[Speaker 19] (0:30 - 1:46)
. .

[Speaker 18] (2:24 - 4:18)
. .

[Speaker 16] (4:44 - 5:14)
.

[Speaker 4] (5:39 - 5:40)
. .

[Speaker 9] (6:20 - 6:24)
. .

[Speaker 4] (6:24 - 6:25)
.

[Speaker 9] (6:26 - 6:33)
We haven't brought, we're just waiting. We'll start very shortly, once I get the word.

[Speaker 1] (6:34 - 11:25)
Everybody ready to get started? 12-2022, public meeting of the Swampstruck Zoning Board of Appeals and now being after 7 p.m. We're going to get started with our agenda. We have one agenda item on for tonight, which is the Elm Place petition.

We have, I see Mr. Drukis who is here on behalf of the petitioner with a few people. I'm sure he'll let us know everyone that's here when he's going to be presenting. So I just wanted to let everyone know what my expectations are for this meeting.

There's certain new material that has come in on both the petitioner's behalf and peer review. And also for abutters who are represented by council and a lot of that came in late. Prior to this week, my expectation was we would, and I told everyone at the last meeting, that it looked like we were getting closer towards a potential vote on closing the public hearing in a vote.

I now think, after seeing the information that has been presented, that I think it would be wise to ask the petitioner to agree in writing to continue the hearing so that we may address additional items that have been raised. If the petitioner were not inclined to agree in writing to that request, given the short amount of time that it appears we have left to reach and file a decision, I would expect we would have a vote tonight. So I would leave that to the petitioner to decide whether they will agree in writing.

I don't know that we need to have that agreement at this time, but my expectation is we'll have a public hearing until 10 p.m. tonight. I will give the petitioner an opportunity to present what they would like as part of their application, which I would expect would be a summary of the various materials that have been filed, addressing responses that have come in for peer review. I also think it's fair to the petitioner, given the length of filing by Butters Council, to have an opportunity to address those items not tonight, but at that continued hearing, if they chose to do so, because although some of those items may have been part of open items, to specifically address those items, I would leave it to the petitioner and their discretion whether to address items tonight or not. So with that, we're going to get started. I'm going to also look to provide, after the petitioner's presentation, once again, trying to keep the comments that are made to new items or open items so that we're not just repeating and just going in circles, because we only have so much time to decide this petition.

And if we fail to decide it timely, we run the risk of there being just a constructive grant. So although Butters want to be heard, and I want them to be heard, if you've made your point, and I think that a lot of the Butters who have spoken have engaged council, who's provided a legal memorandum addressing certain open points and disputed points, so I would encourage Butters to really look to use our time wisely. We only have so much of it.

So with that, I am going to invite – first, I want to make sure that Ezra is present on Zoom. Marissa, is Ezra here on Zoom?

[Speaker 9] (11:25 - 11:27)
Yes, Ezra is here. I did see his name.

[Speaker 1] (11:28 - 13:17)
Okay, so – Well, I sent a copy of that to Chris Drukis. I called Chris Drukis this afternoon because I wanted to give the petitioner a heads-up that it looked like we were going to need another meeting to be able to consider with his team a request that I made for an extension in writing to continue the hearing, and I asked if he had received it. He told me he had not, so I sent him a copy by email an hour ago, probably.

So I just – so one other thing I should just put on the record. This meeting is hybrid, as permitted by the extended order that was signed by Charlie Baker to permit meetings to be conducted over Zoom. I'm going to ask, again, people that are on Zoom to not use the chat box.

It's not part of our record. It can be distracting. And if you have – if you want an opportunity to be heard when it's time for public comment, the time would be when I ask for you to use the Raise Your Hand feature, and that's how we will recognize speakers.

When we have a speaker, I'm going to ask them to identify themselves with their name, full name, and their address so that we can make an appropriate record of the proceedings. So, Ezra, I just wanted to make sure, is there anything else you thought I should be addressing before I turn it over to the petitioner to get started?

[Speaker 4] (13:18 - 13:19)
Can you hear me okay?

[Speaker 1] (13:20 - 13:20)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (13:21 - 13:36)
Okay, great. For a little while I wasn't sure it was working, but I had to go back and forth between the YouTube and the Zoom feed, but I think I heard everything you said. I guess what I didn't hear was did the petitioner say anything about an extension, or is that hanging out there?

[Speaker 1] (13:36 - 13:58)
I was thinking I should wait until we have their presentation. I let the Butters Council outline his comments that were received probably around 4 o'clock today and then address that issue because that's what I think I should do, at least get that on the record.

[Speaker 4] (13:58 - 14:15)
That sounds fine to me as long as it was out there. And then you might just note that you also have a number of peer reviewers here. I think most of them are on the Zoom, like Rod Emery is here, Victoria, just so people know that you have those experts and your board can consult them.

[Speaker 1] (14:15 - 14:23)
Yeah, definitely want to talk to our peer review people on issues that have come up since the last meeting.

[Speaker 4] (14:24 - 14:26)
Super. Okay, that sounds like a good plan.

[Speaker 1] (14:26 - 14:29)
Ezra, were you having trouble on the Zoom feed? I just wanted to make sure.

[Speaker 4] (14:30 - 14:50)
There was an issue where the audio cut out, and as far as I can tell, there's still no video on the Zoom feed, but I think Marissa was putting some notes to let people know they could tune in on YouTube, and it seems to be working. I don't think the video is working, but the important thing is to be able to hear you, and we can do that.

[Speaker 1] (14:52 - 14:57)
Okay, so you don't see any problem with us continuing the public hearing over the use of YouTube?

[Speaker 4] (14:59 - 15:17)
It's certainly an ideal question for town council, but I think you have a hybrid format, and it sounds like the people who are in the room are fine, and people who are at home can at least hear, and I don't know if you even promised that they could speak from home.

[Speaker 1] (15:18 - 15:26)
I don't know that we'll have time, but we may, and hopefully we can continue to see if we can get the Zoom feature to work.

[Speaker 4] (15:26 - 15:31)
Yeah, I think it's – I mean, to me it sounds fine to proceed, but…

[Speaker 1] (15:31 - 15:37)
Well, I'm just wondering about how we – well, you made it in. How did you – you made it in through Zoom or through…?

[Speaker 4] (15:37 - 15:40)
Yeah, through the Zoom link, and then it was out for a little while, but now it's on.

[Speaker 1] (15:41 - 15:41)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (15:42 - 15:50)
And I assume that Marissa, are there people – there are participants in the webinar, and if they raised their hand or something, you could…

[Speaker 9] (15:50 - 16:11)
Correct. All of the Zoom features are currently working. The only thing that is not is the live stream on Zoom of this room, of the video.

The actual video feed is not working, but we're working to get that up and running, so anybody can tune into the YouTube if they want to see what's happening in the room, but everybody can be heard currently through Zoom.

[Speaker 4] (16:11 - 16:15)
Great. Okay, that sounds pretty good. Yeah, so I think you can go.

[Speaker 1] (16:16 - 16:19)
All right, great. So I'm going to turn it over to Attorney Drukas.

[Speaker 21] (16:22 - 16:43)
Dean, with me tonight, hopefully I didn't say anything funny, Lynn Ferris here, and Peter Freeman.

[Speaker 25] (16:47 - 16:56)
I'm going to be hearing tonight from Peter, leading off – Peter is co-counsel on this matter.

[Speaker 3] (16:56 - 17:20)
Sure, thank you. Is this one working, just to make sure? I think so.

All right, thank you. Good evening, Peter. Thank you, Chris and Mr. Chairman. For the record, Peter Freeman, Freeman Law Group, representing the applicant co-counsel. And I'm going to basically give an introduction, brief summary, and also a bit of a projection as to what we would want to accomplish tonight, which is amended a bit because of the 11th hour filing of a letter from Attorney Daniel Hill.

[Speaker 1] (17:21 - 17:22)
Peter, can I just ask you to keep your voice up just a little bit?

[Speaker 3] (17:22 - 17:23)
Sure.

[Speaker 1] (17:23 - 17:31)
So everyone can hear. And if anyone is having any difficulty hearing anyone, I'd just invite you to move a little bit closer if you'd like. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (17:32 - 17:34)
So I think that's better.

[Speaker 1] (17:34 - 17:34)
That's better.

[Speaker 3] (17:35 - 21:50)
So because of the last-minute letter, that is the reason that most likely we would agree to continue. But as the Chairman said and discussed with Ezra, we'd like to really consider that at the end, go through the proceedings, see where we're at, and then we can give you a definite answer. So thank you for that accommodation.

In a nutshell, we would just like to summarize and remind everybody that we have been here for a long time with great cooperation from the town staff and the peer review and from my client as well, both as an outgrowth of the town community meetings that we had outside the formal ZBA process for many, many months, really over a year, as well as responsiveness to some of the peer review comments. And we believe that with everything that we've submitted, which both I and Angela will summarize briefly, that we really are ready, notwithstanding the last-minute filing, that we are ready to have you close. We were going to discuss that in the vein of the final status of what you will hear about from our engineer on the couple of peer review items on utilities, but let's just hold off on that.

So the main point is we really have come up with a project with all of the changes that we believe really has met all of the current concerns that have been raised and that really proves to our satisfaction, and we hope to the board, be it tonight or at the final hearing, that we have a project that is a great smart growth project. It's transit-oriented development. It provides the town, which, again, as I said once before, is often lost in the shuffle.

It provides the town with 120 much-needed affordable rental units and would really be an improvement to the entire area. So that is where we have been. In terms of the things that have been submitted since the last hearing, we have submitted final architectural plans, likewise on the civil engineering plans.

There has been a letter submitted from the fire department that states what we said they had told us. That was after we met with them on April 6th. We also submitted a memo concerning other questions or points that had been raised at the various CBA hearings.

Likewise, latest and basically final review to the utility peer review consultants from our engineer. And very importantly, remember that we have submitted, at the request of the chair and the board, a draft CBA decision that I drafted with the help of my team, naturally. So we submitted that a while ago.

It also includes the waivers. And so we do believe that we would be, or perhaps we need to say once we decide if we're continuing, that we would have been ready to go over a decision with you, hopefully close the hearing, and if you needed more time to deliberate, certainly that's your prerogative, but to come to at least a consensus, if not a final decision. So tonight what we will do, which is really in keeping with what the chairman just said, I will turn it over to Angela in a minute, and she will just summarize where we're at on the peer review.

And just a reminder that on peer review, by the way, that on the architectural plans, the plans have been reviewed and met with really a very positive response from Cliff Bomer. So that's one item. We do think it would be useful to hear from Ezra Glenn on some of the substance, but also procedure as to where we're at.

Naturally, we would answer questions, and I would also say that your questions can be during and after the presentations. It is often useful, I find, to go over a draft decision, both so that the board members and the public and we, the applicant and our team, can really see what concerns you have, where are you heading. Sometimes a straw poll is done.

I'm not suggesting that you have to, but we would like to know really where you think this is headed. And you can put the caveat that you want to review what Mr. Hill sent in. We certainly need the time and want the time.

[Speaker 1] (21:50 - 22:08)
We just got this data recently. So are you prepared to address the changes with going to Burrell Street and with what was found in their testing for actual flow on Burrell Street?

[Speaker 5] (22:11 - 25:59)
Yes, so we took a look at the flow meter data since Sunday when we got it. So meter number, just to go through numbers, meter number two, which was further south, which would, the flow from Elm Place would go to this location before the pipe size is increased to 12-inch, so you still have an 8-inch pipe. That is, that max flow is 304 gallons a minute.

And then you add the peak flow from Elm Place of about 66 gallons a minute, so then you're up to like 370 gallons a minute. I don't know where the 35% came from, but I'm sure it's valid. I don't know.

I didn't have the time to kind of derive that. But anyway, just some general more issues. I need to go back and confirm this because it looked like one of the sewer sections in Burrell between Columbia and Railroad Ave might be a very low slope.

I'm not sure, and that would mean it's like a, it doesn't flow as quickly. And then the, so I guess one issue is I disagree with the 35%, and I need to figure that out, like where that came from. But just looking at the numbers, like take the second meter because you have to look at that one because that's what Elm Place is going to flow to.

That's, we're up to 370 gallons a minute. And for an eight-inch pipe, it depends on the slope, and it depends on the material. But it's generally 400, you know, you say 400 gallons a minute to like 440 gallons a minute.

I mean, different, you know, people will say you don't exactly know, but like design-wise, you want to go by those numbers. So we're really getting close to that there. Then the other issue with the monitoring is, unfortunately, there wasn't really a significant rainfall event during the two-week flow monitoring.

