e through the chair you're live on hcam TV don't see Rob right now so trying to take a look at how many people we've got um see we know if John said he was going to be on there he is uh to looks like we just got five Matthew Michael Michael just signed on so I've got you Jane Lucia Karen and Michael uh did Rob reach out if he was going to uh I spoke to him today so he was planning on attending I heard from Vic that he wasn't going to attend and I have not heard anything from Parker or Elise okay I would here's fine to give another couple minutes yeah there's Parker especially because I don't have the script anyway hey Park we're just going to give uh anybody else another minute or two see if they sign in uh we expect Rob to be here so he didn't forget there's a planning board meeting and he not at the Celtics game all right Rob is logging in now I see a mom without audio there he is and Elise just signed on so I think everybody is here who said they would be here awesome let me uh let me start by reading the remote meeting script and uh we'll get right into our agenda hope everyone's having a good Monday good start to the week so uh let me get going here pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means in ordance with applicable law this means that members of the public body as well as members of the public May access the meeting via virtual means participants May access 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 M 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 the call uh leis meowski present thank you uh Lucia Lopez present Matthew Ronka present Michael King present Parker hap present Jane Moran present Karen Wills present and Rob Benson is present and vicaso uh we got a we got a note just before before the meeting that he wasn't going to be able to make it so we got eight of our nine board members and uh the for staff John guch present and Lori St John present thank you thanks all right so let's just uh in terms of tonight's agenda we've got administrative items which is to continue our MBTA communities discussion uh Form K uh lot release which basically makes lots available for the developer to sell um approve minutes or talk about the minutes of June 3 then we have two public hearings uh 90 and 104 hay and row which is the Hopkins school edition and then we've got a continued public hearing for East zero East Main Street which is the pickle ball uh facility that we talked about last meeting my hope is that we can get through both of those public hearings and get to a vote uh so that's kind of uh I just want to set that expectation out front I thought after our last MBTA Community discussion it'd be worthwhile to put together some uh information to help Foster a discussion I think a lot of ideas and a lot of um discussion is good um for people that have been on the board a while it's been kind of two years of discussion so I think uh John I don't know if you have that uh presentation I I sent to you so I I do have the um PowerPoint yeah did you want me to allow sharing for you or do you want me to put it up I'll I'll share it uh yeah let me set the permissions okay should be all set so I put this together uh I I'm G to share my screen in a second as a I'll share I'll just start by sharing I put together some information to hopefully Foster discussion and to get us to a recommendation for the zoning advisory committee I would like an outcome of tonight's meeting and discussion to give more I would say concrete guidance to the zoning advisory committee to continue their work of um putting putting forward together a proposal uh for an MBTA MBTA overlay district and hopefully something that will come back to us that we can endorse for our town meeting in the fall or December in the winter so that's what uh I'm hoping to do so I don't think everybody has been aware of some things that have happened in the past I thought i' just kind of uh put light some uh some things that happened in the past talk about where we are now and uh try to recommend a proposal and then everyone can say no that's either they can agree disagree propose something else um whatever the collective board wants to do um so let me just get into here so hopkinton's growth has been a concern for a while um back in 2019 we had two planning board members that uh submitted a Citizens petition for annual town meeting to halt any new development in hopkington for a year while the impact of the town's growth was studied um this ultimately got shot down a town meeting uh it's not typical that two planning board members would try to go about that on their own and not have the whole entire board support that but that that's what they tried so anyways after that town meeting um the planning board that was uh of in place as as of May 2019 decided to form a uh a subcommittee of the planning board called the growth study committee to kind of examine the growth uh of the town the the impact of that growth and plan uh plan for the future so there there was some work put into that um by a subcommittee uh it had members uh it had some representation from the planning board it had some representation from the Chamber of Commerce some atlarge representation and um I think we could go through all of the findings at a different point I don't think that's Paramount to tonight's discussion but it was basically to because there was concern around the growth of the Town go ahead Parker the me the meeting chat is still enabled we discussed at the end of last meeting that we were going to disable that is that a test that we have to or is that something that we have to disable the admin level I just want to make sure we're operating on the same level as we were last at the end of last meeting John do you know I don't I don't know so it said that the chat is set by default but um let's see if I can participant can chat with no one see if that works yes it says chat disabled on my end so success perfect thank you all right thanks Parker so at that same town meeting in 2019 uh there was uh a plan a developer wanted to turn um the home um or the histo what turned out to be a historic home next to the fire station into 31 apartments and at the time there was a lot of debate whether it was was a historic home or or whether it wasn't at the time it wasn't and um the town meeting decided it was a historic home and I think not not zero residents but at least some residents didn't want an apartment building of 31 units right in downtown so and then uh just last year at annual town meeting 2023 we uh the planning board put forth uh a change to our zoning bylaws to require an affordable unit to be built on site after a fourth uh unit in a sub Division and since that I don't know if anyone's noticed but there's been no new subdivision plans that have gone before the planning board that have been approved we had one plan come before us where the developer wanted to build the affordable unit uh offsite or have a unit offsite make a payment in L and we uh we deine we denied his uh his uh goal so that's a so so then that gets into what else has happened so leading up to town meeting this year in 2024 I was uh I knew I was going to be the one talking on behalf of the board so I did some research and found out that including the charleswood school including the Hopkins renovation including the marathon school all the school related projects including the modular classrooms for Marathon School including the modular classroom for Hopkins school including additional classrooms at the high school the town has approved over $200 million in uh proposition two and a half overrides basically taking on debt to fund these new school projects so uh I think that is where residents are feeling uh that the the thought of a major new uh development project could be a little disconcerting but I think that's something we need to have more discussion more Dialogue on through the public hearing process with the zoning advisory committee with our meetings as we work towards uh a path forward with the MBTA communities one other thing I think is worth is important to know is we we as a as a town I don't believe and uh anyone can voice their opinions or objections but I don't believe we'd be pursuing this type of zoning change or density change anywhere in town if it wasn't part of this MBTA community so it's it is by and large something the state is trying to force on uh towns and uh communities to kind of help the overall housing situation across the state so my my thinking is we want to put together or put forward a plan to achieve paper compliance which is fundament it's kind of what we did uh or tried to do at the most recent town meeting I think we felt the downtown district uh was already zoned for that uh density uh The Preserve I think a lot of people on the planning board felt it couldn't realistically be developed all the condo uh owners in that complex wouldn't realistically sell and uh there was this General sentiment it wouldn't um be rezoned or be rebuilt because of it was developed and um the general sentiment with the carbon's property and adjoining properties was that there was no water in sewer to support a large scale dense housing so we tried to achieve paper compliance so I think we in general um want to put forward a plan that it in general meets the the goal of paper compliance meaning it complies with the rules of the bylaw but it doesn't it doesn't have a high probability of having any additional units being built within the next uh 20 years and my and my thinking is zoning is what it is at a point in time and no it doesn't change often but it can change so if the town wants to modify zoning at any point in time in the future all it would take a vote at town meeting to modify it and so I think if there's a need for more housing in the future I think that is completely fine but I don't think the general sentiment of the town right now is gungho for approving uh zoning that would afford the opportunity to build these housing units in the near term so I proposed uh I propose a couple options and this is what I'm hoping the plan I'm hoping the planning everybody on the board can um go through and and give their opinion and sentiment um but there's two properties in particular there's one wood view way this is in Legacy Farms there's 240 units that are Apartments um and this property ID uh U13 1-c 1C and then there's the Windsor apartments behind 11 10 grill that are 280 units um the total acreage is over 50 acres I think we should set the zoning advisory committee on a on a plan or uh goal of trying to put together a zoning bylaw where a developer couldn't just add another building to those properties and that they would actually have to demolish existing buildings to build new units I think if that plan if they can't come up with a zoning all overlay district for those Parcels that meets that goal I think another option would be to in to keep the district that was previously in the most recent town meeting uh for downtown I am not a fan of trying to go back to Windsor I mean um to The Preserve I think they voiced their opinion against uh against that at the most recent town meeting and um in general I I don't think it's great to ignore the the will of the voters and and uh they were significant enough portion of the voters at town meeting that they I think they were the driving force to block uh the proposal and I also don't in general like properties like carbonis or the adjoining properties which are are not super financially prohibitive to develop yes it would take water and sewer but it's also not a lot of um physical structure on the properties where I think somebody could make a business case to develop those and uh more readily than we would want so this is all I had this is uh I wanted to open up the board this is uh I think just because the time commitment normally I would have just uh let the board continue to discuss if we had a lot more time but I know John is feeling pressure um with trying to get something approve reviewed and approved I I'm sure the zoning advisory committee is going to feel a time uh constraint so if it's okay with the the members of the board I'd like to open it up to everybody to uh to speak and uh you can we can start with whoever raises their hand and then we can go to Just Around the around the table so to speak uh Matthew go ahead um so I've got comments on the proposals themselves but I I I want to comment on the strategy and specifically um I while paper compliance I think is a nice term that we've thrown around to describe certain aspects um I don't I don't think we want to be focused on short term let's not the only thing we want to focus on is let's not build something in 20 years but we we need to think about in 50 years if somebody does sell something and it happens to develop is that actually the way we want the town to grow to to grow we don't want dense housing in some random spot that somehow that's where it where it ended up um that is one of the nice things about the locations we had was that it did make sense maybe the Windsor Apartments next to the the highway make sense I mean there there's value in some of these decisions um but I want to make sure that we are not thinking just in terms of compliance with the with the state law but that the decisions we make actually make sense in themselves as well um I just want to make that before we go comment before we go into discussing it thanks thank you Matthew I can go around the table or if does anyone have any comments or thoughts or or I'll uh just go according to uh according to our roll call and like at least do you have any any thoughts any what do you think um are we allowed to do the um the condition where they would have to tear down the building I feel like there were so many restrictions before that that would be something they would shoot down I think it be in compliance uh so I think it's so it's it's fundamentally doable um where you could set uh setbacks and side distances I believe I believe this that is what we want the zoning advisory committee to dig into and basically prove or disprove in my opinion okay sorry I'm on my phone it takes me a while to unmute um I I I kind of like that idea cuz I feel like it puts even more hurdles in the way um I I don't know I just feel like we're going to submit something and they're going to be like no everything has to be byright and everything has to be this on I uh sorry I'm having technical difficulties here child difficulties I think we can tell um sorry I have a one week old here so I'm also like not sleeping my brain's not working very well um I mean I like the idea of having having a little more hurdles to go through I don't I guess like you said we'd have to we'd have to have the zoning we'd have to have Zach like sort of figure it out a little bit better but I do um I thought previously somebody had mentioned that we couldn't do the apartments at Legacy Farms and we couldn't do the Windsor Apartments as part of like our overlay because they would have to have no age restrictions and they would have to have um some other restriction lifted which would change the current housing over there I think the General concern so Windsor and Hallstead don't have an age restriction I think the general concern was the legac so Legacy Farms uh the Hallstead apartments are in the osud and that might be uh legally confusing but that's why in my opinion we have Town Council to figure that out uh it shouldn't be impossible to figure out these are law these are lawyers um there's no age restriction on those units in those apartments okay um then yeah I mean I I like it I think it's a good idea since we already have sort of dense housing there thanks uh I'm gonna go Lucia uh well once again second meeting uh you're being thrown into the fire here yeah um what do you what do you think um so I think both Matt and Elise made good points in terms of thinking longterm is this where we want the superdense housing in the event that it does pass and does get built um and also just can we even put a restriction to say we need to demolish we need to have them de demolish buildings before they can build new ones um and then I think my other question is do we have the time at this point to make changes like this before a December special town