[Speaker 8] (0:00 - 0:09) Project will meet all the dimensional requirements and then Craig if you're on and you want to just give us a brief walkthrough on the proposed plans. [Speaker 9] (0:10 - 0:16) Yeah, happy to do that. If it's okay with you, kind of my presentation is set up. Could I go screen share? [Speaker 6] (0:16 - 0:18) Please go for it. Let me stop mine. [Speaker 9] (0:18 - 0:26) Okay. Can everybody see this? [Speaker 4] (0:28 - 0:29) Yes. [Speaker 9] (0:29 - 5:02) Okay, great. So this is just to give you a quick elevation of the front of the existing dwelling here on Shepherd Street. You'll notice that it's actually kind of a split. You enter at the garage level, walk up half a flight of stairs. The main body of the house is currently here with kitchens and living rooms. Then there's another half flight of stairs that leads you to the second floor over the garage. When you see our design, basically we're taking that same architectural statement and doing another half a step up and buying us the opportunity to put some dormers and gain bedrooms and bathroom space on the second floor above the existing living room space. That's really our application here today. Just as kind of an overall, if you hadn't had a chance to see the location of the site, this is our site in context with the neighborhood. Shepherd Street merges into, I guess that's Humphrey Street out there and it's very close to that kind of intersection. Just to give you an idea. The site I think did a great job. In so many ways what we're proposing to do is add second floor volume over the existing footprint. It dimensionally will align with the footprint that's currently there so you're not seeing any proposed additions as far as footprint is concerned. The architecture is such that as part of our application I threw in what we consider to be the basement space. More than 50% of this is below grade but you do have the garage slab. You get to the main floor. This would be the garage which is actually lower by half a flight to what I consider to be the main kind of living spaces of the kitchen and dining living room. They have a small sunroom in the back. I should say in all cases the street Shepherd Street is out here on the bottom of the sheet. Just to give you an orientation. And then the second floor above the garage consists of a couple of bedrooms and a bathroom up there. But we'll again you'll see in a second we're just going to continue the staircase up and buy ourselves the opportunity for a couple dormers and some bedrooms on the second floor. So the existing exterior elevations my mouse is very sensitive. So again sorry the front elevation two side elevations and rear elevation. As you can probably see it is one long linear roof line there with a couple skylights in it. It breaks as the plate height changes for the second floor volume over the garage. You see in the two side elevations for the most part it's just that simple gable with this is just a small little sunroom addition off the back that you're seeing in the rear elevation here. And then there is this small shed dormer that allows those bedrooms over the garage to exist. So from our perspective really no changes to the first floor. Second floor so this is really where you're seeing the proposed diagram change. We would be introducing a new staircase come up the stairs turn again and go up a set of stairs have a flight to get to this kind of addition that would consist of a master bedroom suite and two bedrooms a small little office and bathrooms to facilitate their needs on their second floor. Architecturally speaking how we're doing that is we're basically extending the roof line up the height rose from 16.4 to 18.8 so it's just a change of a just over a couple feet here. But it does provide for us the opportunity for some dormers and some interest actually in this elevation. I think it helps to break the massing up a little bit and to provide kind of a geometry setup on the front entry. So it's the two side elevations that we have here are really just showcasing the dormers on the front and the rear and how I'm elongating basically the existing roof line up to accomplish the head height that we need and to create the slopes for the dormers. The change in this elevation again is just over two and a half feet. Other side elevation you're seeing the cascading effect of a couple of dormers that's just to get our head height to the place where we need to in order to get into the zone of where our bedrooms exist. So these would be the simple shed roof forms that you're seeing kind of cascading down because we did not want to get involved with the roof lines of the sunroom and the rear elevation also shares kind of a double gable scenario on the rear. That basically describes our proposal if you have any questions. [Speaker 1] (5:04 - 5:11) Okay let's see so you're not adding