It was all very low, all less than one inch of any rainfall. And then I just, and I have to look at the plan more on this one too, but the existing sewer has an underdrain, which I think we know about. But that's just something for the town to think about because I know like anything that does exceed will, you know, I believe it's set up that it will flow into the underdrain, I'm not sure.

So we definitely don't want to add, you know, stress the sewer because it'll go into your, you know, the town's spending a lot of money to try to eliminate, you know, those connections. Because it goes right, Vicki will, you know, say more about that. But yeah, I mean, I think the biggie is just looking at the flow.

I don't know why my, I don't know what a different, I don't know how you would estimate the flow differently. I just counted the number of lots that flow to the sewer. Maybe it was too, it was, I used a Title 5 number, 110 gallons per day per bedroom.

So, and I assume three bedrooms per house. But I think that's like general, you know, engineering practice to estimate flow that way. But I thought it was good that it's a little bit less, you know, it's a lot less than what I thought.

But you've got to look at that downstream manhole. So that's, there are remaining questions, I'd say. Vicki, do you have anything?

[Speaker 10] (26:00 - 27:28)
Yeah, I would just say kind of to give context for everyone, the sewer kind of surrounding the project is 8-inch. It upsizes to 12-inch at Railroad Ave? Yes.

Yeah, at Railroad, thank you. So one of our concerns was, you know, if you're going to add this additional flow, then the sewer should really be upsized from the point that you're adding additional flow to when it becomes 12-inch. So when we talked about the initial connections, there were two proposed, but they were both to the 8-inch.

And, you know, one was essentially just downstream of the other one. So by moving the sewer connection, you're still facing the same problem because you're still on that 8-inch stretch. You haven't reached the 12-inch yet.

So when we're looking at this flow report, just quickly yesterday, because we got it Sunday, as Eileen was saying, the meter to really look at is the meter right before it upsizes to 12-inch because that's where the impact's going to be seen from this additional flow. And as far as the capacity calculations, we, you know, we need to look at how that 30% was gotten, where that came from, because we couldn't get to it ourselves. So we don't have a comfort level with those numbers.

That doesn't mean we couldn't get there, but we haven't had the time to get there yet.

[Speaker 1] (27:28 - 27:51)
So the communication you've had thus far has been back and forth with the written communication. Is that how it's worked with the petitioner, with Debra from Hancock on these utility issues? Okay.

Debra, is there anything you wanted to add to the response? Sure.

[Speaker 6] (27:51 - 28:37)
I mean, just for clarification, I did look at the 8-inch sewers and the slopes, and I understand that, you know, that's very important. I mean, if you have a 10% slope, the flow capacity of the 8-inch is greater than if you have a 1% slope. So I looked at the existing slopes in Borough Lab and calculated what the flow capacity of a vitrified clay pipe is, and that's how my numbers came out.

And other professional engineers in my office reviewed it. So I feel very confident that the flow is at 30% or 35% and not at capacity at the 8-inch and at the 12-inch.

[Speaker 10] (28:38 - 28:44)
So that 30% is based on the meter data at meter number 2, closest to the 12-inch?

[Speaker 6] (28:45 - 29:05)
The flow capacity was looked at at the 8-inch and then also at the 12-inch, adding in the flow from the project at both times, both flow metering spots.

[Speaker 10] (29:06 - 29:21)
So it looks like from this report, though, that the second meter was set in the 8-inch before it goes up to 12. So where did they set that second meter? They're saying it was in the 12-inch?

[Speaker 6] (29:22 - 29:31)
It was just before it went into the 12-inch, in the manhole, just upstream.

[Speaker 7] (29:42 - 29:57)
So we're talking about the March 2022. I think it's dated 4-7. Is that right, April 7th?

[Speaker 6] (29:57 - 29:58)
April 7th.

[Speaker 7] (29:58 - 29:59)
Flow monitoring report?

[Speaker 6] (29:59 - 30:00)
Flow monitoring report.

[Speaker 7] (30:00 - 30:14)
And so it says meter 1, and then on page – when I looked at the line descriptions, both meters looked like they were 8-inch. At least that's what they indicated, but maybe I'm misreading that.

[Speaker 10] (30:17 - 30:46)
That's how we interpreted it, was that they were both set in the 8-inch line, which essentially they're collecting the same data. I mean, the downstream line picks up more houses, but it's essentially the same line. So the one furthest down is the one where you're going to see an impact first.

So that's the one we looked at, which was the second meter, they called it, I guess. So that's meter 2, and that's at Railroad Ave, Middlesex, and Borough.

[Speaker 5] (30:51 - 30:57)
And that's where the max flow was 304, 300 gallons a minute.

[Speaker 10] (31:01 - 31:08)
So I guess my question is, is that 304 30% of your calculation capacity?

[Speaker 6] (31:11 - 31:36)
So the flow metering was taken at the intersection of Railroad and Middlesex, just upstream of that manhole, which is a 12-inch line. And at that 12-inch line, I calculated what the flow full would be at that 12-inch point, and you're in gallons per minute.

[Speaker 5] (31:36 - 31:47)
I'm in CFS, but it's 2.3. Oh, did you base it off of a 12-inch pipe? Is that what the 30% is? That's based off the flow capacity in a 12-inch?

[Speaker 6] (31:48 - 31:48)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (31:49 - 32:10)
Oh, okay. That's where I—okay. So the plans, though, they say it's all 8-inch, like the EST report.

It's all 8-inch according to the EST, right? No, the line— It was an exhibit?

[Speaker 6] (32:10 - 32:16)
Yeah, the first— The line upstream of Railroad Ave is 12-inch.

[Speaker 7] (32:19 - 32:32)
Well, US-2, your sensor location, they're both 8-inch, but then the second one that I think you're referring to has it as 8— No, is a 12-inch. Yeah, as a 12-inch.

[Speaker 6] (32:33 - 32:40)
Yeah. So the Q flow at the 12-inch at Railroad Ave is 2.3 CFS.

[Speaker 5] (32:40 - 32:49)
Can you pull up the exhibit that has this drawing, the sewer inverts on it?

[Speaker 1] (32:50 - 32:57)
Let me ask Theresa. So it's the recent flow monitoring report, March 2022.

[Speaker 5] (32:57 - 33:01)
Yeah, it says, Sewer Exhibit Plan of Land in Swampscott, Mass.

[Speaker 9] (33:02 - 33:03)
The Burl Street one?

[Speaker 5] (33:04 - 33:25)
Yeah, that's it. Yeah, yeah. So now on this, and my printout's very small, so it's a little difficult to read, but is the sewer between Columbia and Railroad Ave, is that 12-inch or is that 8-inch?

[Speaker 6] (33:27 - 33:33)
The sewer between Railroad Ave and Columbia is 12-inch.

[Speaker 5] (33:36 - 33:38)
So why did the inverts say 8-inch?

[Speaker 6] (33:40 - 33:45)
Maybe it was a typo, but the report states that it's 12-inch.

[Speaker 5] (33:46 - 34:09)
So if you look at the intersection of Railroad Ave and Middlesex Ave, it says invert A, 8-inch VC in parentheses. Do you know what I mean? Look at the inverts.

So the sewer between Columbia, you're saying the sewer between Columbia and Railroad Ave is 12-inch?

[Speaker 6] (34:10 - 34:15)
Correct. That 8-inch is not an 8-inch. It's a 12-inch.

[Speaker 5] (34:15 - 34:26)
So maybe revise this exhibit. I don't know, because that's kind of, you know, that was, according to this exhibit, all the inverts are 8-inch. All the pipes are 8-inch.

[Speaker 6] (34:29 - 34:48)
Right. So that's a typo on that exhibit. So according to the report, the pipe from sewer manhole at Columbia down to Railroad Ave is 12-inch.

My apologies for the error on that exhibit.

[Speaker 1] (34:48 - 35:03)
So could we get an updated plan maybe with a stamp on it? Sure. That you're representing what the actual is, and it will be corrected, and then we can have this analysis done and see if you can agree.

[Speaker 5] (35:03 - 35:08)
So then you're saying the 30% is 30% of a 12-inch pipe?

[Speaker 6] (35:08 - 35:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 5] (35:09 - 35:20)
Oh, that makes more sense to me. I was like, how is this happening? Okay, yeah, I didn't have a chance to go through the CFS numbers, but okay, that makes more sense.

[Speaker 1] (35:20 - 35:23)
So that seems to be what the big issue is there is the size of that pipe?

[Speaker 5] (35:23 - 35:41)
Well, yeah, I mean, I don't know how. The other issue is, like, that there was real no significant rainfall. So as far as the 8-inch upstream of that.

So where does it, when, so north of Columbia. So from Nordy Circle to Columbia, we still have an 8-inch, right?

[Speaker 6] (35:41 - 36:05)
Yeah, so we're back to flow meter one, looking at that data. Yeah. Right.

And so at that 8-inch, the Q flow, based on the slope, is 1.5 CFS, and Q max with the project is 0.56, which is a projected capacity of 35%.

[Speaker 24] (36:08 - 36:08)
So, sorry.

[Speaker 10] (36:18 - 36:22)
It's that 8-inch we're worried about. It's not the 12-inch. When it hits 12, we're good.

[Speaker 5] (36:24 - 36:52)
The other thing with this, this is what I was saying when I noticed the inverts. I was like, wow, is that basically flat? But maybe the whole, all the inverts are incorrect on this.

It was 0.1 difference between two inverts on this. Where was it? My copy is just so hard to see.

[Speaker 1] (36:53 - 37:17)
While you're looking for that, I'm just going to raise a separate question. I was going to ask Peter about, have you done any due diligence on the ability to connect across Doherty Circle, which I see that there's some suggestion, and I think we've run into this, about whether or not it's a public way, and what there is for easements and title, to see if you have the ability to connect there.

[Speaker 6] (37:17 - 37:18)
May I answer that?

[Speaker 1] (37:18 - 37:19)
Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 6] (37:21 - 37:26)
So, the sewer and utilities that are in Burrell Street belong to the city.

[Speaker 1] (37:27 - 37:27)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (37:28 - 37:40)
And so, according to Gino, those are, there's no easement that's required. It used to be a right-of-way, and then it became a private road, but the utilities still belong to the city.

[Speaker 1] (37:40 - 37:42)
Well, that's Burrell Street, you're saying.

[Speaker 6] (37:43 - 37:45)
On Doherty and Burrell, yes.

[Speaker 1] (37:45 - 39:01)
So, on Doherty. Yes. But that's, you know, I have all the respect in the world for Gino, but in terms of, you know, I think you ought to make sure you have the title work done, and to make sure you have the ability to connect and can present, you know, some evidence that says, okay, here's a recorded utility easement, or there's an easement by prescription, or whatever you're relying on of record, or if it's an opinion of somebody who's going to stand behind it, I think you should have that as part of your petition, just my thought on it.

Because if there isn't an ability to connect, and, you know, I don't know how the Swamp Squad Housing Authority, if they own that land in fee. I don't know who owns that, Doherty Circle, but my suggestion is we should figure it out. So, just a comment on that.

So, on the utilities. So, Eileen, is there anything else you think we should be, in terms of the open items, what should be addressed before our next hearing?

[Speaker 5] (39:03 - 39:45)
Oh, for the utilities? Well, I think, as far as the water, I think that got, I saw that the fire department is requiring the hydrant be connected to an 8-inch. So, that was good, because I didn't know what else to say with that, because it was like fire hydrants are supposed to be connected to an 8-inch.

So, I read that, and it seemed like that's going to be resolved. And, you know, I just thought I had seen last night like a real flat sewer, but I'm looking at it now, and I don't know. I think I just have to, you know, we just have to look at that 8-inch, because that, like Vicki said, that's the concern.

[Speaker 1] (39:45 - 40:23)
Right, so you'll have an opportunity to, and ultimately, I think it's the petitioner's burden to satisfy you that the project has good engineering practices and is appropriate for health and safety. So, those are all things that I think need to be vetted out and make sure that you're comfortable with that, and if not, to let us know that you're not. Go ahead.

[Speaker 7] (40:24 - 40:57)
I would also, I mean, I'd like to see, so everywhere where there's an open item, I don't think it necessarily needs to be closed, but I'd like to know that it's something that conditionally could be met or could ultimately, you know, subject to a condition, you know, could be satisfied. Or conversely, if there are any open items which are so open that they couldn't be ultimately satisfied. Does that make sense?

[Speaker 10] (41:00 - 41:24)
Yeah, we have revised that table because we understood the confusion afterwards about what we meant by open, so we have revised it to show the ones that we thought could be conditioned, so therefore, you know, they're not a sticking point in the present, but that may not have made it out to everyone. I think we just sent it out yesterday. I think Ezra had asked us to revise the language.

