared at the uh hington town hall on Friday to check to see if there had been any submissions and as of Friday the N9 the letter that stated 95 was not available I also did not find it available on the uh the town's website this morning that might be my lack of ability to find things but uh if the letter was submitted on 95 my client did appear at the Town Hall on Friday which is after that and the letter was not in the file um so I would just make the point that those of the public that ordinarily have access uh to information were not given access to the information that attorney um uh has uh has met the attorney wolf has mentioned earlier uh secondly I think that attorney wolf is um making a very disingenuous argument about the hardship that Mr Mrs KO failed uh because they've been paying taxes on a billable lot every year um note that Mr KO testified to you that he forgot to record the deed so I would think that the tax bill uh that must have come a year after the subdivision was approved should have served as a reminder to Mr and Mrs Kom that they had previously agreed agreed uh to uh donate the land uh to Halt and by the way not only did they agree to donate the land the planning board at the time find that found specifically that the exceptional circumstances related to the waiver was the grant of the land they found no other exceptional circumstances uh there's nothing in the record that shows that the planning board relied on anything else to justify the extension of the cisac and and and wave the right the the necessity of building the additional roadway um again I I I believe that there is a constructive Trust on the property um I set that forth in my letter that was submitted at the beginning of this hearing um I have not wavered in in that position uh I don't think while while Mr Mrs KO have legal title to the property um they are benefiting the continued ownership of it by the fact that they failed refused or neglected and again perhaps they did just simply neglect or forget to do it but the fact of the matter is is that a but forgetting to do something does not re does not remove you of your responsibility to do that I think the board can um find another solution other than a land swap which by the way my client uh relied on that that that's that's part of what's important here uh the people at the meeting when this sub subdivision approved relied on the promise that that land would stay as open space and so what happens to those people that sat there and relied on promises for someone that got the benefit of building a home on property that otherwise could not have been built on so I I think the Board needs to keep in mind what the original intention of Mr and Mrs Kom was and what the original reason or what the the fundamental reason that the prior planning board granted the approval so uh I just want to reiterate that position and uh I don't I don't think that a substitution of land from another part in town satisi satisfies the underlying uh circumstances which were that the abutter relied on the promise of Mr Mrs KO to leave open space next to their home and and and had had they not had the board granted that approval at the time perhaps my client would have appeal that decision my client can no longer appeal that decision because the time has gone and again because he was satisfied that the the board had imposed a condition that favored the neighborhood um and to simply just regard that condition at this point we think is unjust to the other people in the neighborhood and provides unjust enrichment to those who forgot to do what they were supposed to do thank you thank you Mr antonellis uh John can can we help guide where our public uh documents are they're in a Google Drive uh attached to our meeting minutes our meeting so um I think what Mr antonelis is referring to is the hard copy file and this was emailed to me on Thursday I work from home on Friday it just didn't make it into the paper file no one reached out to me I would have sent this to your client if they had contacted me directly um I'm guessing nobody in the office knew that it was in my email because it was only sent to me in the chair um so that would explain that otherwise I put it in the shared file which is publicly available you can access that through the memo that is attached to the calendar invite it has a publicly accessible Google drive folder and I generally upload things uh to there as soon as possible or at least before the planning board meeting chairman Benson do I have an opportunity to respond to Mr anelis sure thanks thanks John for thanks John for the giving that overview go ahead um well I can appreciate Mr antonellis I I feel that the intent of the original decision was was pretty flawed and Mr and Mrs KO are paying for that flawed decision the intent of halt was not just this piece of land but other land and not thinking through the ramifications of if this Greenway never got built what happens to this piece of land it it just sits there it's a one and a half acre lot that isn't really going to be used for anything I'm I'm going to use your lovely project that you showed at the very beginning as an example of excellent use of land of halt and open space you have uh a solar array that would be unsightly but with the benefit of the halt land and open space it protects it it hides it it's a true benefit to the town of Hoppington this one piece of land which was supposed to be part of a larger parcel is never going to happen and to prevent Mr and Mrs KO from utilizing this land in something that would be very beneficial to the town additional tax revenue it would also be beneficial to the komos they would be able to generate some income for themselves as they get older it is a good use of the property in the setting that it's in that's that's all all right Mr anel uh then we're just briefly I I find it very interesting that attorne attorney uh wolf was not at the original hearings um has found if she's found something in the record that indicates that halt was taking the land Solly because they were going to add it to something else then she's done a better job of researching the situation than anyone I know and she has a better memory for what my client never heard at the meeting than than my client does who went to the meetings and still has original notes from it so again I think this this this statement to you that this was some kind of a mistake is simply um a a an attempt obviously to to gain um approval for her clients and that's her job I understand that but let's let's not kid ourselves this was brought to the board on two occasions prior to the approval and it was dismissed the buard wasn't interested in it what happened was Mr Mrs Kom hired attorney Doug Resnik and Doug Resnik came in and made a very good presentation to the board and Mr will compliment him on that explaining that if you cut this piece off and left it as open space it would provide um open space for the for Mr and Mrs hernis and other neighbors in there and Mr Miss Koo agreed to do that and the benefit to them was a residential building lot in the town of hackington for which they did not have to build a roadway all they had to do was build a driveway so I I'm not quite certain where this other land that was going to be um going to be joined with and where that is all in the record because I've never found it and that's thank you m Mr antonellis I'll be glad to share that for you um I'll