meeting uh I think we have so um we don't have infinite time but I think we have uh to put try to put together a plan that for a couple things that one it will pass town meeting or our best foot forward for a plan that could pass town meeting um just re resubmitting the same plan that failed that did not get passed doesn't seem like a good strategy so I think we have to evaluate other opportunities or other uh what is the uh kind of the art of the possible in terms of a plan that would pass town meeting it wouldn't be controversial and I agree and and hope uh it would be in the best long-term interest of the town but uh setting an objective of 50 years of where dense housing should go 50 years from now is is kind of kind of hard um to Fathom like uh I never so uh I've lived in hopkington uh a long time over 40 years and like I never thought Legacy Farms would be built uh the way it was so I don't know how to how to plan 50 years from now uh precisely can I follow up on that sure um and so hearing you talk I agree we do need to take into account the fact that this failed to town meeting I don't know that saying we want to displace 240 units worth of people or 280 units worth of people by putting this either of these two plans forward would make things any better coming to a special town meeting so I I we don't want to displace anybody we want to make it so uh there can't be a business case be made to financially destroy what already exists like basically it's uh 80 plus million dollars worth of uh in these cases like wood uh HED Apartments the building is valued at almost $60 million so to to destroy $60 million of buildings and fundamentally have to rebuild them for 80 or 100 your your your cost is like 140 million to build these departments and it's just not financially viable because you can't make a profit that's what we want to do we don't want to displace any any residents we don't want to anyone to lose where they live that's not our goal at all or my goal uh um Michael oh um may I ask a question sure sure leise do we know if these two properties um the hall Hallstead and the Windsor are they already the correct density that MBTA housing requires uh I so I don't think either one of them is in by themselves so both on average we need to uh a zone for 15 units per acre for 50 acres so here in totality it's about it's a little over 50 acres like 53 acres and it's only five it's 520 units so it's not quite um the density the that could be built with a within a MBTA ta zoning overlay District because I I could be thinking this totally wrong but if they already were the density or close enough that we could just add a third place then would we even have to change anything could it couldn't it just stay the apartments the way they are and just have the zoning overlay there I think we could have the zoning all overlay District on these two apartment complexes so could we potentially add a third Zone to fulfill the the difference but we don't we don't need we wouldn't need to because they we would have we would meet the 50 acres so a developer in the future could build over 750 units on the total area that's over 50 acres we don't need to add something that already has the additional uh 230 units we don't need to do that okay but so if that's the case then do we even need to put in a clause that says they would have to tear these down and rebuild I mean couldn't that just be our we don't want to we don't want to put a clause like that we want to put a clause that the setbacks and required make it impossible that they can't build a new building uh because of the setbacks from uh uh from the sides and Frontage and back of the property so it's not I see it's not we're not going to put a claws that they have to demolish it's going to be think of it if the building's in the center of the property well we're going to make any new buildings be in the center of the property too would be the goal I got you all right what if we I'm sorry through the chair sure Parker go ahead what if we put them on all the gun ranges it's the gun ranges are totally possible uh I believe the only thing with the gun ranges is there's no existing infrastructure there's no buildings there's nothing there there's no there's very little uh there so I don't know how the gun clubs are organized like the Sportsman's on Lumber Street or the uh Woodville Rod and Gun are organized but it seems like they could very easily be sold and very easily be developed if they were sold but I don't think there's any restrictions to to make that the overlay District I think there' be a lot of uh concern that because there'd be they could be easily de be developed and add 750 units in town within the next so many years hey Rob I had a question so what was the um what are the mechanics I guess of the zoning changes that would have to go through um so we could you know facilitate um or I guess not facilitate to make it so you know it would be unappealing to redevelop um you know the two the two properties that we're talking about here so I think what we need to do if if we if as a board we decide this is the path we want to set the zoning advisory committee on they got to do some invest do some work to see if it meets the minimum acreage when the wetlands are taken in into account then they need to see uh where the current buildings are in terms of setbacks from the sides front and back and if they could even come up with a proposed zoning o overlay District rules that makes it so they can't just add another building to basically build out uh 230 plus additional units in a relatively short term because that's these these entities the owners of apartment complexes would would want to do that they would want to maximize that so if they could add another building and could rent they would want to do that so we if we propose these we want to make sure that that's not something they can really easily do so would be a special zoning area then we wouldn't have to change like res or resb or that's right it's an overlay so like the existing map would stay the same we' just be took choosing these two Parcels are uh in in this example and saying these two Parcels are zones they're also like one's already part of the osmo uh one Windsor I think is uh I don't even know what Windsor is off the top of my head but we'd be saying those are now part of the overlay District Karen go ahead hi so I have a my question is so we're going to give [Music] a some direction to the zoning committee is that correct yes that's what we're hoping to do tonight we're hoping to before the end of this meeting okay sorry so yeah I just getting so is the zoning committee aligned with what we in our intention is I guess that's I don't know who's on the zoning committee so I don't know are they will they look at this and say oh yeah we can get the developers to do another 230 units on these type of things or are they going to be looking at it and say you this is our our goal is to achieve paper compliance this is what the planning board is sending sending us forth to do so I don't I don't know what they're so perspec the zoning advisory committee is a subcommittee of the planning board so I I believe in general they'll try to follow guidance of the planning board if us as a board this call some group of people on this call I think if we come up with a recommendation they they could just I I believe they would try to adhere to a recommendation that would be my opinion okay so the zoning committee is as you said subset of the planning board so who on the planning board is on the zoning committee uh vicaso who's not uh he is our representative from the planning board on the zoning advisory committee okay all right um thank you and then just in general I think this is well one thank you for the the history and the proposal I think this does achieve kind of what we're looking to do you know assuming all the eyes are DOT are you know what is that the eyes are crossed and the te's are dotted um you know in terms of uh being able to to do all of this um you know and have it get all approved so I think that that's you know yeah there's some things we have to check out but that's I think that's just kind of part and parcel going through it but I think I I think this is looks like a good a good plan thank you for putting it together thanks Karen uh Matthew go ahead uh just to clarify first uh to answer Karen so it's it's not just members of this body it's it's the the zoning advisory committee has planning board Liaisons but their goal is basically to advise on zoning and uh help us with with our job um so it's mostly people that aren't actually on the planning board proper um but we do have vixo who's the liais on we have a liais on every year um I I think it makes sense uh now onto the the um proposal U Rob I I think it makes sense to ask the um ask Zach to look at Windsor Apartments again because it's something they had already looked at um I know there were reasons why it was dropped um off hand I can't remember exactly what their concerns were I know they were also looking at the Brook condominiums and um some other uh spots of land and the concern there was that it was too easy to rebuild in short order um I also I I don't think we should completely ignore the proposals that have been vetted um I don't want to ignore the concerns of the residents at The Preserve either but we do know that that is a proposal that has been accepted uh by experts at the state and it's something that I think we should continue to voice as an option as we talk about possible options just because there are pros and cons and I think it would be interesting for Zach when they look at uh say the W departments to compare and contrast possible scenarios and just verify uh some of the concerns that were raised at town meeting in terms of growth in terms of traffic how that would impact the the town proper um I know the there was concerns about the OS mode with the H departments um was there a reason why you wanted to drop the downtown district in favor of that area just did not come with enough units not not in particular no um if if the downtown district has enough land area and I uh I don't know exactly the I think it's uh not quite enough land area I think it's only 11 or 12 acres um so I wanted to get above the 50 with this few with this uh with a try to simplify it to get above 50 acres but the downtown district if if it was if it is enough acreage and I'm mistaken it's already zoned for the to be uh for that density density housing to be built I am not opposed to that either like I think if we if I could if we could rewind time um two years ago we might have come up came up with three option we might have come up with option a option b option C that we all that we thought each option would have meet met the criteria I know it would have been really hard but uh I think that would have like if I could rewind time I think that would have been a better path forward but we didn't I don't even think we thought like that at that time I me I've got John's slides from January 8th I think it is or or open that talked about all the various maps that we talked about last year um wsor is one of the ones that was still selected there um and there was a separate segment in downtown that we could add to that which the main concern I think is keeping making sure we still 50% of the the area contiguous um but I I think it it sounds like we're basically going back to some of the earlier October maps that Zach had um and with the concerns that the town raised you know asking them to think about the and cons with those in mind um and try and consider the growth issues I I also like I I I know getting Zach something to work with is also something that's uh important to do given the timeline um did we want to talk about some of the other concerns that were raised in terms of getting people's feedback on the different approaches or did you expect to do that once we had feedback from Zach and I think I think it really needs to be a combination of like um of the public hearing process I don't know that it's I don't think it's we talked about last time about sending out like is it realistic to send out a mail or is it realistic to try to somehow do like a Survey Monkey survey and I just am coming against how we do that in practice how we do that in reality like we don't have like we don't have the town's population's email addresses is we don't have like if we send out a mailer to fill out the survey it's uh I don't think it's going to be well uh I don't think we'll get the what we want so I don't I don't know how to do it but if anyone else does um I'm all for it I I I know we did some Town meetings and we did some some Outreach last time uh as we're looking at specific areas I think making it clear that we're looking at those those is and then scheduling kind of in short order something to to let people talk to us so it's not all done at town meeting and give them some discussions I think the biggest concern that came out of town meeting uh was and and you raised the concern about growth of the town right was growth of the Town that's not something that we necessarily can avoid and still stay in compliance and so understanding separating people's concerns about the the law in general and the areas that we selected I I I think are important things to be able to do and a lot of the arguments at town meeting I think used one to argue against the other and maybe that conf Drew some people that maybe hadn't really thought about the whole process and so that that's something that rather than just having people grasp at straws to prevent something in one specific area like making sure that any everybody who's interested in the MBTA zoning has another opportunity since this is now on everybody's mind coming out of town meeting a lot of people that probably ignored it before might be trying to understand the problem better um you know having a a meeting uh outside plan board to talk about I do think that is a is significant that there might have it might have been um and I don't I don't necessarily the people that attend town meeting like it's it's kind of hard to believe like if they're invested enough to go to town meeting how they don't know these things are coming before the the town at town meeting because they typically that is the popul percent that is the the group of the population that is invested in the politics of the town and these type of issues uh so I don't know how that really happened because all these meetings are posted or agendas are posted and obviously people aren't looking but I do I do think um because it failed at last town meeting it is more on people's radar now so I think that's why having Zach look at the different opportunities and having us in our presentation actually explain why the solution that we picked makes the most sense for the town and why we couldn't choose other options is important I don't think that's something we really described we explained these are the strict parts of the law and we said these are the places we picked they meet the requirements so we should vote for it we didn't explain why we didn't pick other other units or what the drawbacks would have been of picking other units uh other other plots of land um I mean it's complex to find an area that is complex to develop in the short term considering that we have to have half the unit half the acreage contiguous we've got density requirements um if we're not picking Windsor if we're not picking The Preserves right we're starting to just pick large plots of land it it becomes a lot harder to uh pick things that aren't likely to potentially be developed and don't have infrastructure in terms of roads to work for the town I just I I think it's important for us to have a reason why we pick the areas and not just assume that the reason why it failed last time was specifically the the selection we picked but not concerns over uh School growth was one of the things that was raised uh traffic was something that was raised things that are just Universal that we need to address regardless of what we pick M all right thank you Matthew uh Parker go ahead yeah I was just putting there some analysis here and I think that we need to ask for from Zach key consider so it's here's three things we