[Speaker 7] (41:25 - 42:00)
The other thing that I think would be helpful is, just because we're getting close to the time where we actually are going to need to vote, it would be helpful, I think, for me, and I'll just speak on my own. You know, to the extent there is a disconnect on any of these items, I mean, I looked at that and I spent some time on it, and a narrative would help, at least would help me, I think, and it might kind of help some of the fractures in the communication line, just like we just did here. I don't know if that's something that you guys are used to doing or if you could do.

[Speaker 6] (42:01 - 42:02)
Yeah, I'm happy to do it.

[Speaker 7] (42:02 - 42:05)
Okay. All right, great. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (42:11 - 42:56)
And also, if there is a proposed condition spelling out for us specifically what the proposed condition is, if it needs to reference a standard that's objective, codified somewhere, so we know what to put into any type of decision as to what the proposed condition and standard should be, and then that the petitioner's engineer and the peer review engineer agree that's the appropriate reference for any condition on the item.

[Speaker 6] (42:57 - 43:39)
I just have one comment in regards to the comments from the peer reviewer. There was a lot of comments regarding a preliminary plan asking for construction documents and details that aren't normally required that we have to abide by in order to get a building permit. So I think that if the reviewer could possibly look at those in more detail, if they're just standard construction documents that we would be required in order to obtain a building permit, that they possibly remove those comments.

[Speaker 1] (43:41 - 43:59)
So you're saying that in terms of to revise the comments, because you're suggesting that it's premature to be looking for building plans at this part of the development process for this type of petition.

[Speaker 18] (44:00 - 44:02)
Right. Okay. That's my request.

[Speaker 1] (44:02 - 44:05)
Yeah, let me ask. I've got an expert here on this, Ezra.

[Speaker 4] (44:06 - 45:36)
I was just going to say, I can certainly see where they're coming from there. It would seem like a lot of that could be addressed with a single condition that would say prior to the issuance of a building permit, such and such might be submitted. And you get the technical language from the peer reviewer.

You put it in once as a condition, and it resolves a bunch of those issues in their review, right? Because they can say if the condition is now in there. It doesn't have to be before this review is complete, but it has to be before the building permits issue.

And that's fairly common to put stuff. There's a number of things we can address in this process. And there'll be a new plan.

We don't even need a condition. There's a number of things that are coming in at the last minute. And we want to clear condition exactly like what the chair is asking for.

Here's the language we need to add in and assume maybe the next review is the last review we're going to get on this. We just need what's that language so that the decision is basically a coalition project. We take those conditions, and we slap them on.

And assuming that the board's in favor and trusts the peer reviewer, that's the condition. And then the third is these kind of blanket conditions that maybe would apply more, you know, just sort of they're kind of belt and suspenders kind of things. You want that language in there, even if you trust that there's other authorities that are reviewing that.

Does that make sense?

[Speaker 1] (45:37 - 46:25)
It does, and perhaps it's taking some of those. If we could ask Eileen and Victoria to take a look at the proposed decision with conditions that Peter filed because if there are proposed conditions that reference a specific edition of the state building code, for example, if you had any comments on that, it's a sufficient condition. Or if some other technical standard should be required or included in a condition, we wouldn't know where to look.

We'd have to rely on the petitioner and our peer review. So I'd ask you to take a look at that so that you could let us know.

[Speaker 4] (46:27 - 47:31)
All that said, I think it's amazing how much the peer reviewers pivoted on this. And I do think that as the discussion just showed, I think we're at this sort of 11th hour where we don't want to run into the problem of mistakes being made simply because things are rushed, but we do want to make sure the peer reviewers have that last chance to look, run all the numbers again, get comfortable, and that the language in the draft decision matches the conditions that they're recommending. So the board has confidence that everything's been – that the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed.

But that said, I do think it sounds like we've fleshed out what all the issues are that need to be resolved, and we are moving towards resolution of nearly all of them. The applicants indicated all of these can be resolved either through a modifications plan or a condition. The peer reviewer seems, as I'm reading it, seems that they believe that doesn't sound – that passes the lab test, but they still want to run the numbers.

Is that reasonable to say?

[Speaker 10] (47:32 - 47:32)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (47:33 - 47:59)
Okay. So that would, to me, would suggest – and it's certainly the board's decision here, but it would seem to me that we're not quite ready to close the hearing because once we close it, we can't get more information from peer reviewers. And I really want to be sure that the board has that information.

But I think we are maybe at the point of saying there are not new issues to resolve. There are simply these issues to pin down.

[Speaker 7] (48:02 - 48:06)
With respect to the water and – Right, just to what we – Exactly.

[Speaker 15] (48:06 - 48:07)
Yes.

[Speaker 8] (48:07 - 48:19)
I would want to make sure that the raising of that system with the runoff water is not something that we're conditioning. That's something that our peer review is actually seeing and going over. I wouldn't want to see that as a condition.

[Speaker 1] (48:20 - 48:49)
Well, I agree. So this – and it sounds like it's still open in terms of our peer review. Engineers are saying that it's a significant change.

It's going to be a different design. They've got to look at it. We've got to make sure they're satisfied with the data, that the calculation as to where they agree with the conclusion as to where the groundwater height is.

[Speaker 7] (48:50 - 49:05)
I'd want to know specifically if that was done after the rail trail tunnel – I'm not sure what we're calling it, but – The connection. Yeah, the connection. Does that water table impact that analysis?

[Speaker 8] (49:06 - 49:11)
I think we've heard that that tunnel is – we haven't – well, I don't know if this is a discussion.

[Speaker 1] (49:11 - 49:38)
I think we might get some more information about the tunnel tonight. I'm sure there's something we're going to talk – or the switchback. I'm sure we're going to talk about that a little bit more.

But I think that's probably it for those utilities, right? Is there anything else, Eileen or Victoria, that you think we should be talking about on the list?

[Speaker 5] (49:38 - 50:44)
It was just I found what I was curious about last night, and this for the sewer exhibit. If you look at the invert at Columbia Street, it says invert D14.5. Yeah, right there. And then at Middlesex Ave, the invert A is 14.4. So maybe they're – it's just 0.1. I thought it was – I don't know what the scale is on this, but it looked like maybe it's like 200 feet between it. But I just – I was kind of wondering what – if that was correct. It was only 0.1 change between those two manholes. And then what was the manhole at the – like right in between them with the standing water?

I was just kind of curious about – and it says sump equals 14.7. But I can write those, you know, as questions or comments or what have you. But at the Seaworth and the ETA commuter railways?

[Speaker 18] (50:46 - 50:46)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (50:46 - 51:02)
But it's just – it seems like, you know, if the pipe size isn't correct, then maybe the inverts aren't listed correct either. I don't know. See how in the middle there's like a manhole with M?

I don't know if it's a metering. Maybe it's a metering manhole, or I don't know what it is.

[Speaker 1] (51:02 - 51:05)
Deborah, do you have any info on that?

[Speaker 6] (51:05 - 52:02)
I do. So the slope – it is very flat there. The slope is 0.004 for that 12-inch line because it has to get under the railroad tracks. Okay. And so the capacity of a 12-inch is very low. It's only 2.3 CFS compared to a normal 12-inch pipe that would be at 1% or 2%. However, yeah, so the slope is 0.004, and I did do the analysis and the calculations to figure out what the flow is in the pipe, and still it came out to be 36% projected capacity. In regards to the manhole, that's a drain manhole. That's not part of the sewer.

So the survey team was only able to open up the rim. So that doesn't have anything to do with the sewer line.

[Speaker 5] (52:08 - 52:10)
They're not connected there then?

[Speaker 6] (52:10 - 52:22)
No, they are not. But I'm happy to meet with you and discuss further calculations.

[Speaker 1] (52:28 - 52:39)
I see there's a hand up there. We're not going to take any questions about it just yet. We're still letting the petitioner address.

I'll give people an opportunity. So if you just reserve your question, please.

[Speaker 10] (52:42 - 53:02)
So I think just in general, our look at the sewer really has to be at that 8-inch before it goes to 12. So that's what Eileen and I are going to look closely at because that's where the problem will be if there's a problem. It's not going to be down at the 12-inch.

So we'll look at that more closely with this new information.

[Speaker 1] (53:03 - 53:04)
Okay, great.

[Speaker 4] (53:05 - 53:54)
If it's possible, I guess I would say look at it more closely, and if you agree that it's fine, say it's fine. If there's some condition, no matter how dramatic, that's necessary to resolve the issue, just write that out and give it to the board because if the board has to close the hearing, I want them to be able to have whatever they need to dictate to make this work, even if it's rip up the entire town and redo the sewers or whatever it is, obviously the minimal necessary to solve the problem. But I think we're at the point where we can continue to ask the applicant what they propose to fix it, but at some point we need to just legislate what they need to do to fix it.

And hopefully it won't come to that. Hopefully we're all in agreement that it's okay.

[Speaker 1] (53:55 - 54:21)
Okay. All right, great. Thank you, Ezra.

So I'm assuming that's one last time. If there's anything other than now that we've talked about the open issues we have with the sewer, is there anything on the water or additional on the storm water, which I think we've already talked about, that you think you should be telling the board about or the petitioner about, or if we should move on to the next area or Gary Hill?

[Speaker 10] (54:24 - 54:37)
If I could just comment that there was in one of the notes a reference to a memo from the fire department about a private hydrant, and I just didn't see the memo attached. So I would like to see that.

[Speaker 1] (54:40 - 55:25)
Okay. So I did see a one-page letter that was filed from the fire department. I've got it here.

It was dated 4-4-2022, and it said the fire department will require the existing hydrant on Pitman Road side, replace with a new hydrant supplied by a minimum eight-inch line, tap from a nearby 12-inch water line running along Essex Street, and said also require the addition of a fire hydrant on the on-place side and no objection to it being privately owned. So is that on the revised plan? Does it show it on there?

[Speaker 18] (55:26 - 55:26)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (55:26 - 55:48)
Okay. Okay. So with that, anything else, Victoria or Eileen?

Okay, great. Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here and your comments and your work.

Peter, is the next area you think we should approach?

[Speaker 3] (55:49 - 56:03)
No, we don't have anything else further to present. As we said, nothing new in architectural and those points that we just discussed, which was a good discussion, helpful, appreciated. That's really it in terms of any presentation from us tonight.

[Speaker 1] (56:03 - 56:09)
Is there anything further on the rail trail? I thought there was something on rail trail that I was expecting.

[Speaker 12] (56:11 - 58:37)
Yeah, I can speak to that. So there is a letter that was dated today that was sent from the assistant general manager at the MBTA, and copying the executive director of the MBTA, so from the actual MTA, not a consultant, saying just very clearly that the underpass option and the overpass option are both viable options, specifically was making that point and that any conversations to the contrary are not up to date and are not from the MBTA. And in addition to that, they mentioned in this letter that the board has that the rail that passes behind down place is part of phase one's electrification plan for the MBTA, which therefore requires certain incremental work to be done for any overpass, because the electrification requires certain clearances, and I forget what they called it.

Let's see here. It says it in here, but certain hard division and separation between the electrification work and any safe pedestrian crossing. So essentially what this letter, which you guys can parse, basically says is that the overpass is probably less likely than an underpass, given that, and that would an overpass be even considered, the electrification requirements would require such a dramatic rising and dropping, because of the height, that something like 12 switchbacks on a bike would be required, which is nothing, I think, anyone at the town would ever get behind when they understand that. That's not a crossing, I believe, that any biker would wish to go with 12. So we want to make sure that that's clear to the board that the underpass and the overpass are both options from the MBTA, but that we believe, based on this letter and then just the sight lines of what the heights would be, that switchbacks would make it almost unusable if it were an overpass as opposed to an underpass.

So we wanted to make sure the board had seen that.

[Speaker 13] (58:37 - 59:54)
So to put that in context, because of this particular situation, we have a situation where the top of the tracks is eight feet above the topography on our side of the tracks. So the 22.5-foot clear height you would need from the top of the rail, plus that eight feet, amounts to about 360 feet of ramp, not including the lands you would need to comply with ADA regulations. So literally, the length takes you to Pitman, aside from the fact that Pitman goes up a little bit.

So it is literally 12 back, forth, back, forth, on both sides. And the advantage of the eight-foot, though, in an underpass scenario, we're only down six feet below our grade, so it's an actually eased underpass that, relatively simply, we can drop foundations to accommodate that trail. And a trail, again, as Bill was suggesting, is much more readily usable because it's a very eased slope because of the natural topography that exists between the tracks and the topography on our side.