send it an email to you tomorrow where that is in the minutes where um halt describes this as the southeasterly corner of a proposed Greenway I'll be more than glad to send that to you in the record great all right we're we're gonna um if you uh Mrs wolf if your client wants to pursue providing alternate land options I think that is a a a reasonable Pursuit I uh I don't think the board is ready to move forward on a on a hearing towards approving uh a an amendment um John do we do we continue this what do uh so the board can continue it or um I guess it's up to attorney wolf if they I would request request a continuance please so yeah I would say continue to um September 23rd or did you want to go to a later date how long do you think it would be to get an answer on the open space I think if we could do the 23rd um Mr guch um we like to give it a try please and the do I to extend the decision date John yes [Music] the make sure I'm looking at the right one too many pages no the decision is due October 23rd so we should be all set all right uh for the board I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for zero Benson Road to September 23rd Matthew do uh for a second Matthew do you have a comment I I just had a a comment or question if it sounds like uh the applicant's not going to be close to having something to talk about in terms of a land swap um I think we'd all appreciate having a uh as much advanced notice to that it's going to be continued given the interest in the public certainly hearing thank you we will make our best efforts sir thank you all right so we have who uh someone made the motion who made that motion uh it's me Vic Vic do we have a second second thanks Matthew all right roll call vote uh Alis meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Ranka yes Michael King yes Parker hap yep Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes all right we're on to our uh final hearing of the night uh Jem item four um continued public hearing for 37 East Street New England Labor Training Center so Rob they requested a continuation um without any discussion they so yeah so just a little background on status of this one uh we're waiting on the balance of the consultant review deposit from the applicant they got it to us like last Thursday so the consultant hadn't started their review yet so they recognize that request a continuation um since they knew there wasn't gonna be any discussion tonight okay do do I need to uh so got to continue the public hearing do I need to move a decision date yes the stormw Water Management permit is set for September 17th so we'd have to move it to October 2nd all right I'd like to entertain a motion to continue the public hearing for the major site plan and storm water management permit for uh Labor Training uh Center 37 East Street to September 23rd and the decision date for the storm water management permit till October 2nd second second who was the first I think I was John Mike and then Vick or Mike or Matt Matthew Vick right thank you uh roll call vote Elise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso prati yes and Rob enson is a yes we don't uh normally uh I was wondering John is is it within bounds to talk about like future agenda items um you can mention which ones you want to talk about but you can't actually like discuss them no I was wondering I wanted to ask the board if they had any future agenda items that they wanted like uh does anyone because one thing I was um not that it's before our board but uh the what's before the zoning board of appeals might be worth us discussing as a board um I thought that but I didn't know if anybody else on the board had any future agenda items they'd like to uh discuss so that ch um is that I mean apart from what John sends us the agenda this as a board members we can add an additional agenda yeah yeah exactly okay I might be adding something regarding my street but it would be in the capacity of a private citizen I don't know if I can do that in official capacity so I'm not sure if that's relevant to the question you're asking I guess I was thinking it would be worthwhile to discuss maybe in the next meeting what the applicant is trying to do in in in front of the zba uh versus going the normal route of to change zoning before the planning board but other than that I don't uh that was one thing I was thinking about Matthew go ahead um some of the stuff that's in front of the Zach I think there was a time concern about when we'd be discussing it I'm not sure if it makes sense to discuss before we'd have to have a discussion on it anyway um so I'm just what are you uh the MBTA no I I I mean I think the NBTA is the earlier that we're able to discuss that the better right um one of the concerns that was raised in the past was that there wasn't enough guide uh time for the public to really be involved um but there was a when you're talking about stuff that's in front of Zach I just want to make sure that we're no I'm talking about what's in front of the zba there's a I thought you said gas station there's an applicant looking for a use variance to put a gas station on rural B District a district rural a district just a district a district sorry I I wonder what the benefit of of discussing something in front of another board would be also Rob to that point um if it does get a variance they will be coming before the board for site plan and storm water so I don't know if the board would want to discuss that project before it's a potential application yeah okay all right all right I think uh I think uh I know the best route of what I want to get accomplished Lucia go ahead um so one of the things that came up uh one of the questions that came up for me in listening to Zach at their last meeting is if maybe it makes sense for the planning board to have a better idea of what open space is looking for when somebody is looking to donate land to them and so I don't know if that's something that it would be good to hear from open space um at one of our meetings or how we would go about doing that but that was one of the questions that I had okay Matthew go ahead yeah I'm just thinking about some of the work that the board has done in the past also that we could uh resurface if we did have some open time um there were a number of sidewalks that we had planed we could talk with uh DPW and and other parts of town about uh improving connectivity again there was a lot of discussion in the past about connecting between the two sides of town for instance past 495 um and other uh other areas that were identified that potentially could be of service but a lot we could talk about as a board without um more research being done there I think for the most part any I just want to empower the board if there's an agenda item you want added to the the meeting you can uh send an email to John maybe CC me and um the agenda is can be a collection of all of our best ideas so we obviously have the things we have to do um in terms of public hearings and all that but we can carve out time to talk about things that uh would benefit the community uh uh so um but for tonight I think it's a great time for us to wrap up so I'd love to entertain a motion to adjourn for this evening so moved second thanks Matthew thanks Parker roll call vote Alise meowski yes Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes vicaso pry yes and Rob Benson is yes thanks everybody have a great night thank you