need to ask Zach for key considerations for paper compliance which would be that whatever plan alternative from the one that we put forth at town meeting would meet the zoning requirements would have minimal Community impact and would ensure and when we say community impact I think everybody agrees to not have to add additional schools uh due to any sort of huge uh development and then finally that the ideally the place to have existing infrastructure which could uh mitigate any sort of desire to build and what we haven't discussed now is underutilized commercial areas so in the South Street Corridor there are commercial property that are presently um undesirable from some potential tenants due to different various uh complications and that looking at some that if they were rehabilitated it could be in the interest of the town to have those properties revitalized could be part of a potential twofold impact for she pay for compliance but also still having a better impact because I think we could agree that having infrastructure that isn't hazardous removed or sorry having infrastructure that's hazardous removed in favor of something like an investment could be good for the town long term so just a little bit of nuance on that point of the existing infrastructure but we haven't discussed underutilized commercial zones or potential uh industrial zones um but to that effect uh zoning requirements that it meets it minimal Community impact and then existing infrastructure should be on and for consideration new map however I still believe that the map that we put forth is a good idea we have presently in The Preserve there is a huge P issue they have private water that in the instance that possibly in the future water uh was brought down in that direction there's a possibility that preserved re residents could benefit from having um you know water that isn't toxic or polluted with you know pasas and it could be you know you could argue in their interest a good idea to potentially have the Carboni property as potential future development and I think that by us taking away The Preserve and moving or you know potentially even carbonis that we're creating a new Hydra because it's acknowledging as tacitly as a board that we will you know essentially adjust our tact if uh there's enough AA at day three of town meeting but I think that enough F we lost by literally five votes that was that like I genuinely believe that this was a Outreach and education issue and that there's tangible benefits that folks could reap from the existing proposal so possibly in addition to it complete re re-review Zach offers a second map which would be a slight uh adjustment of our you know existing map with the caveat being paper compliance and no possible growth which is what the carbonis and adjacent lot you know potentially created for the town otherwise you know I what else are we doing I mean I think that it was a good map we could tweak it a little bit uh but there are tangible benefits that if we did a better job at messaging it's your question how do we do that we don't have to do a mailchip we don't have to do a mailer like I'll go door too every day until town meeting and drop off a flyer or even you know in advance of that with the copy on and print it myself because I genuinely believe that uh it's would be in interest of the town for us to have some sort of you know survey mechanism and for folks to you know feel hurt and have that opportunity but that's that's what I would suggest is you know two maps one slightly adjusted one completely re-envisioned um and uh appreciate you taking the moment heer me on [Music] I so I I'm um uh sympathetic to the will of the voters so I think one one thing that select board has run into over the last years is there's been an a some percent of population doesn't feel like their voices are being heard by the select board I don't want that kind of sentiment to be prevalent with the planning board I think we want to be sympathetic but we also want to put together a good plans so in this instance yes it was only a few votes that it failed by but it did fail so to resubmit the same plan doesn't seem like we're listening to the voters to me um corly through the chair I did say recently at the same plan I said with a slight adjustment of mitigating the carbonis property because I think if we look at The Preserve you can't build it and if we have the caveat that we just said that you have to demolish all the units and The Preserve has a clause in their bylaws that states any change to The Preserve must be passed unanimously that you know satisfies the condition of you know that property being completely ineligible and you know if we educated based on the parameters of that kind of language within uh you know sort of plan I would hope that you know cooler heads would Prevail um and we could still look like we're in the spirit of the law as per the state and again my my risk my fear is always that if we completely backtrack from this plan and do something totally different one it's going to confuse people even more we don't look convicted and two you know we're basically going to ask for the ey of the state who will come down on us for you know essentially snubbing their nose at them and I and and and I I want to see yes paper compliance but if we look like we're trying to be compliant that the Optics of that could be better if we are designating within the actual zone of of the train station because I don't want any more lawsuits I don't want the town to be subject to excise scrutiny uh it was five votes we can get those so I I don't know if everybody on the board is aware but leading up to town meeting uh John had a an uh some Outreach sessions with The Preserve in particular he had a two and a half hour meeting to basically do a Q&A to answer their questions and and the overwhelming result was The Preserves just didn't um didn't see uh the positives in their property being included so I don't know that more time is going to change that um so that'd be my my thinking Michael go ahead sorry my screen just went weird um I was just going to point out that you know I didn't hear any huge opposition into um uh you know the Town Center being included in the overlay District to town meeting and I think if I remember correctly I think John said too that it would actually be less dense housing than is uh able to be used there by right too so I wouldn't discount having that area in the future plan just because you know there's some value propositions I think to having it that would be you know potentially appealing the credit sell at a town meeting so yeah I I I I have that as like a possible plan b or but it could be plan a like I think we want to send a me like my my opinion is we we we tried to do this without being as maybe as clear to the voters of town meeting and as clear to the zoning advisory committee that we want to put forth a a plan where we don't think house uh units will be built within the next 20 years I think we want to be we so we want to achieve this paper compliance goal and I think we just want to set that as the expectation and I know I know it probably looks better if it's like well maybe but I think the state has like it's either complies with the law or doesn't like they they can't get in the business of judgment that's not uh I don't think that's I don't think that's really what they uh can do go ahead Matthew um two things one um the I know Zach originally had a lot of different options and they're looking at what could be built now what could be built later I believe towards the end of their negotiations their their deliberations they were looking at things that did have a not immediate impact for the for the most part that's how we ended up where we where we are um regarding the votes of the people at The Preserve and I respect that but they're part of the town and we should respect everybody in the town however in terms of The Proposal right it's it's still we need to figure out what's best for Hopkinson and long term we have a plan that was validated if we are putting together another plan in front of the town we should be able to compare what we're proposing at that point with what we proposed last time and explain why one is better than the other so I don't think we should just completely ignore what we proposed last time but any other plan that we come up with now we should be able to compare it to that and explain why this one is better or not better right we should be able to compare and contrast the pros and the I I don't disagree I I think um I think from a sentiment point of view um these two properties already have 520 units so like worst case scenario people think people would think uh they already have super D so the maximum increase would be smaller whereas properties that haven't been developed the increase increases and units could be significantly more um you're talking about the ones that you've got in your proposal yeah like I think that would be um the justification about 13 units per acre right now the other's 7.8 yep but in in totality so they don't in our last proposal like both land areas or all the three land areas they didn't all have over 15 units per acre um zoning capacity it's the average that needs to you need to allow for the overlay District to have an average of 15 units or more per acre so one parcel could have an Aver uh an average of seven another parcel could have an average of uh 23 and you get to if it's the same size Parcels you get to the average of 15 it seems like the overall growth potential is greater with these properties though than what we what we presented and it's going to I mean Lumber Street is crowded that's a frustrating area right now um Main Street East is 135 right is just it's always fun during rush hour in the afternoon not sure it's the best location so I'd like to get to some Ty term of General consensus like um in terms of what we've been we're 55 minutes into our meeting uh through the chair go ahead Jane U first of all I'd like to thank you for your slide presentation I think it was helpful reminder to uh be hearing again over the years what the town's um meetings has vot voted on as far as um you know reluctance for more growth the importance to keep um you know there's a a high interest in keeping the um the schools from growing any more than we have to I think the priority was um you know and it was a helpful reminder I think that we to go back with a similar plan that we presented last year I don't think that that would go over very well even though it was only by a few votes it doesn't matter the people that were interested in being heard showed up for that town meeting so um it was you know I heard it loud and clear I think also that um keeping it simple would be much easier for us to explain uh by having those two properties uh people and that they're already developed and by asking Zach to look at some way of putting setb plans and you know other restrictions on it that that's where that could be done but I think we have to go in with a new message uh to go back with a similar message that we had last year I think will be frustrating for a lot of people um if we want this to you know go forward it having a clear message going forward with a different you know different plan might just work I'm I'm in favor of um this presentation of having the two properties go forward and if we do send something down to Zach with those thoughts I think your the um your slide presentation would be helpful to remind them of where we've been and where we want to go thanks Jane I think because we're at an hour and we we probably could talk about this another hour or more I'd like to take like a straw pole uh vote on in or straw pole uh it's not really it's not an official vote to basically if you're on board with giving the zoning advisory committee direction to to try to achieve the overlay District in what we have deter what we calling paper compliance where we don't think this uh would be built realistically in the next 20 years and so I'm just going to go down the roll call and you can say yes or no and will we'll use that as a our first kind of guidance uh if it's no it's no if it's yes it's yes we'll use that to try to guide the zoning advisory committee we phrase it Rob can I just can we just rephrase it as minimal development in the next 20 years as a goal yeah sure yes that that I like that that we would like to basically achieve M uh achieve paper compliance with minimal risk of development in the overlay District to yeah that's our goal Alise what how do you what do you think yes I I mean I think that's what Zach was already doing um but clearly the didn't agree but yes my answer is yes all right Lucia um I agree with achieving compliance with minimal chance of development but I want to add the caveat that those two properties might have the bulk of our affordable housing and if there's any chance that they will be torn down to be redeveloped we need to be sure that we're still going to be above our 10% affordable housing numbers so that we don't get another 40b development in their that have been the issue with wind yeah so I don't uh I I know I know both of these uh have affordable units in them I don't I don't know we'd have to yes I agree with what you said uh Matthew uh yeah I mean I I agree with asking the Zach to figure out what options make the uh are best for the town to minimize short-term growth while maximizing the uh efficiency of the Town long term um and I do think that any they come up with we need to compare to the the previous plan uh Michael yeah now I'd be in favor of um getting an option you know that would result in minimal growth while you know obviously being compliant with the law yes Parker I would Echo uh the senent of Lucia and say yeah we just don't want to kind of trade one problem for another but yeah I'd be open to hear what Zach says Karen yep I think I'm I'm in agreement i' like the way you framed it you know paper compliance and minimal possibility of growth I think it's a I think it's a good plan and I I think to Jane's Point um that's you know that's how you start when you're pres to the town this is we heard you loud and clear this is our new plan and this is why the new plan meets those goals so I think that's I think it's a good plan thanks Karen and and I I I agree with the message we want to give to the zoning advisor committee um I who who spoke who the chair yeah John um just so because I also work with Zach so I'm gonna probably be the messenger on this one um I'm just trying to understand when when you guys are saying these guidelines of minimal impact we've got five months to have this before town meeting so we've got three months during the summer to figure it out I'm just trying to figure out how Zach is going to find those properties aside from just saying look evaluate it with Woodview and um Windsor rather than this more General thing because Zach has very limited time to do a lot of analysis and to be frank it's going to be me who's going to be doing the analysis for Zach and my time is incredibly limited as well so I like more concrete guidance I think would be helpful and even if it is just take out preserve take out carbonis add these two I think that would be helpful because then we can analyze that proposal and figure out where the um the holes are rather than trying to figure out what could work and then analyzing three or four different proposals to then see which one works best to then bring it to the planning board for the hearing process to then have to go through all that it's it's a really tight timeline to do any kind of analysis at this point and still make it on for December John what if we said what if we said try to evaluate Windsor Hallstead in the downtown area and come up with a plan that has the least acreage uh yeah that would be helpful because that identifies the areas that you would want to evaluate but just having a general like hey let's get the least amount of impact I mean that's looking potentially at every property and how much impact we have and we wouldn't have had time for that on the initial CH try all right a lot of work and then the other one I just want to bring up is with the affordable I think maybe the concern that Lucia and Parker and some others