any additional paving anywhere on the site? [Speaker 9] (5:12 - 5:13) That's correct. [Speaker 1] (5:13 - 5:16) And you're not changing any landscaping currently on the site? [Speaker 9] (5:16 - 5:17) That's correct. [Speaker 1] (5:18 - 5:26) Okay and where does the HVAC go? Where's the your outdoor I'm assuming is air conditioning and so forth? [Speaker 9] (5:26 - 5:35) Yeah that's an excellent question and Dan are you here to maybe answer? Do we have condensers out there? I can't remember. [Speaker 1] (5:35 - 5:35) I'm sorry. [Speaker 3] (5:35 - 5:42) Currently the condenser is either right side elevation C right by that right by that door right there to the left yeah. [Speaker 1] (5:42 - 5:47) Okay so that's in the back corner of the house? [Speaker 9] (5:48 - 5:54) Yeah that's on the side of the house. That's on right of the garage. [Speaker 1] (5:54 - 5:56) Okay has it always been there? [Speaker 3] (5:57 - 6:02) Yeah we've been here for two and a half years and my understanding that unit's 15 plus. [Speaker 1] (6:03 - 6:12) Okay just curious and have the neighbors been notified? I don't know if they probably needed to. Larissa did you? [Speaker 10] (6:14 - 6:16) They'll be notified for the ZBA hearing. [Speaker 1] (6:16 - 6:23) Oh that's kind of what I was wondering. Yeah coming up on the 28th. Okay so you're adding five bedrooms? [Speaker 4] (6:24 - 6:26) We're adding three bedrooms. [Speaker 1] (6:27 - 6:32) Okay so and do you know about the the I&I fee for the the extra bedrooms? [Speaker 8] (6:34 - 6:40) Yeah I think the DPW has already filed a recommendation with the board with respect to that. [Speaker 1] (6:40 - 6:47) Okay so that's all the questions I have. [Speaker 4] (6:48 - 7:03) Anyone else would like to chime in please go right ahead. Pat or Mike do you have any questions? No questions for me. [Speaker 16] (7:06 - 7:18) No nothing looks good. Okay yep nothing from my end. I'm pretty familiar with this house. My wife and I looked at it once upon a time so these are really cool plans and glad to see them in front of us. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (7:19 - 7:28) All right then well so the only thing I would say is that there is a what is the Larissa it's it's 2,200. How much is it per bedroom? [Speaker 6] (7:29 - 7:32) I will you know what I will tell you based on the DPW. [Speaker 3] (7:33 - 7:37) Yeah the DPW comment is 6,600 so yeah yeah it's 2,200 per bedroom. [Speaker 6] (7:38 - 7:39) That's pretty that's pretty strict. [Speaker 1] (7:39 - 8:20) I mean that's a that's the a new rule that we have so that that will be imposed. I think you know for the just to let you know that's going to be part of the fees and constructing that but other than that I also have no objection to this so if we are if there are no other questions about the addition I certainly have no objections. I I think it you know falls within certainly within all of the dimensional issues and it doesn't affect anything else on the lot so if someone would like to make a motion to recommend favorable action to the ZDA we can vote on that. [Speaker 4] (8:23 - 8:30) Make a motion to recommend favorable action on this project. [Speaker 1] (8:31 - 8:40) Okay great and all in favor we'll do a roll call and I'm a yes. Ted? [Speaker 4] (8:40 - 8:41) Yes. [Speaker 1] (8:41 - 8:42) Mike? [Speaker 4] (8:43 - 8:43) Aye. [Speaker 1] (8:44 - 8:45) And Dave? [Speaker 4] (8:45 - 8:46) Aye. [Speaker 1] (8:46 - 9:07) And I don't think that Bill is on the is on tonight is that correct? You can see I don't see him. Okay then in that case it's it's unanimous and we'll recommend favorable action to the Zoning Board of Appeals. [Speaker 9] (9:08 - 9:11) Thank you we appreciate it. Thank you very much appreciate your time tonight. [Speaker 1] (9:15 - 9:18) Ted were you about to say something and I interrupted you? [Speaker 16] (9:19 - 9:22) Yeah no sorry I see someone with their hand up I'm not sure if they had public comment. [Speaker 1] (9:23 - 9:37) Oh I'm sorry I didn't I didn't see anything I can't see anything there. Oh let me Wendy is here. Okay I'm sorry Wendy I didn't see you but you're welcome to speak. [Speaker 11] (9:38 - 9:56) I just had a question because you were talking about Sheppard Street. I don't believe there's a Sheppard Street in Swanscott. I think it's Sheppard Avenue and the street that you were talking about Humphrey Street is Atlantic Avenue. [Speaker 1] (9:57 - 10:05) All right I'm sure it's correct on the plans we're just sort of talking offhand but thank you for pointing that out. [Speaker 11] (10:06 - 10:14) And just so you know I'm in I have no problem with it. I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew where it was. [Speaker 4] (10:14 - 10:23) Thank you very much. Thank you for the attention to detail. Okay thank you. [Speaker 1] (10:25 - 11:38) And so if that if there's nothing else on that