The other side is not as relevant because you have the length to deal with that, but on our side, it is a more realistically usable and inviting bike trail convention. Great.

[Speaker 1] (59:54 - 59:55)
Well, thank you.

[Speaker 8] (59:55 - 1:00:06)
Does that relate at all to what we were just talking about with the water table being really high there? If we're going six feet below, and we've said the water table's at four— The water table's at four, just to clarify that.

[Speaker 13] (1:00:06 - 1:00:20)
The geotechnical borings we've taken on that side of the property and the other tracks, we have two feet of play from the bottom of the lowest point at elevation 25 of that underpass. We've got another couple of feet before you hit groundwater.

[Speaker 8] (1:00:21 - 1:00:27)
Okay. I mean, because we have that underpass that we drive in is always flooded.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:28 - 1:00:28)
On Burrow?

[Speaker 8] (1:00:28 - 1:00:30)
On Burrow, yeah. It goes under the track.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:30 - 1:00:36)
But the elevation, I think, is higher here where this underpass would be as opposed to Burrow.

[Speaker 13] (1:00:36 - 1:01:14)
Is that what you're saying? The difference there is the capture. It's all hardscape.

That's rainwater you're catching on the surface. That's different from the groundwater situation. So what would happen, the best installation for something like that, as the T has done in other areas, you basically lift the track, you drop in a precast concrete cover, so it's a one piece.

You drop in place, there's no—you don't have to form and wait. It's a very quick operation from the T's perspective, and if you set that on drainable materials crushed stone, the groundwater has no impact on kind of the structural stability of it. It's designed and compacted in a way that, again, happens very quickly and doesn't get affected by groundwater.

That's the groundwater as opposed to surface water.

[Speaker 10] (1:01:17 - 1:01:19)
May I make one more comment?

[Speaker 1] (1:01:19 - 1:01:26)
Absolutely. This is all new stuff to us. It's interesting.

I think important on some of our analysis.

[Speaker 6] (1:01:26 - 1:02:18)
Yeah, and I—Deb Colbert again. I haven't done any analysis of the underpass at the railroad. However, a lot of times when you go under railroads or under other roads, it all has to do with how are you mitigating that runoff.

It doesn't have a play in regards to the groundwater. It has a play that has to do with your system, your stormwater system here in Swampscott. And so there's flooding happening there because of possible— the catch basins aren't large enough.

The drains aren't large enough. So there's two different things that we're talking about. We're talking about runoff that you're capturing, and then groundwater, which is two different items.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:21 - 1:02:40)
Okay, great. Thank you. And the problem on Burrill Street is the runoff, not groundwater.

Under the train—under the underpass on Burrill Street, that's all stormwater that—it's not being discharged. It's just collecting there in heavy rain events.

[Speaker 6] (1:02:40 - 1:02:44)
Right. So is there no catch basins there that should be capturing that?

[Speaker 1] (1:02:44 - 1:02:48)
Well, I don't—I just know it floods. Well, I know.

[Speaker 6] (1:02:48 - 1:03:00)
I can't drive through it. It's a problem. Right, so downstream where it's capturing, the system isn't large enough to handle that quick runoff.

That's Stetson as well.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:03 - 1:03:18)
Oh, Stetson gets it too? I just knew one. On Burrill, it's all the time.

So, okay. So let me just make sure I'm writing notes.

[Speaker 8] (1:03:21 - 1:03:27)
So I had some— Is this letter from the MBTA? Was that on the OneDrive? I missed that.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:27 - 1:03:29)
This is brand new. It was dated today.

[Speaker 8] (1:03:29 - 1:03:31)
Yeah, so again, I haven't had a chance to read it.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:31 - 1:03:44)
Another reason that we—I mean, this— Like, has it found—had a chance to read it? And I think this is another reason why the petitioner should agree in writing to— Understood.

[Speaker 3] (1:03:44 - 1:03:52)
I don't think there's much question. And as you could just tell, I wasn't aware that that letter had come in. I was still traveling on the road, so I understand.

[Speaker 7] (1:03:53 - 1:03:55)
And we understand it's not easy to get a letter from the MBTA.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:58 - 1:04:44)
So, all right. So it sounds like there's going to be a written extension. A few things that I wanted to ask about, just so I can be clear about it, because there's so much information that was coming back and forth.

Rodney from World Tech, he talked about two suggestions. A new sidewalk along the residential side of the Lego Bell Place rather than crosswalk. And he talked about portion of Bell Place being one-way.

And I'm just trying to understand what the change, if any, in the plan is relative to those suggestions, if you could explain that.

[Speaker 14] (1:04:52 - 1:04:57)
Yeah. We have not seen these comments, so this is new.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:57 - 1:05:11)
Oh, so it was on the—in the March 21st. You know, maybe these were just earlier. March 21st, 2022.

Additional comments. Memorandum that's on the OneDrive.

[Speaker 14] (1:05:13 - 1:05:17)
Sure. Sorry, this is the March 21st memo from World Tech.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:18 - 1:05:29)
The March 21st World Tech memo. Okay. It's on the OneDrive.

I don't know how long ago it was put up there. But he made two comments. Yes.

[Speaker 14] (1:05:30 - 1:05:52)
So, we do have, and I can pull up our— we would have a response to that. We do have Jeff Dirk from Vanoss. I believe he's with us.

He's on Zoom. So, Jeff, I don't know if you want to take this.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:57 - 1:05:58)
Hey, Jeff.

[Speaker 14] (1:05:58 - 1:06:01)
Yep. I think you're— I think we can't hear you, Jeff.

[Speaker 22] (1:06:01 - 1:06:23)
No, I haven't said anything. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Jeffrey Dirk with Vanoss & Associates.

I have to say, this is the first I've seen of these comments. So, you know, I think similar to the other individuals you had speaking tonight, I would like to have a chance to digest this first before I— That's fine.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:23 - 1:06:52)
A lot of stuff coming in. You know, this is coming in from the town. It's coming in late.

So, it's, you know, there's lots of stuff that's just the nature of it. So, just something to consider before, you know, hopefully before the next meeting. You could consider those two comments from Rodney and see if you are proposing to make any change to the plan as a result.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sure. My other notes.

[Speaker 4] (1:06:54 - 1:07:11)
Actually, can I jump in with a quick question there? Yeah. Sorry to interrupt, but were those things that Rodney was putting in because he thought the board was asking for that sidewalk or because he thought that the applicant was proposing the sidewalk?

[Speaker 1] (1:07:11 - 1:08:08)
Do we know that? So, he specifically says— So, he looked at the additional parking for Elm Place, the 21 parking spots that were put in. And so, he wanted—it was an updated plan, so he reviewed that.

And he had two—he says there are several design alternatives that we recommend which may improve safety. Got it. So, he didn't say it should be done.

He said these are suggestions that he recommended. So, our peer review are recommending to improve safety. So, I just wanted to make sure that the petitioner had an opportunity to address it.

I wasn't sure if it was addressed or not. So, I'm sure we'll get something further on that. Sounds good.

And Jeff will get a chance to speak with Rodney about what is proposed.

[Speaker 24] (1:08:09 - 1:08:10)
Mark, can I ask a question?

[Speaker 1] (1:08:10 - 1:08:11)
Yeah, go right ahead, Paula.

[Speaker 24] (1:08:11 - 1:08:24)
Sorry. With the parking, you talked last time about getting the buildings back to sort of the Tumble, whatever it's called, the Tumble Academy and the use of that parking spots and whether it was in the—

[Speaker 1] (1:08:24 - 1:09:21)
So, what the petitioner has given us since the last meeting about the parking, it was a letter or an email from the occupant saying she was satisfied with the parking for her use, the 50 spaces, and with the plan.

And I'm not aware of there being anything further that the petitioner is putting forth to suggest that the park, other than what Jeff Van Nass has put forth and his opinions about the ratio and what Rodney has told us about parking. So, I'm not aware. I think I've covered.

That's what it is, basically.

[Speaker 8] (1:09:21 - 1:09:28)
Well, the only thing we did, we had a resident count the cars and came up with 70. In photos.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:28 - 1:09:29)
In photos. Part of our record.

[Speaker 8] (1:09:30 - 1:09:42)
As part of the record. But we never got an official accounting from the petitioner. Yes, the owner of Berks says 50 spaces is fine, but we've never gotten an official accounting.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:43 - 1:10:38)
You know, that's a concern with me, too, that I've looked at— I brought that up at the last hearing, that I looked at the website for Berks and all the uses they have going on there. They've got spin. They've got the tumbling.

They've got private training. They've got a gym. There's a lot of stuff going on there, and I agree.

You know, that's—it's one thing to have 50 spots dedicated and that the business owner is satisfied, but I agree. I'd love to hear more from someone who's done some calculations, looked at it, and see what the actual use is during the week, on weekends, and is the 50 spaces enough. You know, it's one thing to get the say-so of your tenant who's there under a lease.

[Speaker 8] (1:10:39 - 1:10:43)
It doesn't really happen. It's in her best interest to be happy with it, you know.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:43 - 1:12:26)
Arguably. So if that's all they have, that's all they have. That's what they're putting forth and saying, load on it with that information.

But if there's something more that you want to present, the abutters have presented evidence that suggests that there's a lot more than 50 spots. So we can leave you with—you know, that's my thought on it. The other thing I was wondering about from the April 5th letter that in the response, you mentioned about Elm Place at a race crosswalk near the corner of 34 Elm Place, and that you would assist the DPW surveying the right-of-way, because it's not part of your land, and that you would assist in the surveying, and then can determine whether a race crosswalk would be okay and wouldn't cause draining issues.

So if a race crosswalk was something that would work and wouldn't affect drainage, is that something that you're proposing the petitioner would make as part of its project, that that would be a condition that the petitioner pay for that race crosswalk, or are you suggesting that it's just you'll assist and see that, okay, well, it's okay, and the town can put it in because it's on their property? That's one thing I was trying to understand.

[Speaker 14] (1:12:29 - 1:13:11)
Yeah, I can take this one. So yeah, we talked to Gino about post-approvals and conditions, helping with surveying a lot of Elm Place and trying to help provide the town with information should the town want to make various improvements. So we'd already, prior to this issue of a crosswalk or a race crosswalk or something else coming up, we'd already talked to Gino about that.

So we're more happy to provide more information. I don't know that we were advocating for it to be a condition that we put that in. We feel like it's the town's choice to, after they review all the information, the data, the drainage, to see if they would want to do anything there.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:12 - 1:13:28)
But it would be at the town's expense to do it, or are you saying as a petitioner that if the town wanted an elevated crosswalk as part of all the infrastructure work that you're doing here, you would construct the race crosswalk?

[Speaker 14] (1:13:29 - 1:13:32)
We're not going to have the information until—

[Speaker 1] (1:13:32 - 1:14:04)
No, I understand that, but if Gino came back, they're doing all the survey work and drainage, and our engineer looks at it and says, yeah, it works, is that something that we could make a condition that says that as part of all your site work with the request of the town that you would put in that race crosswalk, or is it something that it's the town's responsibility to do so? I'm just trying to be clear or understand what you're proposing from it.

[Speaker 3] (1:14:07 - 1:14:55)
Understandable question, and I'm not trying to kick the can down the road, but let's put it in our list of we'll take it under advisement since we have a lot of responses we're going to have to give you. And what it in some ways comes down to is ultimately it depends how many asks, if you will, are there, because it may not sound like a lot individually, but if it turns out there are many and they cumulatively have a serious economic impact, that would be the only concern. We certainly, if it makes sense to do and cooperate with the town, as Angela said, sure.

So, again, as I say, I don't mean to kick the can down the road or in any way to be coy about it, but we'll need to look at the whole picture and maybe after we look at it we say this one maybe the answer is yes. I'm not saying it is, but it's a fair question, and just give us time to talk about it for next time.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:55 - 1:15:27)
But your petition, I see that as a safety issue, something that we have jurisdiction over. I know that may not be a big ask, and I'm not asking for it, I'm just suggesting part of your petition might be something to consider. I just wasn't clear from the response.

So is there any questions of the petitioner from anybody else on the board? Because I was going to next ask if Attorney Hill was here if he wanted to address the recent letter that he sent.

[Speaker 7] (1:15:27 - 1:15:55)
I had one question. The fire department, I saw the comment, it was mostly about the hydrant and the water issues. I just didn't, I seem to remember at the last hearing we talked about access and turning radiuses, and I didn't know if there was any further comment on that.

I tried to find it on the drive this week, and I couldn't see anything on that. Has the fire department commented in writing? Do we have that?