are having is that those two were developed one of them was developed under a 40b one of them was developed as essentially a friendly 40b where they do 25% of the housing units as affordable which then makes all of the housing units affordable on the Shi so for um wood view you know you've only got what 40 20% so a few a little over 50 units were affordable but all 240 units are on the Shi so if for some reason a developer were to demolish that property all of those units would come off the Shi and only 10% would go on because that would be the required under NBTA communities so you'd be losing 15% of the units well you'd be losing 90% of the units in that development so I think that's the concern and that's something that we need to evaluate as to how that would happen could they even build something like what they have or can they add on and how does that impact everything but again that's just a concern that we may going into town meeting we may not know if the proposal is going to comply because we haven't heard back from the state in time on these relatively complex legal questions that may not have been contemplated in other towns uh to this level so I just want to caution the board about how much really needs to go into this on the back end because it's not just let's move around these properties it's creating a new District you know making sure that the dimensional requirements are appropriate and Achieve compliance in the model and we're still trying to not have a big impact on the town which I think losing a lot of affordable units should that be a a side effect of and including these properties which we don't know we have to look into that um it's just you know it's it's a big Balancing Act for a very short period of time to then for Zach to do and then to have them bring it to the planning board for planning board to also do right those are my concerns um thank thanks John I I think that makes a lot of sense so I I think I think we'd like to understand the viability of like um of these basically the downtown district the the two other properties listed here and come forward with a plan that's the least acreage that meets the requirements and not be be at risk of losing our affordable housing like uh numbers for lack of a better word um Matthew go ahead um John Ray is a good concern about the timeline and just I just want to make sure that we're aware of that if Zach's going to schedule something before July 1st meeting presumably they're going to set off to look at this um do we think we'd actually have proposals and the effect on the town by August at that point um and what do we need to change in the warrant we just need the only things we're planning on changing are specific to whichever uh overlay overlays we plan to create and the differences and the setbacks and the the the the area specific things or do we need to we haven't even talked about any of the other uh Law changes by lot changes there's no there's no warrants for town meeting yet so we we don't have to there's nothing to change um the overall zoning bylaw that was created for the different Parcels yeah it's uh it is it's not an ins insignificant amount of work to get it done in a short amount of time I don't like that's where we are though I don't know what else to yeah I'm just trying to think back right so the the warrant regard like if of the 129 or 1216 basically the warrant closes Thanksgiving um either right before right after Thanksgiving and so I think we took about a month or two to finalize legal drafts last time and so we need to have the board basically agree on everything by early September I think working backwards and so I'm just trying to figure out what that means in terms of how much we can discuss how much time Zach needs or John needs and what level of degree we can discuss and even what level of degree we can get community feedback on in that time frame it's not an easy I don't I don't disagree it's not an easy problem to solve but we we have to just keep working towards the solution as opposed to not um so I think that's where we are does anyone uh let me I don't know if we want to do another roll call because it takes time but does anybody have an objection to basically set forth for these kind of three areas the downtown district that we originally proposed last time that's already allows for dense housing to equival basically at the MBTA level these two apartments uh complexes try to and advise the zoning advisory committee to come up with the least land area that meets the goal without risking diminishing our affordable housing unit does that sound reasonable yes Matthew yes I I I think we should for for John's sake clarify what all like the least amount of that's a lot of different radiuses right we we want to come back and understand what is the impact to affordable housing what is the other perceived impacts to the town what is the perceived uh short-term growth or long-term growth that these areas would have like how many units do we think would be buildable in the next 20 years how many do we think would be built like What's the total Delta um and that allows us to to review the different options um and I guess maybe from John's point of view like which combinations can we actually put together and look like they'll comply because we've got issues with cont uh contiguity and um density that I I I don't know I don't know how how much that time takes to figure out thanks Matthew I I think that's what we would what we're hoping uh it's just um setting a focus of these three areas go ahead Michael um so we have wood view we have um Freedom Way Legacy Farms and then we have downtown would it be worth putting um our bonies that property back on the table too or people think that it so you know unappealing people at town meeting most of the push back I think I heard was from people Reserve so um I don't think in so at least at least somebody had a concern about carbonis would maybe be the easiest property to be to develop yeah uh I don't I think we want to set Focus to less than more and if if one of the two that have the affordable housing units we we need to Pivot relatively quick quickly and come up with another land area that meets the objective yeah that would be the idea go ahead Matthew um just specifically Michael's question I don't think Carboni on its own serves any purpose it's it's not big enough to to help and it will detract from the uh contiguity requirement of half the total Zone being contiguous um I I do think we should compare whatever numbers we have to the original proposal um if only to help explain why our current why the proposal we're presenting is better than the last one to the hundred and something people that that voted for it last time and why like explained why didn't we pick it last time because we didn't have time to review these criteria we took people's feedback and this is why this one's better I do think we need to compare to those and John Pro probably already has the most numbers for that than any of the ones that we haven't done already so I I I think we should look at those two just the numbers to compare I AG for town meeting we should have uh be well informed and well be able to articulate uh the previous proposal the new proposal and why it and and the kind of the the Delta and benefit so I I agree I'm going to stop sharing I think we have General consensus uh and I I want to move on to um our next agenda item which is Form K uh Emerald Drive lot six and seven 20th century homes uh I don't see I thought oh I see Craig Nation I see Chris uh I'm not sure who's gonna who's who's uh if if you'd like to give a a brief introduction of what you'd like done here good evening hi Chris Chris Nation representing Emerald Drive I'm just here for releasing of the two lots I believe everything that we need is in order with John all right uh John do you want want to give just uh your your opinion of the of the situation sure so Forum K is something for a subdivision once they construct the road and and pay a bond and record a um I foret what form it is but it's the conditional uh approval agreement with the town they can then request to have lots released for sale and the planning board just has to approve those so they've already had some Lots released which you know they they've paid the the bond the um plane board reviewed and they paid the fee and um it's yes it's just basically a formality vote of the planning board to decide whether to release these Lots or not and then I will note so I don't have to talk later um if this is approved this is a weird document that all five members of the board have to come in because I have to notorized signatures so this isn't something I can sign on your behalf so if it gets approved you you guys would need to come into the office okay are there any questions from anyone on the board no hearing none I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board endorsed The Form K lot released for lot six and seven as shown on the Emerald Drive OSL PD subdivision plan so moved do have a sec thanks thanks Matthew thanks Jane I'm just gonna go through uh roll call here Elise meowski yes uh Lucia Lopez yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes and Rob Benson is yes thanks so uh as let's try to get uh down to town hall tomorrow if possible to get this uh this signed off uh as as soon as we can so I'll try to get down there any any of the other board members that get down there and sign this for for John so we can get it to uh to the applicant all right thanks thanks Chris great thank you have a good evening you too all right we're on to uh discussing minutes of our June 3D 2024 meeting anyone have any comments about the minutes the meeting minutes um I do I'd like to sorry I did yeah go ahead go ahead mat you um I've got uh i' just like to make propose uh one change at the bottom of uh there no Pages uh at the end of the mvta zoning discussion uh second paragraph from the bottom uh changing as two to as uh an aolon so just summarizing uh sum up the discussion as colon community outreach zoning advisory committee meetings to get more information and suggestions Lori do you got that sorry my mouse was frozen so the second second paragraph as an ultimate paragraph the pin ultimate paragraph of the NBTA zoning uh discussion gotcha thank you all right uh I had something too go ahead Lucia um so page three where it starts Miss Lopez stated it specifies a date of December 16 I never had a specific date I did say December so we just strike 16 um I don't know where that date came from but and then under page four Chestnut sidewalks it says Mr Benson asked Mr brazi asked about so just striking the second asked I'm sorry what page was that on the same same page page four okay under the chestnut sidewalks okay thank you all right with if there's no more uh suggested edits with the proposed changes outlined by Matthew and Lucia I'd like to entertain a motion that the planning board approve the minutes of June 3 2024 as modified thank you Matthew second thanks Jane Alise how do you vote yes uh Lucia how do you vote Yes Matthew how do you vote Yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes and Rob Benson as a yes all right thanks everybody all right so we're on to um public hearing for 90 and 104 Hayden row so I think the public hearing is still open from our prior meetings we don't we don't close the public hearing until it's done so I believe it's still open so this is for the Hopkins school edition um we have kind of uh hold on I'm just going um so I think we have a clean report from back from Tai and bond in uh in conjunction with uh the developer about um anyi environmental impact who's uh who's representing tyan Bond uh on the call I I don't see who the chair um so Jean Christie was the contact but I don't know if she was going to attend because she attended the last meeting and said that the traffic letter I think was the only one that was left open okay and also came back clean with a few conditions and I added those conditions to the draft conditions in your memo all right so I'm gonna just start like uh for people on the board uh following Along by the meeting materials um I'm going to try to follow the outline here uh page six I guess um actually I'm a little uh I'm a little backwards here where where I should start do we need to review like um the the comments from the health department uh to start at section 2.6 John so it's up to the board what you take into account into the discussion these are the comments that have been submitted by the Board of Health I mean there's no requirement that you address them there's no requirement that you do anything but they are comments from another department um and then yeah I guess um it's the it's knowing what the decision criteria is the waivers and then any other comments I think are the things that still need to be addressed all right I will leave it up to the so up to the board we have com basically comments from the health department uh I I'll just quickly Bri kind of go through them if there's any um anyone wants to discuss just raise your hand uh the health department requires that during the construction phase suitable permitted portable restroom facilities were provided in addition water should not be allowed to Pond during construction activities to min minimize insect lava activity uh dust mitigation measures should be provided when excessive dust is created during excavation activities and sweeping operations um so 2.6.2 time Bond engineering review letter comment 20 we recommend the board considered a condition of approval requiring that the additional soil testing should be completed within the proposed infiltration system and Rain Garden before construction starts and results should be shared with time bond for final review uh comment 46 we recommend that the board consider a condition of approval requiring that additional soil testing should be completed within the proposed infiltration assment Reg that's the same uh it's the same comment comment 20 and comment 46 uh traffic review letter uh by time Bon we recommend predicted cues on the school driveway be monitored and managed over time as School enrollment grows particularly when the school addition is completed and the grade level swaps occur and recommend the planning board include this is a conditional of approval uh comment 72 the crossing guard positioned at the School driveway at Hayden row Street should continue to manage traffic flows on Hayden row Street the crossing guard should continue to balance queuing on Hayden row Street while insuring vehicles are able to enter and exit school as efficiently as possible uh comment 73 cues on Hayden R Street should not impact the adjacent traffic signal to the north of gr Street or impede traffic flow and operations at other major driveways along Hayden Road Street the town may consider do not block intersection signs and or pavement markings at driveways along Hayden R Street as necessary based on future cues the St the school district may consider SAR signage in or markings within the school campus as to not block access to driveways due to queuing we recommend the board include the considerations of these measures as the condition of approval all right comment 74 consider utilizing an additional crossing guard at the Hayden row Street Hopkins intersection to mitigate queuing as necessary comment 75 the district Town should reevaluate traffic operations at Hayden R Street Hopkins school driveway intersection following the completion of the school addition and completion of the new charleswood school to determine EV additional mitigation measures should be considered along Hayden r street or on the internal School driveways based on the proposed traffic signal at the proposed charleswood School driveway at hayro Street to the South it is recommended the town evaluate the potential need for traffic signal at the Hopkin School driveway following completion of the project and uh do I just need to read the section 2.8 one in its entirety the uh decision criteria or does before I read it does anybody have any questions about it through the chair you don't need to read the site plan criteria okay good we would want to read the language of the findings the language of the decision and