then we can move on to our next topic which is the hearing the continuation of the hearing for our site SPR I don't have the number in front of me anymore. It's 22 dash three is it? Let me just double check. I believe so. So it's 299 Salem Street. It's the Glover Residences Admin Square and this is the continuation of the public hearing. Hello everyone and welcome. And tonight our our goal I suppose would be to see if there are first of all I'd like to I'll turn it over to the the the team the Leggett McCall team and see if you have anything new or anything you would like us to add or any comments to make before we talk about our draft decision. [Speaker 2] (11:40 - 12:58) Thank you Angela. Good evening members of the planning board. My name is Paul Feldman. I'm an attorney representing the applicant. In terms of a presentation of new materials tonight I'm happy to say that after multiple hearings I think we've responded to all the questions. We've gotten some terrific feedback from the planning board that we've incorporated into the design. I think everybody feels like the design as much as I think that did a wonderful job originally is even that much better because of the public comments so we're appreciative of that. I know that the technical comments by the review third party reviewers have all been responded to and all the matters have been addressed so as far as we're concerned we don't have anything new to present tonight but we're happy to answer questions or respond to any issues that may come up while you consider a decision and we hope that the planning board is favorably inclined to vote for the plan approval that's been requested. [Speaker 1] (12:59 - 14:07) Okay thanks. Anyone else have any comments before we begin the review? I guess the other thing I wanted to say I don't see anywhere and I would just put this out to the planning board because what we're going to be doing is looking at our sort of updated draft of our decision and kind of going through you know we hopefully have gotten it to a point where we can finalize things and however because this shall take some time and I don't know whether there are any people online that want to speak ahead of time typically we don't do that at a public hearing we'll you know go over the matter at hand first and then take comment later but I thought I'd put it out there to the board to see if you wanted to entertain any comments before we review the draft if that is important to you. [Speaker 10] (14:08 - 14:10) Would we do both? Would we take comments before? [Speaker 1] (14:11 - 14:21) No I would think we should I think we should either do one or the other really although I'm not I wouldn't be opposed to it but well you know really it's going to depend on how much time we have. [Speaker 10] (14:22 - 14:28) Honestly I think it would be good to take them now we've talked about this a lot and you haven't necessarily heard from the public. [Speaker 1] (14:29 - 15:25) I agree yeah I know some people have kind of dropped off because we might run late and so forth so I'm not even sure if I haven't looked at the attendance but that being said I will Clarissa I think we'll open the public hearing to public comment for a short time and then we'll close it we'll go back to just discussing the decision and then we can open it for public comment again. Sure. So because we never closed the public hearing we don't need to open it again it's currently open but we will officially open it for public comment and we will take you know we'll keep mindful of the time so that we don't want to start our decision review too late but that being said I see there is a hand up and Marissa if you want to manage that for me that would be great. [Speaker 6] (15:26 - 15:33) Sure I've got a few hands up. I will take Emily Paul's first she's from she's here from the Lynn Daily item. Okay great. [Speaker 1] (15:34 - 16:16) Hi I was just wondering I was sent some renderings of the project and I just want to make sure it's okay that I use them in the paper. I would want to check that they are the most recent and the most accurate but I certainly would have no objection to it. I think I'd want the petitioner also the applicant to make sure that they're comfortable with the version I would say I mean I you know the plans are public they're public information obviously I just want to be sure that they're it's the most current version and I certainly have no objection to that. Any comment from the applicant or any of the planning board members on that? [Speaker 6] (16:16 - 16:24) Per reference I sent her the renderings that were part of the last site plan submittal back in December so I think to my knowledge those are the most recent ones. [Speaker 2] (16:24 - 16:40) Okay yeah so I would ask that he's the author and copyright holder it is it is a public submission to the planning board but that I'll