[Speaker 14] (1:15:58 - 1:16:14)
Yes. They've submitted two or three memos, so we can make sure. It's in one of those memos.

They've reviewed the, there's an exhibit in our civil plans that show all the turning radiuses, and they have signed off on that.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:15 - 1:16:28)
Time-wise on that, because I remember it was pretty early on in the process, and there's been some redesign, so that might be something to take a look at if the study still works with any redesign.

[Speaker 14] (1:16:28 - 1:16:34)
Yeah, the big update was back in our January meeting with you all, and they reviewed those.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:34 - 1:16:43)
There's been no substantive change on the design of the parking area or the roadway that would impact their conclusion?

[Speaker 14] (1:16:44 - 1:16:47)
No. Yes, so to be clear, they have reviewed the latest and greatest.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:48 - 1:16:48)
Okay, great.

[Speaker 7] (1:16:48 - 1:16:50)
And they've signed off on that somewhere.

[Speaker 14] (1:16:51 - 1:16:51)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:53 - 1:16:59)
Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Can I just make one?

[Speaker 14] (1:16:59 - 1:17:12)
Sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, this is just a minor thing.

Going back to that World Tech letter, just for the record, because I misspoke. I was confusing dates and thought you meant February, but we have not ever seen that March 21st letter.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:12 - 1:18:15)
Okay, our apologies for that. I'm trying to make sure everything is being distributed, but ultimately it's my responsibility to make sure everything gets put on the OneDrive, and I've been trying to make sure if I see something isn't CC to Mr. Drukis, I send it to him. So I'm doing my best on that, but I apologize.

So is there anything else you wanted to add, Angela? I'm going to give you an opportunity to reply, but I'm not going to require you to because the letter from Attorney Hill came in at the 11th hour today, so you are more than welcome to reserve your comments on it until the next hearing or before the next hearing in writing. So is Attorney Hill here?

Hello.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:16 - 1:18:18)
Good evening. Do you want me to speak here?

[Speaker 1] (1:18:19 - 1:18:32)
That's fine. It's been so long since I've been in the room. Maybe I'll move the microphone so we're not so close.

Right, yeah, whatever you feel comfortable with or you're— Oh, sorry. I think that's on. Is this on?

[Speaker 2] (1:18:32 - 1:18:33)
You're welcome to take it off.

[Speaker 1] (1:18:33 - 1:18:34)
Testing one, two. We're good?

[Speaker 2] (1:18:35 - 1:22:07)
Okay. All right, for the record, my name is Dan Hill. I'm a land use attorney, and I represent some of the neighbors and citizens of Swampskate to the project.

And I'm the 11th hour guy, and I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. I've spent the last couple of days reviewing the project and reviewing the new information that came in this weekend from the applicant. Some real substantive changes, as we've been talking about tonight, on the sewer system, the drainage system, and the civil plans were changed as well.

So it took some time on my part to get up to speed and to pump this letter out and certainly didn't expect everybody to be able to respond to it tonight. But I'm happy to hear that the hearing will be continued. I'm happy to hear that your viewers will be looking at all of these issues in depth before the hearing is closed.

And I did want to just start my comments with actually my last section, Section E of my letter, since that really, I think, is the main message for tonight for us, is that the board should be very careful about the conditions that it puts in the permit. I've had this debate with Ezra on a number of projects around the state, and with all due respect, it's not correct that you can put conditions in your permit that require the developer to obtain further approvals from town boards or officials. It's simply not allowed.

It's not even allowed under 40A, let alone 40B. And under 40B, we have to be really careful about the conditions because if we get the conditions wrong, the State Housing Appeals Committee can turn those around. They can basically take the conditions out of the permit.

And there's a lot of recent precedent on this, and I've cited a few cases in the letter. In March of last year, as my friend Peter Freeman knows, many decisions were issued by the Housing Appeals Committee on one day in March, and almost all of them criticized the zoning board for putting these types of conditions on the permit, and they simply struck them. So you can't put a condition, for example, on the permit that says, you know, the developer can come back to us later after the permit's been issued for review of the stormwater system.

That was suggested by the engineer for the applicant in the matrix. So again, I think you're on the right track. You're having peer review really vet these issues thoroughly during this open hearing process, which is great.

And then hopefully we get to the end of the hearing, and the conditions are truly the type that yes or no, like you explained, Mr. Chair, is there an objective standard that somebody reviewing the submittal can say, yes, this complies, or no, it doesn't, because anything that's discretionary is going to get stricken by the HAC. So that's my last point, but it's my first point right now. And then just going to some of the substantive issues, and I'll try not to repeat what others have said.

With respect to the wastewater system, the sewer system, we were confused as well by the design and the flow monitoring report. And I guess, you know, the question I have for the applicant is, was there a document that I missed that contained all the calculations and analysis? Because all I saw on the OneDrive was the flow monitoring report, which is basically a lot of raw data and photographs, and then that exhibit, which had basically the conclusions as to what the capacity was.

But I think what Eileen and Vicky need and what we all need is to see the actual backup for the capacity analysis. So that would, I think, put all of us in the comfort level that there's adequate capacity in those eight-inch lines.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:09 - 1:22:31)
Okay, so that's a fair point. And I think that our peer review is looking to really analyze those issues on with that connection, whether it's eight-inch, whether it's 12-inch pipe, any underlying data, the report. So that's definitely a fair point.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:31 - 1:23:23)
And then the other question that sort of popped up tonight, as I'm listening to the testimony about all the flooding that's occurring under the railroad bridge on Burrell Street, is has anyone looked at whether there's any reports of sanitary sewer overflows in Swanscot? And it's a thing that happens around the state. They call it SSOs, the lingo, and whenever there's an SSO in a community, it's supposed to get reported to DEP.

And there's a database of all SSOs for every municipal sewer system. I think it's worth looking at, just making sure that we don't have any kind of SSO problem in this neighborhood, because if there is, this project will definitely exacerbate it by increasing the flows into the existing system. So it's just one of those check-the-box things that we'd recommend that be researched and vetted.

I haven't looked at it.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:24 - 1:23:26)
Who maintains that? Is it the DPW?

[Speaker 2] (1:23:26 - 1:23:34)
DPW would have the list, as well as DEP. Kevin Brander at DEP is in charge of the Wastewater Division, and he has a statewide database.

[Speaker 8] (1:23:35 - 1:23:37)
Isn't that what we're doing in our town?

[Speaker 1] (1:23:38 - 1:23:44)
We have this whole mitigation with infiltration and illegal tie-ins.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:45 - 1:24:19)
That's different. That's I&I. So that is a problem, and that's what reduces capacity when you have info and infiltration.

But this is a situation where pipes are in such bad condition and the capacity is too strong that when it rains, a lot of the runoff is getting into the sewer system, and it's causing the sewer system to basically surcharge. And so whenever there's a manhole, that manhole could lift up and raw sewage come out of that manhole. It happens.

It happened in a project in Winchester that I worked on. So it's just something to look into to make sure we don't have that issue here.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:19 - 1:24:24)
So is that something that perhaps maybe your clients as abutters who are interested here might want to look into?

[Speaker 2] (1:24:24 - 1:30:25)
Yeah, I will make a call, but I would encourage the applicant to report back, and perhaps Vicki and Eileen have already looked at it, so I'm just raising it. Okay. That's a very good comment.

And then respect to the title issue, the chairman already referenced that. That's something I think is worth investigating. You know, to what extent does this developer have the right to discharge this sewage flow through basically the housing authority's property?

I understand that that sewer line may have been there historically, but it's not clear to me that that's an automatic right to increase the sewage flow through that system on Doherty Circle. With respect to stormwater, I did look at the new plans briefly today, and in my letter I provided some analysis of what I thought was an issue with the infiltration system. That, I think, got answered tonight.

Basically, the current system as shown on the plan would be submerged in groundwater, but I think what I heard tonight from the engineer was that that's going to change, that the system's going to get elevated, and that, frankly, is going to, I think, require a lot of consideration because once you start elevating the whole parking lot, now we're talking about potentially other issues that could crop up. So I'm glad that Eileen and Vicky are on top of that because that could be pretty substantial. And I think this kind of goes to another point that I kind of disagree with the suggestion that we're at the 11th hour and things can just kind of get rolled into conditions.

To me, the changes that were made in the last week are really substantial. I mean, you have basically a new stormwater system, new sewer connection, and these are really major foundational aspects of a project. And I guess I also share the concern that this member had about the tunnel.

If we do raise the parking lot and the stormwater system, does that somehow affect the viability of burrowing the tunnel under the railroad tracks? And I think that should be answered by the applicant too. With respect to the open space issue, I know this was raised by both the planning board and by Cliff Bomer, the architectural peer reviewer.

It's really striking that there is zero open space. I mean, I work on a lot of these 40B projects around the state, and I don't know if I've ever seen a project with such a deficiency as this one, especially in a town. I mean, I've seen this in Brookline and more urban areas, but not in a suburb.

And I will say that the Housing Appeals Committee, although I typically disagree with their interpretations and decisions, at least has recognized that the need for open space is a legitimate local concern. In fact, the statute, Section 20, talks about balancing the need for affordable housing with the need to promote better building design and relationship of the project to its surroundings. This project is extremely dense.

I don't have to say that. The Sluckman have said it in the letter today, endorsing a denial of the project. The planning board has said it.

It's not necessarily—we're not here tonight to say the project should be denied or that the project can't go forward in any form. I think what we're saying is that the project in its current form is really deficient in a lot of different respects. And one of the respects is the open space, the lack of anywhere for anyone in the project, 120 units of families.

There's nowhere for them to go to just have some outdoor space. The rail trail connection would be a huge way to solve that, but I haven't heard, and maybe I'll hear it tonight, I haven't heard any commitment from the applicant to actually pay for that. That, to me, would be a very reasonable offset to the deficiency of the open space and recreational areas on the site.

This project, I understand, is 100% affordable. I understand it's a tax credit project. The profit margins are not like other typical 40B projects.

But it is still a profitable project. The pro forma that was submitted to the state that I believe you folks have a copy of showed that the project will have a net operating income of around $1.4 million for 20 years. The developer will be paying itself a developer fee of $2 million.

So there is profit here. And I think it's reasonable for the developer to contribute to the cost of burrowing that tunnel because that is necessary so that this project has access to open space or access to recreational opportunities. I want to address fire protection briefly.

I know the fire chief is here. And perhaps he can correct me if I'm misstating any part of the CMRs on fire protection. But I believe that the issue with the secondary access is actually not secondary access.

The issue is that the fire department cannot access the whole perimeter of the building from the interior driveway and parking lot. So the only way for the fire department to access the back of the buildings, so the part of the building that faces Pittman Road and faces the railroad tracks, is to get to it from Pittman Road. The problem is that, and by the way, that's required under the state fire prevention code.

The fire prevention code requires that the fire access roads not be more than 250 feet from any point in the building. So it wouldn't comply if the project relied solely on the interior driveway. So it needs Pittman Road.

And Pittman Road is, for all intents and purposes, a dead-end road because there's no legal right to go through Doherty Circle. And dead-end roads can't exceed 150 feet without a turnaround. Oh, is that for me?

[Speaker 18] (1:30:26 - 1:30:26)
Oh, thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:28 - 1:32:09)
We're hospital here in Swampscott. So Pittman Road is a dead-end road. And the fire chief had asked for either access through Doherty Circle with an emergency gate or a sufficient turnaround at the end of Pittman Road.

Now, I couldn't tell from the plans that are on the OneDrive and any of the documents whether this issue has really been resolved. It doesn't sound like it has been. And the way I see it sitting here today, I think we have a violation of the state fire prevention code or a nonconformity that needs to get addressed.

I don't see how this project can go forward. And it's probably more within the jurisdiction of the fire chief than the zoning board. But it's a design issue that, frankly, I think needs to get addressed.

So I think that covers the substantive issues. I think there's a lot of work here that needs to get done by the applicant. I think there needs to be a lot more supporting documentation on the connection with a sewer system.

The drainage system needs to get revised. We haven't seen those plans yet. So I think there's at least another month worth of work.