then that includes the conditions of both permits so I should read the findings 2.10 first before the requested waivers not it doesn't necessarily matter what order it's just that those are the items that need to be read aloud because those are the decisions the board the board is making the standards are just a decision criteria it's not the actual decision that the board is making the findings are saying that they meet this the site plan standards so you don't have to those word for word but the the conditions we generally read word for word and then the language of the findings so that there's the motion saying the board finds that X Y and Z all right so I'm gonna start by reading the propose propos I think that's this is what you said John the proposed findings I have to read out loud it's just that the certain things in this memo are the language of the decision that has to go in the decision and that's what the board is voting on so that has to be said so that everyone is aware of what is being voted on and that includes the findings and the waivers and the conditions so we can't just say Okay does everyone agree with the conditions that's written in the memo because some people might not be aware of what they are so we need we need to read them so that everyone is aware of what they are okay with the findings and and the um so I'm going to start by reading the proposed findings the propo section 2.10 for people following along and the p and the packet of info the the proposed major project site plan conforms to the site plan standard as described in section 210- 1361 of the zoning bylaws the granting of the requested waivers has been determined to be in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the site plan standards the granting of these waivers is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the public in general pursuant to section 210-1400 of the total spaces 14 parking spaces as EV installed parking spaces or 20% of the total spaces which 28 parking spaces as EV ready parking spaces the applicant stated that they will provide 14 evse installed parking spaces as part of the proposed work the proposed conditions after finding that it was in the so this is 2.11 for people following along after finding that it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the site plan standards the planning board waved strict compliance with the following provisions of 210-368-1264 the construction of the development as shown on the approved plans site plan submission requirements wave administrative fee site plan submission requirements wave environmental impact assessment site plan submission requirements wave community and financial impacts assessment the director of Municipal inspections inspects projects under construction for compliance with the approved decision of site plan review this includes the driveway roadway infrastructure construction shown on the plan if applicable if the director of Municipal inspections determines at any time before or during construction that a registered professional engineer or other such outside professional is required to assist with the inspections of the storm water management system or any other component of the site plan the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of those inspections all construction activities shall adhere to applicable local state and federal laws and regulations regarding noise vibration dust sedimentation and the use of interference with or blocking of town roads the applicant shall be responsible for mitigating all construction related impacts including erosion s and dust control the applicant shall maintain all portions of any public way used for construction access free of soil mud or debris deposited due to use by construction vehicles associated with the project and shall regularly sweep such areas as directed by the director of Municipal inspections into consultation with the Department of Public Works director the app applicant shall regularly remove construction trash and debris from the site in accordance with Goods construction practice and the construction management plan no tree stumps demol demolition serial trash or debris should be burned or buried on on the site all exterior lighting within the development project whether shown on The Improv site plan required by the mass say build a code she be shielded directed downward and not upward or outward and shall not spill onto adjacent property uh item seven all fixed mechanical equipment on the site shall be screened from view from the ground such screening shall be sufficient in the opinion of the director of Municipal inspections if construction has not commenced within 3 years the the date of the filing of the site plan decision with the town clerk approval should be automatically rescinded unless such time is extended by the board for the purposes of this condition the term commenced so mean the commencement of site work construction may occur only between the hours of 7 am. and 7 P.M Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4 P p.m. pursuing to chapter 141 Article 1 of the town of Hopton General bylaws the applicant shall submit final as Bill plans to the planning board prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy uh item 11 the applicant developer shall provide the principal planner with a project point of contact and contact information prior to the issuance of a building permit this point of contact information will be kept current through correspondence to the principal planner until the final certificate of occupancy is issued or construction is otherwise considered complete a completed signed construction management plan should be submitted to the planning board prior to the commencement of any site work the applicant shall also submit a revised full plan set which incorporates all the modifications made during the public hearing process and any required in this decision a completed signed long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the planning board prior to the commencement of construction this can be combined with a construction management plan if preferred by the applicant assigned elicit discharge statement should be provided to the planning board prior to construction erosion and sedimentation control measures should be implemented during the construction period in accordance with the approved site plan and the construction management plan if they are found to be inadequate the applicant shall immediately correct correct any deficiencies item 16 the planning board shall receive a sign off confirming that the site contractor and any major subcontractors contractors have received the construction management plan prior to the commencement of any site work additional soil testing shall be completed within the proposed infiltration system in Rain Garden before construction starts and results should be shared with the planning board's peerreview consultant for final review and confirmation of appropriateness of the design predicted cues on the school driveway should be monitored and managed over time as school enrollment GRS particularly when the school edition is completed and the grade level swaps occur as needed with any changes to traffic circulation and design as a result of the management be submitted to the principal planner prior to implementation cues on Hayden Road Street are not anti anticipated to adversely impact the adjacent traffic signal to the north at Grove Street or to impede traffic flow in operations of other major driveways along Hayden Road Street however the planning board may consider do not block intersection signs and or pavement markings at driveways along Hayden R Street as necessary based on future cues the Stu the school department may consider similar signage Andor markings within the school campus as to not block access to driveways due to queuing and shall inform the principal planner of any such as proposed signage or marketers prior installation the school department should reevaluate traffic operations at the Hayden row Street Hopkins school driveway intersection following the completion of the school addition and the completion of the new charleswood school to determine if additional mitigation measures should be considered along Hayden Road Street or on the internal School driveways the school department shall inform the principal planner of any proposed changes to this intersection prior to implementation based on the proposed traffic signal at the proposed charleswood School driveway at Hayden Road Street to the South it is recommended to the school department evaluate the potential need for a traffic signal at the Hopkin School driveway following completion of the project the school department shall inform the principal planner of any proposed mitigation measures prior to implementation so now I'm going to uh kind of go back up to the waivers uh requested waivers uh major site plan uh site plan submission requirements wave administrative play fee site plan submission requires waiver wave environmental impact assessment site plan submission requirements wave community and financial impacts assessment so let me now go to and John do I need to read the storm water management permit section 21112 2.1.2 yeah 2.1.2 yes those are the conditions for the storm water management permit so it may make sense uh through the chair to discuss the site plan and see if there's any comments from the public or from the board um and then uh kind of go from there and then if if none move on to the storm water management permit read those conditions and findings and vote on the waivers you need to vote on the waivers for both of them separately okay so yeah for everybody's just kind of level set we're trying to uh review the site plan as well as the St Mor management P plan so for the site plan I just read the findings the conditions and the W and the waiver requested waivers so now um is there anyone that has any questions about like the site plan and those uh kind of the findings conditions or waivers requested that I read allowed I think it in general it makes sense to read the storm water management the same uh uh conditions uh if there's any findings and waivers and then and then take the two subsequent votes at the end so unless anyone objects that's that's what my plan is so 2.1.12 the storm water management permit these are the conditions after finding that it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the storm water bylaw or storm water regulations the planning board wave strict compliance with the following provisions of chapter 172 of the general bylaws s SMP submission requirements wave administrative fee s SMP submission requirements wave storm storm water completion shity uh section two here all erosion and sediment control to comply with the following performance criteria minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features in soil sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance mass clearings and Grading of the entire site site shall be avoided minimize Peak rate of runoff in accordance with the massachus storm water stand storm water standards minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction provided that prevention of erosion is preferred over sedimentation control divert uncontaminated water around Disturbed areas maximize groundwater recharge install and maintain all erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the manufacturer specifications and good engineering practices prevent off-site transport of sediment protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas overburden of stock piles of dirt borrow areas or other areas you solely byy the permitted projects are considered a part of the project comply with the applicable state and local laws and regulations including waste disposal sanitary sewer or septic systems regulations and air quality requirements including dust control prevent significant alteration of habitats map by the Massachusetts natural heritage and endangered species program is endangered threatened or of special concern estimated habitats of rare wildlife and certified vernal pools and priority habitats of rare species from the proposed activities item K Institute inum impermanent stabilization measures which shall be instituted on a disturbed area as soon as practicable but not more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site properly manage on-site construction and waste materials prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments dust shall be controlled at the site divert off-site runoff from highly erodable soils and steep slopes to stable areas the project shall comply with the following erosion and sediment control requirements prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site the developer shall physically Mark limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape signs or orangs construction fence so that workers can see the areas to be protected the physical markers should remain in place until a certificate of completion has been issued appropriate erosion and sediment control measures should be installed prior to soil disturbance measures shall be taken to control erosion within the project area sediment and runoff water should be trapped and retained within the project area Wetland areas and surface waterers shall be protected from sediment sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches a half to a quarter to half the height of a hay bale sediment should be removed from the silt fence prior to reaching the load bearing capacity of the sil fence which which may be lower than a half to I mean a quarter to a half the height item D sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation Pond shall be removed when designning capacity has been reduced by 50% soil stock piles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday stock piles side slope shall not be greater than 2: one all stock piles shall be surrounded by siment controls Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seating wood chips bark malts Tarpin or any other approved methods for active construction areas such as borrow of stock pilas roadway improvements in areas within 50 ft of a building under construction a permanent sediment control system should be installed and maintain to contain soil a tracking pad or other approved stabilization method method should be constructed at all entrance exit points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried onto roadways and off the site Wilson Street and Cedar Street in the vicinity of the project shall be swept as needed throughout the construction process permanent seating shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May and in late summer and early fall from August to October 15th during the peak summer months and in the fall after October 15th when seating is found to be impractical appropriate temporary stabilization should be applied permanent seating may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide an adequate mulching and watering All Slopes steeper than 3:1 uh H colon V uh 33.3% as well as perimeter dikes sediment basins or traps and embarkment must upon completion be immediately stabilized with sod seed and anchored straw mulch or other approved stabilization method measures areas outside of the perimeter sediment control system not must not be disturbed temporary sediment trapping device shall not be removed until permanent stabilization is established in all contributary drainage areas All Temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed after final site stabilization Disturbed St areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures should be permanently stabilized with 30 days of removal item four a minimum of seven days prior to start of construction to detailed uh construction sequence shall be submitted to the principal planner by the site contractor for review and approval the approved construction sequence shall be followed throughout the course of the construction should be altered only with prior review and by and written approval from the principal planner a signed copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan she be provided to the board prior to the building permit per 6. O.K do2 the s w pppp must include the sign notice of intent and