leave it up to you to answer if you have a problem with them publishing your work. [Speaker 5] (16:41 - 17:03) No not at all maybe Emily maybe reach I don't know when you need to need this by but it would if you want to run them by me ahead of time so I can just confirm that you have the latest I'm happy to do that. Okay and you can probably reach me through Marissa who has contact info and I'm happy to to give you what you need anything you need. [Speaker 6] (17:04 - 17:16) Okay awesome thank you so much that's all the questions I had. Okay thank you very much. All right I have Jonathan Lehman from the Historical Commission. Jonathan. [Speaker 4] (17:18 - 17:25) All right thank you yeah Angela I know I have sent you the comments from [Speaker 2] (17:25 - 17:49) the Historical Commission and yeah it's on a shared drive what I wasn't sure is whether since we got comments after that date the latest one is February 9th so I just wanted to bring to your attention that they're there I can either send it to you or you can pull it up off the drive whatever is easier for you but I wanted to be sure you had all the comments from everybody. [Speaker 1] (17:49 - 18:03) It's my understanding during my conversations with with Nancy Schultz that the comments I have are the were the most recent and they're included in that decision. [Speaker 4] (18:03 - 18:04) Thank you. [Speaker 6] (18:06 - 18:12) Thank you John. All right and I have Jerome Sanders. [Speaker 4] (18:12 - 18:30) Yes Jerome please feel free to speak you have to unmute yourself. All right there you go. Okay I did talk with Marissa yesterday. [Speaker 6] (18:33 - 18:34) Yesterday was Sunday. [Speaker 8] (18:35 - 18:36) Excuse me. [Speaker 6] (18:36 - 18:38) I said yesterday was Sunday. [Speaker 8] (18:38 - 18:39) It was Sunday. [Speaker 1] (18:40 - 18:42) And you spoke to me yesterday. [Speaker 8] (18:42 - 23:24) She was working overtime. I'm sorry I talked to Angela. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. Each of you has received a letter of January 30. I'm the president of one Salem street and we had 55 signatures to that letter which was also circulated to other town officials. I'm assuming the developer probably has seen it. I would hope so. In any event our concern relates solely to the traffic circulation and the traffic issues at the end of Salem street where it meets street and it's met by Salem street. And we all know that is chaos section now even before we have any construction going on. Our objection is not to the project is that there should be an independent traffic study done by the town where the payment for the study be done by the developer. That condition of acceptance of the project. We would also suggest that as a condition the developer agree to work with the town in terms of the actual that might affect the site. I don't know that would be up to the independent traffic study. I know there was a study done at the developers behest by there was a traffic which was done by two groups. One was the traffic and the other was was affected the exit to Salem street. Our concern is that if in fact it is approved and I'm going to assume that it will be approved that the town be able to rely upon for some financial support for an independent study of the traffic application and that there be an agreement by the developer to the extent that it affects and try to work out a traffic plan that makes sense. Let's say on the street where they cut through sunbeam lane which a lot of them do cut because it's so congested at the end. The study that was done by the developer I believe in August of 2021 when we had covid we didn't have we had schools and we had people away on vacation. It really was not reflective of what is the ordinary traffic that we find at that location and we believe that VHB did a study of the study for the town of Swampstead and for Marblehead and then 29 recommendations. I don't know what has happened to those recommendations whether they've been agreed to or it's been taken in terms of the plan. I'm just uncertain of that but our biggest concern is traffic and the safety and the ability of vehicles to go through that intersection and be through that intersection and be safe. So what we are we're urging the planning board to plan and study by a traffic expert with recommendations that would make sense and improve that whole intersection. Some of it will be in fact I don't know but I believe by this project and I think we clearly need the cooperation of the developer in terms of what disposition will be made of that traffic study. So that's really what I associate the opportunity to address the planning board and hope that our will be inspiration. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (23:24 - 23:59) Thanks very much Mr. Summers. We will be discussing traffic and recommendations that have been made and what is stated in the decision as we go along in our review of the decision. So and understand your concerns. I think it's a concern that's shared by a lot of people. So thanks for your comment. Any other comments? Yes I have one more hand raised from Wendy. [Speaker 11] (24:01 - 26:46) Wendy can you give us your full name please? Sure my name is Wendy Mayer 57 Linden Avenue. Thanks. So I guess I can echo the latest gentleman from 1 Salem street because we're around the corner. I know this is some of this is not an issue for the planning board but I consider my neighborhood a near a butter. So I have a huge disappointment in the town of Slomscott that this project was even approved without us nearer butters even knowing about it. And one of my neighbors and I went and canvassed the neighborhood and put out flyers so they were aware what was going on and there wasn't one person in the Linden Avenue, Stanley Avenue, Crosman, all these streets around here including 1 Salem street that knew that the zoning board had approved this. So we are understandably late to the game. I have personally gone to the building inspector as a physical therapist in the town for 45 years and expressed my concern about the condition of the General Glover property and my total love of that property and remembering the days growing up because I've lived here my whole life where it took six weeks to get a reservation and deteriorate was really really sad. So my only question right now is I'm trying to figure out the height of the building. I think it's going to be developed, I get that, but I asked the building inspector because I wanted to compare another site that's at Benning Square so that we can understand the height. So everybody knows the gold building on Paradise Road. So does anyone here on the planning board know this new proposed building in relationship to the gold building, the height of it? Is it bigger? Is it the same? So I'm just trying to get my head around it. The new building is supposed to be 49 feet tall and I don't know the height of the gold building. Is that something you can find out? Because I've asked like several times to the building. [Speaker 1] (26:46 - 27:05) Yeah, I wasn't here when it was built in the 80s or whenever 70s, whenever it was. So I'd have to see if we have any records on file. I mean, I don't even know how many stories it is. It's great up on a bit of a hill so it's kind of hard to tell. [Speaker 11] (27:06 - 27:07) It's three stories. [Speaker 1] (27:08 - 27:10) I don't know what the height is, I'll be honest with you. [Speaker 11] (27:10 - 27:34) I think it would be kind of interesting because I don't think I and most of our neighbors object to the project as much as the size of the project and what's going to happen with the traffic. And the last gentleman who spoke, he's totally on board. What people do already to avoid that intersection is extreme. [Speaker 4] (27:35 - 27:37) So anyway. [Speaker 11] (27:38 - 27:40) Thank you. We'll try to address those. [Speaker 1] (27:40 - 27:45) We'll try to address all those questions during our discussion. But thank you very much, Wendy. [Speaker 4] (27:46 - 28:09) You're welcome. Thank you, Wendy. And I have a hand raised from Brian. Brian, can you tell us your last name, please? You just have to unmute yourself, Brian. There you go. [Speaker 15] (28:10 - 28:12) Yeah, Brian Drummond, D-R-U-M-M-O-N-D. [Speaker 1] (28:15 - 28:16) So we'll go right ahead. [Speaker 15] (28:17 - 28:49) Yeah. So, Angel, I wrote you a letter with a couple questions on it a while ago, but I'll just ask one of them, which is, has a shadow study been performed to assess how the building shadows will cover the streets in the winter weather and perhaps cause them not to thaw out? So I'm asking if there's a shadow study, a sun shadow study that's been performed. [Speaker 1] (28:50 - 29:56) I don't believe that we require that. No. I mean, I've deferred to that and the team at Leggett, but I don't recall that we asked for a shadow study. And essentially because there aren't, because we don't really have an abutter per se. And what I mean by that is somebody who's, you know, within 10 feet, residence is within 10 feet of the structure itself. So no, we didn't, we didn't require that. And we also didn't require because the development actually has less impervious surface than the current site. And so there, the dredge should be greatly improved there, but we'll also discuss, we can certainly discuss this more as we, you know, as we go through the decision, there'll be more of this information to be discussed. Do you have another question as well? [Speaker 15] (29:57 - 30:31) Well, let me just elaborate because, you know, South is kind of towards one Salem street. So the shadows could be across the street in the intersection and there's no melting. It will tend to be icy road surface. Most of the time that