I would encourage the applicant to grant the extension that's needed from the 188 o'clock. And I would also encourage the zoning board to keep the hearing open to review the draft decisions. I know Mr. Freeman has provided a draft decision. The best process is once you close the hearing, you can't have those conversations. So the best process is actually to keep the hearing open to enable the discussion on the draft conditions and the decision on waivers. So I'll plant that.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:09 - 1:32:48)
I would invite your ‑‑ just as I invited the petitioner to present us with proposed findings of fact, I would invite if you wanted to give comments on those findings of fact or wanted to submit an alternative, you're more than welcome to do so. I think that would help our board, whether the decision is in favor or against, to get to the best set of facts that we can find and to understand different perspectives. So you're absolutely welcome to submit that if you'd like.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:49 - 1:32:52)
Okay. Very good. Thank you for your diligence.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:52 - 1:33:21)
Okay. Thank you very much. So I'm wondering about that with the fire chief and that question about the CMR. I'm not sure if you had a chance to look at that. I don't like putting everybody on the spot right away. It's like asking one of these obscure questions. I don't know.

[Speaker 17] (1:33:23 - 1:34:33)
Hi, how are you? Good evening. Yeah, so the initial preference for the fire department would have been a pass through Doherty Circle.

We think it would have been beneficial to both properties, Doherty Circle and the proposed project. However, the redesign provided what's called a hammerhead turnaround at the end of Pittman Road, which satisfies our requirement. In addition, the applicants have provided additional over and above the requirement access and suppressions features within the design of the building, provincial design of the building with fire department standpipes, roof access, more stairways than there would otherwise be required to do.

There are a lot of projects that have butt tracks or are in other urban areas that you don't have full access all the way around the building. So we are satisfied from a fire department, from a life safety standpoint, that we have adequate access, suppression features that have been asserted that they would incorporate into the design of the building.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:36 - 1:35:20)
So I'm just wondering also if you could take a look at that CMR that's referenced in Attorney Hill's letter and if you had any comments you could submit them after the hearing tonight. Just to take a look and make sure we're not missing something on that CMR that is suggested. I'm sure Marissa can share the letter with you.

Okay. So I do want to go back to the petitioner and get the petitioner an opportunity, if they want, to address any of the comments. Both of you can reserve until the next hearing or your choice, but please go right ahead.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:20 - 1:37:01)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 99.9% of what we will say will be reserved because we don't want to be willy-nilly. And so the letter has come in from Mr. Hill today, and the discussion tonight is helpful on the other item. So I'm not suggesting to my team that we want to respond in any detail. If anybody has a quick comment, that's fine. I did want to say just briefly as to the Section E in Mr. Hill's letter, which he mentioned first, what I would say is he actually hit the nail on the head. We're talking about conditions that are very specific tied to a standard. So the case law that does exist that talks about conditions subsequent, quote-unquote, being not preferred or even unacceptable to AJC is when they're very broad and calls for basically almost review everything down the road. But now you've had substantial peer review.

If we have custom-made tied to a standard, as the Chairman suggested earlier, that certainly would pass muster. The other difference is that these would be conditions that presumably we agreed to, although, again, we can't really agree to anything in advance. But that's a very different posture and context than what those cases at AJC have said.

So just briefly on that. And the other thing just as to extension, I did say, yes, we will extend for another hearing date. I need to agree on a date, obviously, but that's just logistical.

I don't think we're at the point of needing to extend the 180 days as far as I recall. So if we're at the point— I'm not sure I understand your— Well, there's two things. You asked if we agreed to continue because we had hoped to close.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:02 - 1:37:09)
Although I'm asking for a continuance to 180 days to take some of that pressure off us because we have these open issues. That's what I really need to know.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:11 - 1:37:14)
Question. Do you have your calculation of what that date is?

[Speaker 1] (1:37:14 - 1:37:23)
I don't. I'd have to see if Ezra perhaps has the calculation. I've had it in my mind that I'm going to have a written decision by—I believe it's the end of May.

[Speaker 7] (1:37:24 - 1:37:27)
It's 180 days from the date the hearing opened. Right.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:27 - 1:37:49)
Which was— Let me—sorry, let me make it easier. And, again, naturally we do agree because we want to respond to the things that have been said that we want another hearing. I think the date is sometime in May, but we don't need the exact date.

We will extend the 180-day period by two weeks, and I'll send in a letter to that effect.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:49 - 1:38:01)
Well, could we agree to a date so we all know what the date is? And could we agree to extend, say, the middle of June so that I know that we— That's about—that would be about right.

[Speaker 3] (1:38:02 - 1:38:14)
You're remembering, or else you're a good guesser, our calculation is about May 28th. So, you know, two weeks is basically mid-June. You can look at a calendar and agree on a date.

I agree. That's a good idea.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:14 - 1:38:41)
The only thing, I do have vacation June 2nd and June 10th, and I'm likely to be charged with being involved with this decision. So I would prefer maybe the third week of June so it gives me a little bit of time when I get back from vacation. I'm going to look to schedule our next—hopefully we take care of it before that because I'm hoping that we can pick our next date and that's going to be our final date.

[Speaker 3] (1:38:42 - 1:38:48)
Since you normally do things on Tuesdays, is June 15th okay? 14th. 14th.

[Speaker 9] (1:38:48 - 1:38:55)
Mark, I have the calculation date, the 180 days expiring on May 29th. That's a Sunday of Memorial Day weekend.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:56 - 1:39:05)
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the deadline is to close the hearing, not to issue the decision. So you actually have another— Oh, then I have 40 days to issue the decision? You have 40 days after the date.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:05 - 1:39:06)
Okay.

[Speaker 7] (1:39:06 - 1:39:06)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:06 - 1:39:07)
Excellent.

[Speaker 7] (1:39:07 - 1:39:18)
Thank you. So June 14th would be the date by which we would want to close the hearing. That would be the 180-day extension to June 14th, and then we have 40 days to issue the decision.

Is that right?

[Speaker 4] (1:39:19 - 1:39:34)
And the only issue there would be if we wanted to keep the hearing open as you refine the decision as per Attorney Hill's suggestion, which I think is in many ways a good one. But I'm not sure you could close the hearing and then still issue the decision after that.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:34 - 1:40:21)
To that point, actually, I disagree with Mr. Hill that you can't engage in discussion of the draft decision. I certainly agree that some town council agree with Mr. Hill, but many ZBAs and towns, we have gone back and forth during the deliberative sessions after the hearing is closed. The key thing is not to introduce new exhibits or new testimony.

So you don't have to decide that now. And hopefully, even before June 14th, there would be certainly the one hearing that we're talking about now, and if you feel as though we need another one, perhaps. But we can address the question of keeping the hearing open or not once you're satisfied that you have all the information, and we agree with that, and then the question of deliberating.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:22 - 1:40:44)
So why don't we, for now, agree to extend the 180-day period to June 14th, which is a Tuesday, okay, and pick a date in May for our next meeting. Have you talked about a further date that works for you guys? Hold on a second.

[Speaker 9] (1:40:46 - 1:40:59)
I just want to put it out there that we do have town meeting the third week of May, and it is likely to be a big event. I would reserve all four weeknights, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, for town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:00 - 1:41:28)
So what about is May 10th too soon, or is that okay? Can't do May 10th? Are you away that week?

Well, we could do the Wednesday. We could look. Actually, I can't do May 11th.

We could, how about Monday, May 9th?

[Speaker 18] (1:41:29 - 1:41:29)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:39 - 1:41:49)
17th. So that's why, and then we have the week after we have town meeting here. Works for me.

May 9th? That work for you guys?

[Speaker 18] (1:41:49 - 1:41:50)
Yeah. Sorry about that.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:51 - 1:42:01)
That's okay. We got to make sure you need five, really, where you get the simple majority. Is it good for Dan?

You okay on that date, Dan? May 9th. May 9th on Monday?

[Speaker 3] (1:42:04 - 1:42:16)
May 9th is fine with me. I may be coming back for my granddaughter's birthday party in Vermont. I'm sorry.

I may be coming back for my granddaughter's birthday party in Vermont, but it may be easy to get here from going through Boston at Rush Hour.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:17 - 1:42:57)
It's on the way to the Cape, right? Instead of the Cape, yeah. That's fine.

All right. So let's continue, plan on continuing to May 9th. Now there was, so we've given the petitioner an opportunity to address new items, procedural issues.

We've taken care of our next meeting. We're going to keep it open. We've heard from a butters council who has presented us with a written list of different issues.

[Speaker 8] (1:43:01 - 1:43:03)
I have a couple questions. Oh, absolutely.

[Speaker 18] (1:43:03 - 1:43:04)
Is that okay? Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (1:43:04 - 1:43:06)
So Cliff is not here, correct?

[Speaker 18] (1:43:07 - 1:43:07)
No.

[Speaker 8] (1:43:07 - 1:43:44)
Last month he had sort of a laundry list of items he was still waiting on, like floor plans and just kind of some basic things, and any discussions that's happened since then I don't have any record of. So if all that was provided to him, he had something about a garage door. He was concerned about windows and where they were in the units.

He was, it sounds like our chief said that the stairway access to the roof was good, but he had questions about that. He hasn't seen those plans. So if any of those conversations have happened this month, we don't have record of it, or I don't.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:45 - 1:43:48)
Well, let's ask the petitioner if they've addressed or plan to address.

[Speaker 14] (1:43:48 - 1:44:00)
No, I do apologize. Those have all been submitted. I did ask Cliff to get stuff to you guys, like in writing, saying that he was signed off, but I apologize.

We sent him a big package addressing everything.

[Speaker 8] (1:44:00 - 1:44:02)
So, yeah, I'd like to see the plans as well.

[Speaker 14] (1:44:02 - 1:44:03)
Okay.

[Speaker 8] (1:44:03 - 1:44:05)
Sorry. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:05 - 1:44:13)
So, yeah, you should look for something from Cliff to satisfy, showing us that it's satisfied. Anything else? Heather, any other questions?

[Speaker 8] (1:44:13 - 1:44:14)
No, that was the main one.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:15 - 1:44:16)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:44:19 - 1:45:02)
So that sounds like if I may. Go ahead, Ezra. I would say headed into that meeting, and maybe we want to say even set a deadline a week or maybe 10 days before we want the final letter.

And I would say that what means final is it's from your peer reviewer. We don't want anything more from the applicant that the peer reviewer hasn't reviewed on the stormwater, water, sewer, on the architecture, on the parking, and just have the kind of final clean bill of health say, every issue addressed or here's the condition for it. I mean, I think that's what we need to see.

And then anything else added to that is issues the board's raised that don't fall into those technical categories.

[Speaker 18] (1:45:03 - 1:45:04)
Right.

[Speaker 8] (1:45:04 - 1:45:15)
Yeah, because I think, I mean, we've been talking about, oh, we got a letter the last day, but we also got all the stormwater yesterday as well. So if that happens again next month, we're not going to be ready to vote.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:16 - 1:45:44)
Well, hopefully it's addressed expeditiously and to the satisfaction of our peer review engineer. But that's why I've looked. We've got time.

I don't want to do it, but to continue again after that, after another public hearing. But I've been pushing to get it finalized, and I think we probably wouldn't have got as much information if I didn't say this was going to be the night we voted. I agree.

[Speaker 8] (1:45:45 - 1:46:04)
But I think we've just, I mean, it's a pattern. We're getting all our information the day before the meetings about this whole process. And so we're always sitting here kind of, and I've said this before, we're always sitting here kind of on the fly, where no one wants to comment because they haven't had time to review, and we just need to get the information.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:05 - 1:47:26)
Right. One other comment I would have for the petitioner is the issue that's coming up about the open space that was brought up by Mr. Hill. If you choose to address it in writing, the suggestion that there are no other projects that have such a lack of open space, whether it's an urban or non-urban community, if there's evidence of that that you want to put forth, or just letting you know that it seems to be a live issue that you've got an opportunity to address by arguing.

So if you want to put other evidence in front of us, something that you have the opportunity to do. So, Ezra, we're waiting for some, if there are some substantial changes, it sounds like, that are presented by the changes in the infiltration system for the stormwater, in the parking lot, maybe having a little change in the elevation, and the utility analysis. We're at 9 o'clock.

They said we would go to no later than 10. I don't know where we're going to wait for all these changes, if it's appropriate to take any additional public comment at this time or not.

[Speaker 4] (1:47:30 - 1:49:17)
I mean, I think I could, I guess I would recommend if there are issues that have not been raised, at some point, this is a very tricky issue where you never want to say it's too late to raise issues, but the later issues, when new issues come up late, it does create this problem of then we think we're about to resolve everything and then a new issue comes up. And this is why the whole statute contemplates at some point hearings need to be closed. I agree with the attorney that it's nice to keep the hearing open so you can engage in this discussion, but at some point there can be this problem where it can become maddening for the board because you never know when you can be done and look at what you have on the table.

So that said, I do think if there are new issues out there, they're worth raising. With many of them, for example, Attorney Hill mentioned this thing about the SSOs. I don't think we've talked about that before.