approval letter all required storm water pollution prevention plan s swppp storm water construction site inspection report should be submitted to the principal planner within 14 days of each inspection an adequate stockpile of erosion control materials should be on site at all times for emergency or routin replacement include materials to repair or replace silt fences hay bells Stone filters BMS or any other devices planned for use during construction soil testing and excavation of the site storm water basins must be observed by the board's engineer to laying LOM and Seed the applicant developer shall notify the principal planner at least 48 hours weekends and holidays excluded prior to the soil test and or excavation to allow for adequate time to coordinate these observations all storm water basins must be cleaned once the site is stabilized all storm water Bas should be cleaned prior to the issu issuance of a certificate of occupancy additional soil testing should be completed within the proposed infiltration system in Rain Garden before construction starts and results shall be shared with the planning board's peerreview consultant for final riew and confirmation of appropriateness of the design so I'm going to go back uh and read the W any any requested waivers for storm water management so the so that we're back to we're at two not two do section 2.9.2 storm water management permit the requested waivers are s SMP submission requirements wave administrative fee s SMP submission requirements wave storm water completion shity does anyone on the planning board have any questions about the storm water management uh permits hearing none I'm going to jump to to the Motions section two do uh I'm going 2.13 so I'm there's a moot there going to be motions for the findings and then there's going to be motions uh for this is going to be a motion for the findings for the site plan a motion for the find uh for the decision I mean um for the permit itself so I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read aloud for the major project site plan application so moved second all right thank you I'm going to do a roll call vote unless there's any discussion anyone wants to have through the chair go ahead uh John you may want to vote on the waivers first okay could we could I uh could I pause Matthew and uh who who did the second I did Parker Parker can can I uh can I come back to your Motion in uh your second and and and uh we can vote on the waivers first is that okay with you guys uh I'm not sure what the rules of parliamentary order would say for that and table the current motion I mean there's there's a second on the motion so fundamentally I'll leave it to John he's usually the one that I don't think we have to get that formal all right I think the intent of the board would be clear if you want to move forward with the waivers and then reconsider the motion for adoption of the findings it's just that the findings you find that the waivers are grantable but you haven't granted the W yet so it's just that's the issue uh I'm fine uhing the motion that's same okay I think this is a non-controversial vote so I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the requested waivers for the uh major project site plan of the site plan submission requirements waving the administrative fee waving the environmental impact assessment and waving community and financial impacts assessment so moved Second Great Alise how do you vote yes thank you uh Lucia I don't vote on this okay uh Matthew uh yes is there concern that Vic isn't here in terms of Quorum no we we're going to have enough I'm pretty sure uh Michael I yeah no I can vote on this yes Parker yes Jane Jane say yes uh I don't I think this started before Karen joined as well correct and so Rob Benson is yes so I think that gets us to our five votes so I now I'd like to entertain uh a motion to wave the administrative fee yeah and wave the storm water completion shity for the storm water management permit so moved second all right Elise how do you vote Yes uh Matthew Matthew Ronka yes yes Parker ha yes Michael King yes and Robenson is a yes Jane's a yes too and Janes I'm sorry that's okay I tried to go Rogue and try to just do it for memory as opposed to bringing up my list know you know it works out so now uh section 2.13 first uh I think we're going to do 2.1 13.1.1 and then 21321 so I'd like to entertain a motion that the board and approve the findings as previously read allowed for the major project site plan application Rob do you want to take public comment or take comment or you sure any is there any comments from any Christopher go ahead uh through the chair um when we discussed this with the uh Conservation Commission regarding the site plan test or the um the storm water test pit in the infil ation area um which is one of time Bond's comments um what we discussed with the Conservation Commission was to do uh test pit in the infiltration area we had done one in the neighborhood of it but I believe it was 30 feet away two of the members felt strongly that we should do that test pit the one request that the applicant has is that we the motion not include language that would require to us to do such test excuse me such test pit prior to beginning work on site the infiltration area is not expected I believe until 2025 and we're committed to doing it as soon as we mobilize on site but it would be much more cost effective to the town to be able to do that test pit once we had heavy equipment on site um so that it could be done most quickly and efficiently um the other comment related to that was uh related to the Rain Garden area infiltration um there we requested not to do the test pit that is largely existing drainage area that is being cleaned up um and renewed so it has functioned as an EXA as a drainage area since it was created and um we prefer not to disturb it um in order to do a test pit for it to continue its use as a drainage area uh John I'm looking for some guidance here of how to how to proceed it's up to the board I mean if you if you agree with what the applicant is saying then you can change the decision I I mean I can't tell you what to vote on no it it basically I I think it I think what he requested makes sense at least to me at least to one person um what is the general board's sentiment so which ones are we changing Rob it's item 10 is one of them and through the chair um we haven't seen the the final conditions I don't believe as they're written before you um it would be the there was a request for infiltration test pits in um a recommendation from time bond for infiltration test pits within the infiltration system as well as within I believe it's the rain Garden but I'm not sure how it's written in front of you um the what we had discussed with the Conservation Commission and they seemed amenable um although we did not have the opportunity in the public meeting to discuss the timing issue um they were okay with only having the test pit be with in the uh infiltration area we had done borings with monitoring Wells to um identify groundwater depth um but they asked that we actually do a test pit prior to committing to that location and so we're happy to do so we'd just like to be able to do it after the contractor mobilizes with heavy equipment does any does anybody see where this is in our uh in our write up so additional soil testing shall be completed with the proposed infiltration system in Rain Garden before construction starts on item 10 is the one that I found quickly trying to find if there's another through the chair I believe that's what I'm referring to okay is that the only item that's impacted that was red so through the condition 17 correct yes 10 I'm seeing 21117 211117 yes here's what that condition reads additional soil testing shall be completed within the proposed infiltration system in Rain Garden before construction starts and results shall be shared with the planning board's peer review consultant for final review and confirmation of the appropriateness of the design Rob also 21210 is the other one uh 211 310 21131 2110 21110 sorry yeah 21110 on the storm water side it's basically the same thing chair that's 211. two number 10 sorry do I need a different numbering convention on my memos this too confusing and and so this one it says additional soil testing should be completed within the proposed infiltration system in Rain Garden before construction starts and result shall be shared with the planning board's peer review consult for final review and confirmation of appropriateness of the design so uh one one is for the site plan and one is for the storm water management permit so I think we just need to strike for the site plan if everybody's okay we can uh defer um we can basically eliminate the the phrase before construction starts and just say we could say during construction I uh if that's amendable to the board Rob is probably a question for for John or for Steve is is there a time frame that we could set that is um a specific but reasonable time frame like is there stage of the project I'm gonna defer to Steve on that one sure um so I mean we're we're planning on like Chris had said we're planning on you know as soon as they mobilize and get heavy equipment on site and I would say within Rob blanched correct me if I'm wrong I mean within a two months of this decision would we be able to do the testing I mean we'd like to do it soon around than later if we do yeah we'll doing it right over the summer before the kids get back on site yeah the chair can I just ask the applicant a question sure so Steve what would be the next step after you were to do these test pits in two months what would be the next step that we could say make as a threshold prior [Music] to work uh you know construction of the structures like what what would you be looking to wait how about sure how about prior to the installation of the underground storm water management system we will provide a another depole test pit in that location to confirm conditions so at this point in the after reading uh kind of all the conditions uh can we simply can we simply say um modifying item 177 modifying uh this from um before construction starts to before the installation of the underground storm water management system who chair who's that question directed to I to you John I think that uh yeah that's that would be the amendment that I would uh recommend that for the site plan and for the storm water management permit and I don't believe there was a motion made on the uh conditions is that correct no Matthew caught the hand uh the hand raised before we made any motions so so you don't need to amend any motions or anything like that so you can make the motion to accept the conditions as written or as amended read and and amended and then that would be the the the motion well approval with the conditions as read and amended so moved second through the chair um we'd also be interested if the um planning board would entertain striking the rain Garden from those Provisions well now we have a motion now we're going to have to see if we can can you there wasn't a second right yeah there was Parker seconded it Parker's too quick on the draw just you can vote vote it down and then REM remove remove the motion if we want to get technical about it um or amend the motion to include that language it doesn't have to it doesn't have to be this complicated yeah where is the section I'm looking for the section so seven section 17 same section it's just rainu is specified there and they want to remove it if I recall oh yeah okay so it's going to modify this to additional soil testing should be cleed within proposed infiltration system before the before construction of the under ground storm water management system would Matthew and Parker be acceptable to that Amendment um what was the reason for striking that again was that because of timing or we they weren't the r Garden um Steve if you want to take this my understanding is that the um the rain Garden is functioning in that way now okay correct so yeah so so Matthew we're we're looking to just we're it's a it's a storm water feature we're looking to enhance it so we're removing invasive vegetation and then putting in plantings to essentially make it more of a functional rain guard but it's already acting as this the exting exactly yeah um I'm fine with the uh the friendly Amendment given the state of the all right I think we're ready to vote Elise how do you vote Yes Matthew Ranka yes Parker hap yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right let's see if we can get through some more of these without uh butchering them too bad so I'm I'm moving on to 21321 so we just uh approved the findings so now we're trying going to try to uh approve the site plan um I move that the board approv the major site plan with the following conditions as modified in the previous discussion of section 17 excluding the rain Garden uh and modifying the language that is uh it needs to start uh the test pits need to start before construction that they can be as long as they're completed before the installation of the undergr storm water management uh system is sufficient uh I move that the or I se a motion that uh to approve this site plan as read aloud with that modification can we vote to approve the site plan as as approved by the board is that the same thing but clearer if you'd like to make a motion Matthew you are welcome uh I'm I'm being sure that that's actually valid for we are um I moveed that the board approved the Mater sight plan with the conditions as they were previously voted on by the board is that what we're in the findings and the appr yeah the chair suggest a motion we just say uh I move the the board approve the major project site plan with the conditions as they were previously read allow by the chair and amended by the board so moved second thank you all right Elise how do you vote Yes Matthew Rona yes Parker hap yes Michael King yes Jane ran yes and Rob Benson is a yes so the storm water management permit so this this one is uh section 10 uh right above that we need to modify so I move that the board accept and approved the findings as previously read alowed for the storm water management permit application with uh the exclud excluding the rain Garden in section 10 and um that it as long as it's completed before through the chair go ahead the conditions we're vot you're voting on The findings right now okay sorry I move that the board accept and approve the findings as previously read allowed for the storm water management permanent application with with the with the modification to section 10 excluding striking the words rain garden and that the testing can uh can be completed before the installation of the undergr underground storm water management system and doesn't need to be completed before construction starts is that in the conditions right yeah the findings are the proposed work will comply with the Hopton storm water regulations and the granting of the requested waivers has been detered determined to be in the public interest and the granting of these waivers is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the public in general those are the two findings proposed I don't know if any have been added by the board no all right so this is simp this one is simple then uh I move that the board accept and approved the findings as previously read or allowed for the storm water management permit uh actually I I'd like to entertain a motion that the board accept and approved the findings as previously read aloud for the storm water management permanent application so moved second all right Alise meowski yes Matthew Ronka yes Parker hap yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes and Rob Benson is a yes so we're we're getting there um two do 13.2.2 I move that the board approved the storm water management permit with the following conditions as they were previously actually I'd like to entertain a motion that the board approved the storm water management permit with the following conditions as they were previously read aloud by the chair striking rain Garden from section 10 of the uh above and that the test doesn't need to be done before construction starts but it can be done before the installation as long as it's done before the installation of the underground storm water management system who the chair yes I would also request that the board extend the deadline for the decision to the end of that week because that's next Monday just want to make sure that we have it in time to get it signed and drafted um today this week is is weird week for me so I don't know if I can guarantee the 24th even the 26th would be better and extend the decision criteria to June deadline decision deadline to June 20 what date do you want 26 uh it's up to the applicant is it 26 27th 28th okay I I have intend in having it earlier I just want to have some just in case there's some complications through the chair yep um uh if you could if John could expand on what that means for the appeals period I believe we're looking to mobilize on site on July 15th pending permits from the um building department so that would basically whenever the decision is filed is when the appeal period would start so potentially if you extend it to the 26th and I file it with the clerk on the 26th because it's signed then the appeal period would start on the 26th otherwise it would be the 24th okay and I intend on having this done I just it's a weird week with the holiday in the middle don't know when I'm going to be able to get it signed um just want to make sure that we get it done properly and we're not rushing on Monday to get it done yeah the applicants am men or through the chair of the applic amable in 26 all right EX extending the decision deadline to June 26th to finish that uh statement previously so moved thank you Matthew second thanks Parker Elise meoki you're on mute we'll Circle back to Elise Matthew Ranka yes Parker ha yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes Rob enson is yes Alise Elise sorry yes thank you all right I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for 90 and 104 Hayden row street so moved second Alise smosi how do you vote Yes Matthew Rona how do you vote Yes Parker yes Michael King yes Jane Moran yes and Rob Benson is a yes all right I think you are done with the planning board thank you so much thank you thank you everyone thank you oh there he is all right so the public hearing for uh zero East Main Street is is still open from our prior meeting uh there was a sidewalk uh uh a week ago Saturday unfortunately I I couldn't attend but I I hope um a good portion of the board was able to attend so we're picking up where we left off um it's my understanding uh Tony you're you're our peer review consultant on this project is that correct that is correct uh Tony capet with West and Samson uh 55 Walkers Brook Road Reading Massachusetts I think I think where I'd like to start is uh it's my understanding you've come to an agreement pretty much on uh any outstanding points with the applicant could you just give an overview of uh where where things stand from your perspective so uh applicant was very Cooperative uh they submitted a a letter and what revisions that they could given the the quick turnaround uh between meetings uh but they agreed in substance to make all the changes that were requested and they they were fairly minor um I boiled them down to I believe there's about a dozen uh outstanding issues with that could be conditioned I'll share the screen real quick I have uh just a quick overview of uh status so um they submitted responses to all the outstanding issues in the first pair ofie uh they've either addressed or described how they intend to address any outstanding issues and those items could be conditioned if the planning board decides to should it decide to do so um there was the issue of maintaining the 50 Foot natural uh buffer their so fence was about 47 feet away there's plenty of room to move it to 50 feet they've agreed to doing it uh just to condition that the the uh plan be uh submitted with that revision um the requirement that uh the EV spaces also meet the Ada uh Masset architectural uh board uh regulations uh they've agreed to change one of the Ada spaces to an EV space as well um it can be done easily and again uh just a condition that a rised plan be submitted uh they did show the extent of the existing Tree Line ter remain on the Landscaping plan uh we just think that it'd be a good idea to show it on the site plan and grading plan because the contractor is probably not going to have the the Landscaping plan as they're doing tree clearing just to kind of uh keep everyone on the same page as far as what's to remain again uh condition for revised plans uh they've committed to provide all applicable easements for utility construction to the board uh there's a couple of areas where they have to go onto encroaching lots that are actually owned by the same seller as this just to make sure that they have the easement documentation PRI to construction uh not necessarily A approval condition but a construction condition uh they provided us recommendations from uh an acoustic engineer pickle ball sound mitigation uh and you may want to just include those recommendations by referencing your decision should you decide to to approve the project um to show sight distance triangles isn't a proposed freestanding sign uh it looks like it's clear from sight distance wise but just to show the triangle and make a note that this the sign should not encroach in that triangle uh so onom vehicles and exiting Vehicles can see each other on that Westerly approach um the last meeting we talked about the sidewalk does not go continuously across the frontage on the the same side of the street however there's a crosswalk about Midway that goes and uh connects to the existing sidewalk on the opposite side of the street where it crosses uh where it uh continues so there's there's access on the the whole length of um the front edge it's just that uh it's not on the same side of the street and there's wetlands in that area uh that they did not want to to impact and it would be a sidewalk to nowhere so just that the board make a f should make a finding that accepts this as an alternative provision um the light fixtures uh around the building providing pedestrian um lighting uh are to be reduced from 15 ft to 12T uh they're going to submit a revised uh lighting plan uh the lighting levels were were such that that I'm not concerned about a dropping below one candle foot in that area um especially with the lower uh fixtures they may need to add a fixture or two but nothing uh substantial um they've stated that they'll have photo cells or sensors uh for nighttime uh illumination uh just conditioning it and uh reinforcing it in a decision uh may be a good idea uh they're going to add the court lighting to the lighting plan uh the courts are sufficient away sufficiently away from uh property lines that there should not be any spill over but just that a condition uh similar to the one that you just passed that there's no light spill over from from the lighting uh they've provided a sweat path analysis uh this is the one that was used with the design review boards uh fire department has supposedly seen it and sign signed off on it as part of that process uh just getting documentation uh as as a condition of of approval uh which they said should not be an issue um so they had some minor uh call out details for Cape Cod burm just just to clarify the plans uh they they were able to explain it as to how it should be interpreted they're just going to clean the details up a little bit so whoever's constructing it uh doesn't need to ask the question um they're undergoing groundwater discharge permit review for uh work over the leeching field system that you know condition should require that that the board receive a copy of that uh the BMP location uh sketch that's required for operation maintenance uh should be submitted as a condition of approval um some additional language for construction phase erosion control and sequencing uh that's more for the local storm water permit uh just to to submit that um they've described how they would do it and it makes sense it's just a matter of putting in writing so they can uh be part of the decision and then the onm and elicit discharge statements those would be conditions of occupancy uh typically uh just to make sure just for housekeeping for the board to receive those uh prior to signing off on the occupancy um and other than that like I said these were overall pretty minor comments kind of housekeeping and and and recordkeeping for for the board so in the future you have everything uh compiled and documented all right thanks Tony I appreciate that before we get going does anybody have any questions for either our peerreview consultant or um or the applicant uh Matthew go ahead yeah I I noticed that the peer riew letter just got added this morning so I haven't actually read it in detail um the one of the things we noticed walking around the property was that you could see through to one of the houses on Wayside I was wondering if the if that house was included as one of the abuts and if they had any feed back or comment or any discussion there so which house is this which address I I don't know the address but there's one right as way I think it's Wayside is the road right behind it um as it turns there's one uh if you were to walk out where your proposed parking lot is you would look out at their second floor window so it's yeah Matt I I actually met with him a few times uh he had concerns um he showed up actually at the zba meeting and rais those concerns um I actually met with him several times and we discussed those concerns some concerns were about the site some concerns were about were about the noise so I shared with him the uh noise mitigation report that Tony was just talking about um I uh hired 3D designer who created 3D model of the whole space and I asked the designer to uh create kind of a view from that vantage point from the second floor of that house what what they would actually see and uh I created a few different variations what we could create there like in terms of the screening uh some of the options were like you know Evergreen some of the options were uh shade trees so we presented that along with other findings that they were looking for um they picked like one of those options and that is what you currently have on the um on the plan so all of other were included I connected with many of them and had uh um like really constructive discussions so we're talking about those uh um Evergreens right uhuh yeah so those were added actually after that discussion and uh um there is kind of a u shape oh so actually no so yeah so that area right there is where where I'm looking at where the mouse is now ah that area yeah so there will be a retaining wall there as well it's that was my recollection I was going to take a look at the grading plan here I thought it yeah there will be a retaining wall yeah so there's a a burm and a retaining wall um in this area the the wall here is is flush it then goes up to Elevation 309 and then back down uh there may be the existing tree lines shown in this area on the landscape plan but there may be opportunities to add possibly a row of arbites on the top of the BM um to to add some screening if there's there's an issue although having said that uh not aware of any comments that have come in from that no coms coming from that side for sure um and U we just need to be careful also to allow um enough space for maintenance vehicle if if there is a need to service the leeching field at some point Main vehicle needs to kind of pass there and uh um yeah so through the chair we had concerns potentially about light pollution M uh as vehicles are coming down from that ramp exactly that you know I don't know about you but even driving on the road these days and getting blinded and that just the continued entrance of the parking lot there that could be more light pollution especially considering there are many deciduous not Conor for trees so coverage would be leaving some to be desired in winter months uh that was just one observation that we had on the sidewalk and we know the property offset behind that gradient is slightly below so you know it's not I don't I'm not an engineer but it's not like you'd be erecting you know a wall but it's just some sort of buffer if it is our veres could be beneficial but maybe a better ideas that was just something we noticed I thought there was a call out on here for a fence that maybe that fence instead of being black chain link could be an opaque fence that might so 42 in uh it was unclear how far that went down too does that stop before it reaches the end of basically the line of the parking lot where the yeah it looks like it's a safety wall above the retaining wall a safety fence above the raining one so that's a good idea yeah we could uh we could make it not kind of transparent and uh um with some kind of um it yeah so U and if needed we might extend a little bit further and through the chart another question we had is for the dumpster location that will be that will have some sort of like barrier or um it will be contained correct it will be contained yeah they did provide a detail um sorry for the flipping around I don't remember the pages directly but there is a detail showing uh dumpster enclosure that's so this is the solid cedar fence that goes around the dumpster enclosure um and it may have just been the solid SE Defence but uh they do call out on the landscape plan cuz that was one of the maybe lay materials I think it's 22 Wayside is the one that goes that that angle is right there right here thank you so we could plan some trades or we could extend that uh um chain link fans and cover it um if you think that would be valuable I think something suggestions Pro protect against light going through especially in early evenings in the winter as as Parker said um seems like the most vulnerable time um I'd also be interested if we could see I I think uh somebody mentioned that the sound dampening uh blankets or fences are are being used somewhere else nearby I was just wondering if we could add that to the to the folder some description of what those those are so the uh the sound mitigation report uh names a few of them yeah they they name a few of them I can so it's going to be something like I don't know we can't really tell you can kind it's uh it's thick and uh if you see it's uh there is like a thick installation inside so it's specifically designed for noise medication and there are a few different solutions so what I'm doing right now I'm actually evaluating them um I'm ordering the samples I'm taking them apart I'm seeing kind of what they made of and uh I'll pick the uh the best one that is on the market do we do you have a timeline for when you think you'd have a decision of what you're picking so we could have it as part of oh yeah which one you pick or I actually I actually prefer not to uh make a decision on it soon because uh um this is the last thing that's going to be put and right now there is a lot of innovation actually that's happening in the field because noise is a big problem for the sport so there are many companies coming up with the new innovative solutions that are better than what it is what we have right now on the market so I want to know what we have so when new stuff comes out I can compare and and then if it's better in terms of the uh kind of quality uh I rather do that so if possible I I rather not to commit but as as examples of what those would be uh the sound mitigation report names like three most uh used right now I think going off of the discussion on noise um during the S sidewalk one of the pictures that we were shown has a wall in the outside quarts that looks to be like a wall that you would practice hitting against the wall outside ports um so on the pictures you mean on like uh the images yeah so we got like a packet of pictures and one of them has a wall where you would be hitting against the wall so the wall would be with that thing that I just showed right so the wall is not going to be kind of concrete wall or like you can't hit against it it will be a chain link fence with that type of a blanket on top of it okay right that should it will be specifically done for the noise and there is no like the ball will not bounce back from that thing oh okay look like a wall that you