I think I tend to assume we hire peer review engineers, they think about such things. But it may be they haven't. So I suppose it doesn't hurt for people to say, in the same way the board would if the public have concerns, I wouldn't think you need to engage in providing an answer for everybody now, but just to make sure it's flagged, your peer reviewers will hear it, and if there's anything in there that hasn't been looked at, they'll be sure in that final review memo that it includes a resolution of that.

How you want to run your public input is certainly key, but I would keep it focused on those issues and make it really clear we've already taken input and discussed all of those issues, so it's something new.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:19 - 1:50:24)
Okay. All right, so I think I'll do that in one second. The other thing that I didn't address, there was another letter that came in late in the day or late in the process today from the town administrator with an attachment of the earlier letter that went to the Housing Appeals Committee, and we really haven't talked about that.

And I don't know that that letter addressed anything specifically that we have jurisdiction over, but my only suggestion is that if there was an opportunity to have dialogue with the town administrator or with anyone else that you thought might be appropriate, that's your choice. So I just wanted to at least say that so that I don't regret not saying, hey, why don't you have a dialogue here? So I think that's all I really need to say about that.

So with that, I would invite if there's any...

[Speaker 8] (1:50:24 - 1:50:43)
Can I say one more thing about that? Yeah, absolutely. This kind of came up as something that Attorney Hill said as well, is to address the density issue, because that's the issue that comes up in that letter and also in the attachment from the select board.

They kind of did some ratings of density of other projects.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:45 - 1:50:48)
Right, I'm sure Peter's going to tell us what he thinks about density issues.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:48 - 1:51:46)
Well, you've researched case law, as you've said numerous times, which is absolutely appropriate, as long as it kept you awake. But as to density, there's really no issue with 40B. As to density, the question is intensity, meaning what are the impacts?

You could theoretically have a 500-unit building that's 10 stories high or 20 stories high if all of the safety factors were met, and I'm not proposing that that's what would be here, but the point is the number of units per acre, really, the HAC says in the appeals courts, is basically meaningless. The question is do you satisfy traffic, do you satisfy stormwater, and all of the things that have been discussed tonight. So again, it may be subtle, but that's basically how Housing Appeals Committee has dealt with density.

Density itself isn't the issue. It's a question of intensity of use, and can all of the impacts be handled in a way that's safe and appropriate, which is the subject of our inquiry tonight, which is appropriate. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:46 - 1:51:52)
What about the relationship between density and open space? I know we do have jurisdiction over open space.

[Speaker 3] (1:51:52 - 1:51:57)
Well, there's several factors which I will cite cases, so I won't go into that tonight.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:59 - 1:52:03)
I said earlier about perhaps something you might want to address, the open space issue.

[Speaker 3] (1:52:03 - 1:52:06)
That's where it is. We'll address it for sure.

[Speaker 1] (1:52:06 - 1:53:49)
Okay. All right, so great. So I'm going to ask members of the public, if you have new issues that you think the petitioner should consider, this board should consider, so that we're in a great position at our next meeting to close the public hearing and have a vote on this petition, knowing that there's going to be changes in some of the utilities in this plan, and if those are being addressed by our peer review, by the petitioner's engineer, and we've talked about those extensively, I would invite the comments, but I'm just trying to stay away from a repeat of prior comments that we've heard, and I'm going to give an opportunity before we close the public hearing at the next meeting to give you that opportunity to say in general what you feel about the petition after seeing all of the evidence.

So this is really to raise questions that you think we may have missed that the petitioner or the abutters' attorney, our peer review, the town may have not adequately addressed and you think we should address before we reconvene. So I'd ask you to use the raise your hand feature and to identify yourself if there are any issues. So the first person is live because he raised his hand earlier and now he's raised it again.

[Speaker 9] (1:53:52 - 1:53:57)
Sorry, Mike, sorry. If you wouldn't mind just moving over to the microphone so that everyone on Zoom can hear you as well.

[Speaker 20] (1:54:08 - 1:54:17)
Hi. Hi. I'm Mike Wood.

I live on Upland Road. So just one question before I get started. So we're going to have a chance to speak at the end of the next meeting also?

[Speaker 1] (1:54:17 - 1:54:18)
Yes.

[Speaker 20] (1:54:18 - 1:54:30)
All right, so there's just one new thing that I'd like to bring up, and I went down and measured Pittman Road, the tape measure, from curb to curb. It's 19 feet and 6 inches.

[Speaker 18] (1:54:31 - 1:54:32)
Yeah.

[Speaker 20] (1:54:32 - 1:54:58)
So I disagree with the chief, with all due respect, chief, about the access, because if this car is parked on both sides of that road, you figure a car is like 6 feet, all right? And I Googled the width of a fire engine. It's about 8 feet, 8.4 feet. So the fire engine won't fit down that street if this car is parked on both sides.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:58 - 1:55:35)
All right, so one thing about that, if you look on the public access to all the materials that have been filed, there's some comments directly on what's going to happen with Pittman Road. So if you look at what our peer review study, our expert has said, he's talked about the Pittman Road not having parking on one side because what the petitioner is doing is they're going to have, on their property, parallel parking to the street.

[Speaker 20] (1:55:35 - 1:55:36)
Right, saw that.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:36 - 1:56:33)
So they therefore can't be parking on the street on the public way, so it won't be blocked on that side. What the town does to regulate the other side of Pittman is up to the select board, which regulates, and the DPW, which regulates parking. And that's, so that's, but your numbers are pretty close to what are in those reports in terms of the width, but there is a little bit of a difference, and I'd suggest before the next meeting, you know, taking a good look at the reports from Emory and from Jeff and also looking at the plans that were completed by Hancock because it shows a lot about the width of the way, that there won't be parking on one side, questions about what'll happen on the other side.

[Speaker 20] (1:56:33 - 1:56:35)
So has that been decided?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:35 - 1:57:01)
It hasn't been decided. Ultimately, that's an issue we have jurisdiction over. We're hearing from the chief, but I think that's an appropriate thing for you to address with the chief and to see if he continues to maintain that he thinks there's adequate access there.

I think that would be the right direction to go in to express your concerns. He's hearing your concerns tonight.

[Speaker 20] (1:57:02 - 1:57:11)
Yeah, because unless, you know, someone makes that decision where there won't be any parking allowed on the resident side, which kind of penalizes the residents, you know.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:12 - 1:57:20)
Yeah, the residents of Pittman Road are dramatically impacted by the whole project.

[Speaker 20] (1:57:20 - 1:57:21)
I'll talk about that.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:21 - 1:57:33)
Absolutely, and that's just one factor. Yeah, all right, thanks, sir. Okay, thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Is there anyone else that wanted to be heard? Yes?

[Speaker 16] (1:57:46 - 1:58:55)
Hello, my name is Sandy Spring. I live at 6 Hillcrest Circle. I'm...

I don't... I think there's a hole around the parking issue. From 30 years on Hillcrest Circle, I've experienced overflow from the train station parking, so they're already up there.

Also, I've noticed around me that almost for all the houses, not all of them, but almost all, for every resident that is of driving age, they have a car. The two families across the street, there are five of them, five cars. Other houses, I've seen four drivers, four cars.

I don't have any reason to believe that that would be any different for this project, and the parking spaces have not been allotted for that, and that puts the burden back on us, the residents. I don't think that's right.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:57 - 1:59:32)
Right, that's an issue that I think our board is considering very closely with the parking ratio that's been proposed with one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units and the limited parking that's proposed, so it's definitely something that there's been a lot of attention paid to by both Petitioner trying to increase their parking, coming up with some additional spots, and with our peer review from abroad, from World Tech, and definitely an issue that we're considering.

[Speaker 16] (1:59:37 - 1:59:46)
Thank you. I hope that the solution does not mean that we residents get the short end of the stick on this.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:48 - 2:00:40)
I appreciate it. I see how difficult it is in the neighborhood. I see how limited the parking is, and I also see what the town's benefit of getting our own expert to review, and one of the issues that we have is that our experts are reporting back that the 1.06 ratio is satisfactory in his opinion, so I'm not a traffic expert. We have a peer review engineer who has spent a lot of time out in that neighborhood, and we have the evidence. Your testimony, though, is evidence that we are able to consider as well, so I appreciate that.

[Speaker 16] (2:00:42 - 2:00:42)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:49 - 2:00:52)
Is there anyone else that wanted to bring up any new items?

[Speaker 9] (2:00:58 - 2:01:00)
I do have a hand raised on Zoom.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:00 - 2:01:00)
Okay.

[Speaker 9] (2:01:02 - 2:01:05)
So I will be letting Maura White speak.

[Speaker 1] (2:01:12 - 2:01:24)
Hello again, Ms. White. I think you're on mute. Still on mute.

There you go.

[Speaker 11] (2:01:24 - 2:01:24)
Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 1] (2:01:25 - 2:01:25)
Yes.

[Speaker 11] (2:01:26 - 2:02:46)
Okay. So my issues continue to be I live at 26 Allen Place, so all the traffic for this building, the entrance is on Allen Place, and we already have Berks here, so there's inadequate parking and traffic coming. Where is it going?

In and out of the building is on Allen Place, and the sidewalk is going to be proposed on Berks Building, but is anybody taking into consideration that the building that Berks is in has got a metal roof, and it builds up the snow, and it comes tumbling down, tumbling down. I've been watching it for years, so you wouldn't be able to put a sidewalk there. Again, I'm going back to the traffic and the parking.

It's going to affect me directly.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:51 - 2:02:55)
So your concerns have not been addressed, in your opinion, adequately.

[Speaker 11] (2:02:56 - 2:04:40)
No, no. So, okay, my house, we have four cars. Sometimes we pull into the front of the house because that's where the stairway is.

My house is literally on the street. So what happens to us, just like over at Pitman, what happens to us on Allen Place, that park in front of our house? I think the traffic, the traffic flow hasn't been addressed appropriately.

Where is all this traffic? Everybody going into that building is coming down Allen Place. Everybody leaving that building is coming down Allen Place.

Everybody going to Berks is going down Allen Place. We're already inundated with Berks. Classes go on weekends, days, nights.

People don't adhere to the signs on the building, no parking. No, they're rushing to get their kids, pick up their kids. My driveway's been blocked multiple times.

So for me, it's the parking issue, the traffic hasn't been addressed for me down on Allen Place.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:44 - 2:05:47)
Okay, well, thank you very much for your comments, Ms. White. I don't know, we've heard the same comments from you prior meeting, and I don't know that there's been any change to the petitioner's petition. So it sounds like whatever they plan on doing, other than some changes on the potential of the sidewalk, and that there might be some new changes that were suggested by our traffic engineer with sidewalk instead of actual sidewalk and crosswalk being built and with potential one way, but they haven't made those changes.

They hadn't seen the letter from our peer review engineer. There might be some changes. I would encourage the petitioner, again, to reach out with you and see what else they can do to address your concerns.

[Speaker 11] (2:05:48 - 2:06:18)
I feel alone in this whole thing. This teeny little house here with no say. There's going to be traffic going up and down.

The sidewalk situation, there's no place to put a sidewalk down on Allen Place. I should go measure it like the person who spoke before and see. I don't know.

It hasn't been addressed. My issues have not been addressed at all.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:20 - 2:06:36)
Okay. Well, I can only invite the petitioner to consider your comments. I know that our board will consider your comments.

Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Yes.

[Speaker 23] (2:06:40 - 2:06:55)
Hi. Jan DePaulo, 30 Hillcrest Circle. I'm just wondering if you've heard from the school committee or anyone with regards to the impact of this monstrosity and what it's going to do to our schools.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:57 - 2:07:39)
We have not heard from the school committee. I don't know that the number of students and whether our schools can support it is something we actually have jurisdiction over under the statute which regulates. I was just curious if they had voiced any opinion.

I'm not aware of there being any opinion and I'm not also an expert as to whether it's proper for them to comment. I can just tell you I'm not aware of any comments. Okay.

Thanks. Thank you. Okay.

Mercer, anybody? Oh, we have somebody else here.

[Speaker 15] (2:07:44 - 2:09:13)
Thanks so much. I'm Chris Mancini. I live at Walker Road here in Swampscott.

I heard one new thing today that I hadn't heard before. I just wanted to comment briefly. It was brought up, the question of whether open space or affordable housing is more important and I just want to caution the board against having a question of, well, both things are important.

Just as a bit of background, my professional and personal life, I'm a huge open space advocate. My whole career has been in creating opportunities and access for open space for people. That said, you need to look at what's appropriate for the location and this is a spot, a transit-oriented development, close to public transportation, and I've seen the proponent being responsive to questions around the rail trail and things.