would be bouncing off of like your partner isn't there yet and you're practicing it's not gonna work the the ball is not going to bounce back okay so you don't have a wall like that on the outside quarts then no no okay that's what it like yeah yeah on the picture I mean it's 3D version but imagine like a chain link f with uh like if you've seen those tennis uh tennis clubs with like 12 or 10 foot chain link with the uh windbreaker right so people are not hitting against that so that's going to be similar to this but just thicker thicker and with insulation not just a windbreaker okay right so so like the ball but is not going to bounce back people are not going to be using it okay but that's a good question yeah um and then in terms of the location of the dumpster I just I don't know if there's a chance to put it somewhere else but it does seem to be in the closest location to the residential AB buts um and living near a commercial property I can tell you when they pick up that dumpster they don't they don't always wait until a good hour and they're pretty noisy um I I I need to check with my site engineer like he was pretty specific when he found that space and he was like like okay this is one of the few spaces where it will be possible for the dumpster to come in to easily kind of uh unload and uh um and leave um but I I will check to see like whether that there is a better place um initially Tony if you could bring the uh the side plan um I will I will tell you I will show you where it was initially so you see where the EV spaces are yeah so at the top of the EV space right like the the top EV space so in that area initially it was actually to the right of that to the right of that like in that area right and then the concern was that was that like this is the first thing that people will see as they coming into the uh into the club and also when when a dumpster comes in nobody else can come in or get out until they are kind of done with it it's going to be Block in a lot of a lot of traffic so um then to address that concern that might have actually come from fire department I think um we decided to relocate it and to relocate it to that specific location so it's uh kind of further away and and and less blocking traffic and one of the the things that I'm okay did not like that because I was looking for text uh one of the the items of note is that they there is an existing uh leeching field here so you have um you see here this is a leeching trench and it looks like the I don't know if you'd be able to put a dumpster on top of that trench uh yeah have that support it so that looks like much of this area is off limits although you might be able to to fit something in this Gap here but but I think that's one of the driving forces behind the location just kind of looking at the plan and understanding what some of the limitations to the site uh currently are thank you Tony like this this leing field was designed like a few years ago like six seven years ago with the idea that it will be used as a parking lot right so it's um what is it like um H20 yeah uh loading right and uh we're discussing right now with mass DP to install geog GED to kind of spread the um the tension of of vehicle so I I think it will support like wherever we put it um so if if the board thinks that there is a better place potentially for it um I would love to discuss it with my site engineer to see whether it's possible to put it there and with mass DP to T Point whether it will be okay with them for me to put it but it's a it's a good point so potentially you know it could be moved up to the middle of this um row of parking parking space and it's not going to impact anything because you know this parking space just going to be moved down a little bit right um okay uh ma Matthew go ahead yes I do we have the sound report in the folder I I see lighting I see traffic I'm trying to find anything about sound mitigation and sound concerns I shared it so I'm not sure whether it was put in the folder in this situation John do we have any jurisdiction over sound issues like for like a pickle ball Club sound um is something that can be reviewed as part of the site plan review I mean it's it's reviewed so in our Solar special permit it's explicitly called out as something that the board can test for that's that's a special permit right but um sound generation for use on a certain site that can be mitigated by other site characteristics is something that the board can review okay but but the Sound Ordinance that exists currently is um it's not going to really work for pickle ball like it's it's not strict enough so we went above and beyond of what the current kind of code suggests or requires like me being a player and a coach I understand how big of a problem noise is so I'm taking it very seriously um and you know as you've seen I I proactively hired sound engine who specializes in pickable noise mitigation like that's all they do now and I appreciate all the all the work you put into the renderings into researching what's a good sound mitigation technique um I just for um you know documentation future purposes I'd like to make sure that we we have the report yeah thank you John if you don't have it I'm happy to resend again muted John yeah my computer yelled at me when I started talking um I don't know why I wouldn't have had it I I don't see it in the folder I can check my emails uh but you know I download all the documents and put it over so if you could send it over again that would be helpful just so we know I have the most yeah yeah and I absolutely I will do that and uh if you want to can bring it up right now and like show at least the not the full report but the uh recommendation section so if that would be helpful I'm wondering how the how the board feels about um trying to push through to uh the remaining sections of kind of the outline versus like if we just got the uh kind of letter from the peerreview consultant this morning and some other things if we are not comfortable pushing forward and trying to get to a vote tonight like I want to get some sentiment from the board of do they feel they need more time to review some of the materials uh any anyone have an opinion I feel like we need more time and we've we've this is the first time we've met since doing the S sidewalk and we had concerns about the light we haven't seen the peer review letter I'd like to see the sound report any anyone else can I ask a question about process sure um so so I think last meeting we said that they were going to meet with design review board which I saw that letter um and I believe also Conservation Commission no Conservation Commission is going to be on the 25th uh we did meet with the design review board and uh everything went fine there were some interesting comments um if I may share a screen it will be easier kind of to visualize for you okay um and then my question on process for for Conservation Commission do you generally wait um for applicants to go through those processes Lucia I'd say it's a little disjoint it's not completely as cohesive as you'd hope for um it the processes really can run independently and um we try our best to take input uh and I think they try to take do their best to take input but it's it's not as uh like lock step as you may expect okay because I sorry through the chair go ahead um I feel like some of what has come up in the other site plan reviews has been from these meetings um with other committees and it seems like their input is helpful so if it's the case that they haven't had a chance to weigh in yet I feel like that would also be beneficial so they have they they did have a chance it just happened before the last meeting with planning board right so we we had a conversation with uh uh concom and uh just like here they also have their own independent consultant who reviewed our noi uh notice of inent and they provided you know their recommendations so we addressing their recommendations so there is nothing major there just like in this case we are we are kind of going in three different direction directions at the same time with kcom with planning board and with uh Mass DP right so we want to get far enough with all of these constituents with all of these parties before we start modifying the plans because we want the plans to be final rather than iteratively keep changing them keep changing them to um satisfy each individual party but uh um we have met with kcom and uh like we're with them just like we're working with planning board and mdp to address any issues that are coming up those are a little bit orthogonal to what we're discussing here they're a little bit kind of different I mean it's the same site we're talking about kind of the same space but from a different perspective they're more looking from the um Wetlands perspective right yeah so uh what I what I'd like to do is I think I'd like to give give the board members uh more time to review the peer review uh consultant uh letter I'd like to see the the noise kind of uh study or noise uh documentation uh about the noise and I'd like to I'd like to any qu any remaining questions from the board members I'd like to be asked and hopefully we can get to answers tonight or and then I'd like to like continue this to the next meeting so we could just kind of methodically go step by through the rest of the uh agenda and and hopefully get to and get to a vote so um I think I'd like to start if there's any more questions for youny or a peerreview consultant at this point in time I I think now is the time go ahead John so not a question but I just wanted to uh let the board know that Tony sent over the sound mitigation report I had it in the file for some reason didn't add it to the shared file now it's in the shared file you guys should have access to that apologize for that all right thanks thanks John does anybody uh does anybody have any remaining questions uh Rob just one one other thing is um not really a question but uh before next time like I it would be uh helpful I think to understand uh just make sure that I think it's I think it's 22 ways side is the one that's just back there just make sure that there's no comments from that uh that about her or he been able to talk with him or her all right I was also wondering in I was reading 3.6 um in terms of comments and I was wondering if those comments have been responded to it says there's one from DPW and one from the police department I read that as well ygy I don't know if you've had a chance to if you're aware of these comments back from the DPW or the police department no no no no I I I I'm not aware if you could share them with me uh so Rob if if I may on one of them sure um I I think it ALS that's also one of the concern so I think the fire department was or police were asking for uh a connection to way sides I'm curious where that would fit on the site plan if that were built so they could have a access uh through a different route no there is no connection to Wayside and it's uh well that that is something actually that we discussed um in uh one of those uh prean official meetings and uh that was like one of the questions that was raised we looked at it and there is no way to do it really the the questions from the DPW were uh that they haven't heard anything from the applicant as to whether or not they are requesting Town water down water uh yes so uh um we will be connecting to the to the water and uh uh there is a place like where we're going to be connecting it connecting to it like it's um it's going to be it will require one of those easements because the connection is uh in the shared driveway with the r viw States so it's a it's on one of those uh yeah plans that were submitted mhm so for water yes for no for will be connecting to the um Waste Water Treatment Plant for Legacy Farms okay all right if it's agreeable agreeable with you ygy we'd like to uh continue this at our next uh planning War meeting uh is that is that scheduled for July 1 John yes the next meeting is July 1 do I need to extend uh the decision C deadline or anything yeah so the site plan the decision is due within 90 days of the close of the public hearing so we're good on that but the storm water management permit is due June 24th that would excuse me that would need to be extended but um that week town hall is going to be closed the third fourth and fifth so I doubt I'm going to be getting be able to get the decision drafted and signed on the second and then filed so I would recommend we continue it to the week after preferably the Wednesday of the week after at the very least uh for the chair yep um can we like I'm not sure about the protocol here I'm just asking whether we could close on the storm water management report uh and the permit because uh it looks like with the storm water management there there r no concerns or issues or questions um it was more about the I think the concern you have gu is that uh because we just got the kind of the the our peerreview consultant report about storm water management we we just just got it this morning so everybody on the board hasn't had a chance to read it the I I I think the comments were not about storm water management mostly right Tony like storm water management were addressed in the first report like that we looked at um like at the at the last meeting uh yeah there were a couple of okay uh submissions that we had asked for for to come in but you know um I think it may be in your best bet just to wait for the that's fine the next pring and do everything at once just in case you get any more input from conservation um going forward and and again unless you have condition the the easier your you know things are to comply with the decision so uh so um John can you just make sure I'm saying the the wording here right I'd like to extend I like like to entertain a motion to extend the decision deadline for the storm water man perit to July 10th 2024 and continue the public hearing and continue the public hearing to July 1st and then you want to do the same for the hearing of the site plan and I'd like to extend the decision deadline for the site plan to July just the hearing to the July 1 and I'd like to move extend the hearing to July first for the site plan um at zero East Main Street so just to clarify through the chair that's to extend the or to continue the hearing for the storm water management permit and the site plan to July 1st and the decision for the storm water management permit to July 10th correct all right yes let me let me I'd like to entertain a m a motion to continue the public hearing for the site site plan and the storm water management plan to July 1st and extend the decision deadline for the storm water management plan to July 10th so moved so moved thank you second thank you Parker thank you Jane all right uh everyone can vote on this so um Elise how do you vote Yes uh Lucia yes Matthew Rona yes Michael King yes Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes and Rob Benson is a yes so you have we'll see you uh in two weeks sounds good thank you have a good night all right thank you for your time thank you so with that as uh I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn uh or tonight's meeting so moved thank you Matthew second thanks Parker all right Elise how do you vote Yes Matthew Ranka yes uh Luccia Lopez yes Michael King I I don't Michael did you I I didn't hear you if you said yes apologies y I said yes uh Parker hap yes Jane Moran yes Karen Wills yes and Rob Benson is yes all right thanks everybody see everybody in two weeks chair Mr Benson yeah Lori are we supposed to be closing the public hearing or no no we we left the close the public hearing open because it's going to continue to next y so just to confirm for the first motion to continue public hearing from zero East Main Street we're doing that for July 1 and then continue the public hearing for stone water management and site plan that's going to July 1st with the a decision deadline of July 10th both the site plan and the storm water management plan are continued to July 1st the decision deadline for the storm Water Management plan is moving to July 10th July 10th okay I got confused that's okay all righty thanks all right thanks everybody have a good night you too bye you by good night