Again, something I'm very passionate about personally. It's one of the big reasons I chose to live in Swampscott was the prospect of that rail trail. But we know the percentages.

We know the need for affordable housing here in Swampscott, and you all know that. Again, it's just something new I heard today. I wanted to comment on that and choose what's appropriate for this location without being distracted by false analogies.

[Speaker 7] (2:09:15 - 2:09:31)
Equivalency, I think. Equivalency, thank you. What you're saying, just so I understand, is you're a big proponent of open space, you do it for a living, you focus on that, but what your comment or observation is is that based on what you've heard tonight, that...

[Speaker 15] (2:09:31 - 2:09:41)
I haven't heard what I've heard throughout the process, but again, I heard Mr. Hill, I believe it was, spoke about open space being perhaps more important than...

[Speaker 1] (2:09:42 - 2:09:43)
He said it was deficient.

[Speaker 15] (2:09:44 - 2:09:45)
Okay, I may have misheard him.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:45 - 2:09:50)
It was no open space that was really proposed by the petition.

[Speaker 15] (2:09:50 - 2:09:58)
I heard that, and I believe I also heard him refer to open space being perhaps more important than... And I may have misheard that, and I apologize.

[Speaker 7] (2:09:59 - 2:10:14)
Just to cut to your... So your observation, I just want to make sure I understand it, is that the need for affordable housing in this particular project, taking into account the rail trail connectivity, is okay in your book?

[Speaker 15] (2:10:15 - 2:10:16)
That's what I am saying.

[Speaker 7] (2:10:16 - 2:10:18)
Okay. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:19 - 2:10:24)
Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else on any new issues?

[Speaker 9] (2:10:28 - 2:10:30)
I don't have anyone on Zoom.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:30 - 2:10:44)
Okay. So with that, I am going to take a roll call vote to continue the public hearing to Monday, May 9th.

[Speaker 8] (2:10:49 - 2:10:51)
Can we set an official deadline for new information?

[Speaker 1] (2:10:53 - 2:10:54)
You have a deadline for what?

[Speaker 8] (2:10:54 - 2:10:55)
For new information.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:57 - 2:10:58)
Yeah, we can.

[Speaker 8] (2:10:59 - 2:11:16)
I don't know how long our peer review needs on the new... And I don't know how long it takes. It sounds like a very big planning project for the raising of the drainage system, but I don't know how much time you need.

And then our peer review is going to need probably a week to go over that, so I guess that's the question.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:16 - 2:11:50)
So if we said... If we were thinking we wanted to have everything at least a week, because sometimes it's back and forth, why don't we just say our expectation is that everything be complete, that the comments by anything that we're waiting for, including the review by the peer review that they use their best efforts to have everything filed by one week prior to the hearing?

[Speaker 3] (2:11:50 - 2:11:54)
I mean, that sounds good, but that's not what Heather's talking about.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:55 - 2:12:29)
Well, I think it's difficult... Using best efforts. I think it's difficult.

That's not going to... But I expect that the petitioner wants to get a... They're pushing to get a vote tonight, if they could.

Yeah. So I expect they're going to use their best efforts to get everything completed, and I would expect that if they get everything done as timely as they possibly can and that they're keeping on our peer review people to reply quickly, that we can be hopeful.

[Speaker 7] (2:12:29 - 2:12:52)
But it's a great idea because, I mean, I think I share Heather's frustration, which is... And it's human nature, but it's that deadline, the hearing date, and all of a sudden we get the flood of information, right, based on the hearing date, not based on a submission deadline date, which is in advance of the hearing, to give the peer reviewers time, to give us time, so that this is as productive an exercise as possible.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:52 - 2:12:57)
I have trouble setting it because I know how bad I am in my professional life doing that.

[Speaker 8] (2:12:58 - 2:13:17)
It's so consistently coming to us the day before that it feels deliberate. Like, it doesn't feel like it's just waiting to last a minute. It feels as though there's a...

And I don't want to say this, but it feels as though we're getting this information with no time to look at it, like, consistently.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:18 - 2:13:36)
Right, but there is a short window between meetings, and it's... I mean, I think that's... If we don't have...

I mean, what I would say is, if we don't have it timely, we're going to be looking to extend the meeting or we're going to have a vote, and the vote may not be... The vote would be just based on what we have in front of us, and it may not be complete.

[Speaker 7] (2:13:37 - 2:13:54)
And by the way, that goes for the town as well, for select board, for town administrator, for the public, based on, you know, if you have comments, if you have questions, don't wait until the very last minute to submit them.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:55 - 2:13:58)
Yeah. Ezra, did you have a comment about setting a deadline?

[Speaker 4] (2:13:59 - 2:15:09)
I mean, I think this is exactly the right conversation. I would... Two comments.

One would be to maybe... If you want everything by May 2nd, we ask the peer reviewers, and I think the really key one here is Eileen and Victoria, you know, to back up when would they need to see stuff. And then the second piece was just move towards what I was saying about maybe we need to say that the peer reviewers really just need to give us their...

If they don't... If they can get some back and forth, we get a good condition with input from the applicant. If we don't get good back and forth, we just legislate a condition.

You know, in order for this... You need to do 12-inch sewer the whole way. You need to...

You need to come up with whatever standard it is that you require. It's better when you can do it working with them and they show you how they need it and you agree. But if the board is going to be pushed into having to make a decision quickly, I just want to be sure you have a condition that you can slap on that, you know, meets the standards and addresses these concerns.

So...

[Speaker 5] (2:15:09 - 2:15:15)
Just so you know, too, we don't have the revised stormwater design yet.

[Speaker 8] (2:15:15 - 2:15:17)
Oh, yeah. Yeah, it hasn't been created.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:17 - 2:15:46)
Right, right. So we're trying to make sure that all gets done as quick as we can. I mean, I can say with...

When the comments were raised by our peer review, I see that, you know, Hancock got a field crew out there right away and I know engineers I work with. I wouldn't have got a field crew out there that quick. They did a great job of doing that.

So this doesn't happen, you know, necessarily overnight. So I would just ask everyone to use their best efforts. Yes, Deborah?

[Speaker 6] (2:15:47 - 2:15:55)
Hancock can get their reviewed plans, documentation, calculations within seven days from today. Wow.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:56 - 2:15:56)
Okay, that'd be great.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:57 - 2:16:02)
And we would ask that VM would review within a week.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:03 - 2:16:05)
Right, so the turnaround would be seven days.

[Speaker 6] (2:16:05 - 2:16:05)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:05 - 2:16:42)
That's the expectation. So please try to, everyone, to stick with that, that Hancock's going to look to get their work all done seven days from today, everything complete over to VM, and then VM looking to try and turn around that back to Hancock and to the board distributing those comments as we go, seven days, so that if there's any further response necessary, that it can be done timely and hopefully these issues are narrowing and taking less time because they're moving forward.

[Speaker 7] (2:16:43 - 2:16:46)
Mark, can we also, everybody has access to the OneDrive, right?

[Speaker 18] (2:16:46 - 2:16:46)
Yep.

[Speaker 7] (2:16:46 - 2:17:01)
Could everybody commit to review the OneDrive and make sure that all of your documents that you have submitted are on there? And I think the town will do the same because the last thing we want to do is get back to a hearing and someone say, oh, I hadn't seen that.

[Speaker 3] (2:17:01 - 2:17:14)
Right, we missed the March 22nd. That's a helpful suggestion. We can all do that because there is a lot going on.

So something was missed, but we understand that March 21st comment. So, yes, that's a good idea. Okay.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:14 - 2:17:22)
And the other thing, just a reminder, the title work for if there is an easement needed, that might be a time-consuming, I don't know.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:22 - 2:17:44)
So, right, and I suggested at the last meeting that the petitioner, so in the draft decision, I see that Peter addressed an easement, giving an easement for pedestrian and bicycle access over the land, and it will be shown on the plan where it's located.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:45 - 2:17:52)
So I don't know that we need to have – I'm sorry, I'm talking about if they needed any title work done for the – Oh, Doherty Circle? Yeah, for Doherty Circle.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:52 - 2:17:54)
I think that's an important issue.

[Speaker 8] (2:17:54 - 2:17:54)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:55 - 2:18:01)
And I think it's not only an important issue for the petitioner to address, but for the abodes that are concerned about that.

[Speaker 8] (2:18:01 - 2:18:17)
And then is there any sort of title issue with the location of the Berks parking and the satellite parking, the Berks parking that's in the middle of your parking and then the satellite parking that's technically not going to be the same lot? Is that a long-term issue?

[Speaker 1] (2:18:18 - 2:18:43)
Well, you know, that's one thing that, you know, what's proposed in the petition, it sounds like, is that there's a license to use the parking for Berks where in the designated area. What happens if that license are revocable? I would want to make sure that there's some permanency while that use is there or that there's a restriction we control.

[Speaker 3] (2:18:43 - 2:19:20)
And also the use of that satellite lot as well, how that's not – Through you, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I don't believe we said license and easement. I do believe that we've said easement. Beyond that, it's not a title issue.

That's how the right to use the proposed parking that's part of the project would be cemented for the project. Beyond that, you know, we show ownership and the purchase and sale agreement, and there's not an issue of title. It's just a question of showing that there's an easement for that use, which we wouldn't have the easement yet, but we don't object to a condition because that's what we're proposing.

[Speaker 8] (2:19:21 - 2:19:23)
In fact – I'm sorry, because we're talking about two different things.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:23 - 2:19:48)
The title was about the – Going across Doherty, which maybe I just missed it, but I hadn't heard about that. I think we thought that because, if I'm recalling Angela correctly – It was in the letter that came in late today. Okay, right.

I think we probably assumed that because I believe Geno said it was public sewer, right? Yes. The pipe itself?

Yes. Right. But now that the question has been asked, we'll look into it.

Okay.

[Speaker 8] (2:19:48 - 2:19:57)
And so that's separate, obviously. Then we're talking about the kind of lease agreement for that satellite lot. That won't be owned by the property.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:57 - 2:19:57)
Correct.

[Speaker 8] (2:19:58 - 2:20:00)
So that will be something that – Correct.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:00 - 2:20:07)
We'll address it. And you're right. It's either ground lease or easement.

But, yes, we'll make sure that it's part and parcel of what we need for the project.

[Speaker 8] (2:20:07 - 2:20:16)
Yeah. I don't know about you, but rather than seeing it as a condition, it's going to be something that would be nice to – Well, we've had some – Dan, I'm sure, remember, not too far from this project.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:18 - 2:20:58)
Do you remember we had that project unburrowed and we required the easement? It had to be an easement for off-site parking. Do you remember the one where the liquor store is where they did work on the building?

Oh, right. The parking was on a budding lot, and we wanted to make sure that it was going to exist long after the project was built. So I would expect that we would be requiring a condition that it's an easement for all the parking and that Berks parking, that it's coterminous with the lease agreement that Berks has.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:59 - 2:20:59)
We agree.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:00 - 2:21:05)
Okay. Sure. So Heather, any other questions or comments?

[Speaker 8] (2:21:05 - 2:21:14)
No. I guess some of that stuff, is that stuff that we will see documentation of, or we'll just condition that it – Well, we have the draft decision that addressed some of that.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:14 - 2:21:47)
If there need to be, based on these comments and questions, which are excellent, if the petitioner thinks there should be a supplement to the proposed decision that addressed some of these proposed conditions, or if it needs to be changed, they can submit that to us, because it's very helpful to see it in the draft. I don't know that we necessarily need to have the draft easement, but just it's going to show it on the plan and making it a condition that there needs to be an easement that provides for so much parking in that area, and it's going to run with the land.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:48 - 2:21:50)
Right. That's what I would suggest.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:50 - 2:22:17)
Okay. So with that, I'm going to make a motion to continue the public hearing, conditioned upon the petitioner signing the extension of the 180-day period to June 14th, and the next public hearing will be May 9th, and it will be in person, hybrid, and beginning at 7 p.m. So do I have a second on that motion?

[Speaker 18] (2:22:18 - 2:22:18)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:18 - 2:22:22)
So I'm going to do a roll call vote. Do I have a yes? Dan?

Yes. Heather?

[Speaker 18] (2:22:22 - 2:22:23)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:23 - 2:22:30)
Brad? Yes. Paula?

Yes. Okay. So we're continuing until May 9th.

So thank you. Thank you, everyone.

[Speaker 9] (2:22:41 - 2:22:46)
Mark, could I just get a motion to adjourn to officially end the webinar?

[Speaker 1] (2:22:46 - 2:22:50)
And we're going to have a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 9] (2:22:50 - 2:27:11)
Aye. Thank you. You're excused.

you you you