it's going to cause issue with the traffic. That's why I think you want to look at that because you don't want us traffic light area that's totally in the shade in the winter time. That's all my comment is. [Speaker 6] (30:31 - 30:39) Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Next I have attorney Ken Schutzer. [Speaker 4] (30:43 - 30:43) Hello. [Speaker 7] (30:45 - 36:44) Hello. It's always a pleasure. I don't even have to introduce myself because I've already been introduced. So thank you all. I'm sort of late at the game. I've sort of not taken a very active position. I'm a resident of one Salem street. I formerly was the president of one street, but in this capacity, I really have just a couple of questions. One of which I addressed with Ms. Ippolito when I had run into her when they were doing the Hawthorne property opportunity for residents to be there. And that just goes back to some of the other comments and I candidly haven't heard them all. And if I'm repeating myself, I apologize because I know your time is limited, but the question really is one of the linkage or mitigation in terms of monies that are going to be put aside by the developer to ensure that the traffic problems that currently exist will not be exacerbated by the incorporation of these additional cars. There already is a problem. I think we can all attest to that. At least those that live on Salem street can. And I'm sure that most of you who have ever been in the square understand the difficulties that currently exist. So I'm looking at this as an opportunity to address the traffic issues. One of which is the narrowness of the mouth of one Salem street. There are room for two travel lanes, one of which is dedicated to make a right-hand turn it does open up at the very end for maybe three which would be one that would be for left-hand turn. But the narrowness of one Salem street in front of the lover property makes it impossible to have that third lane. So if a car is making left-hand turn on from one Salem street independent square, it obstructs the ability of cars on the right-hand side to make a right. Now maybe by widening it will allow those cars to pass because it doesn't require a light here. You can make a right without a traffic signal because there's no prohibition against rights. So the question that came up at that point when I was speaking to others is the ability to incorporate a roundabout. And I know this is not a new idea but once again that's going to cost money. And I want to make sure that there's money put aside to address an after-the-fact problem. Now if it turns out that it is not in fact or would not in fact help mitigate the traffic problems that are there, I'm not asking you to put it in if there's been no traffic study that suggests that. So that was those were concerned putting money aside the mitigation the linkage issues that are clearly addressable by a developer and the acceptance of the current traffic problems. I'm not anticipating that it's going to get better but I surely don't want it to get worse. And I can only imagine by adding more cars into an already congested area which has been defined as problematic that we can come up with some suggestions. Now the other thing I would obviously and people are clearly aware of it is it's just not a Swampscott issue. It's a Salem issue. It's a Marblehead issue. And I'm just wondering whether you're cognizant of whether their respective boards have similarly taken some aggressive action to try to address this. I don't know exactly what area the roundabout would be in in terms of locale whether it's a Marblehead, Swampscott or Salem area that's been impacted. But I think whatever Swampscott can do at this point before the acceptance of a project which similarly I would agree is probably a foregone conclusion. But if we can do something to address it well before it becomes a problem rather than saying well let's see what we can do after we determine it's a problem then there may not be the necessary funds there to capture from the developer in order to afford us an opportunity to have this done at their expense. Let's see. And it really is just it's anybody who's traveling down one Salem Street. It's just not people who live on Salem Street. But obviously Salem Street is a main thoroughfare for people accessing Vinnins Square. And we're adding into that the school traffic which is all new. Obviously that was I'm not sure whether it was ever factored into the Marblehead traffic study. I don't see how it could have been because those issues were not identified until recently. And to a lesser degree the new apartment complex or condo that's in Salem that'll also be accessing Vinnins Square not necessarily at that intersection but may be passing through. So these are concerns that I have. It's as I said I think it's a not only just a Salem Street issue it's those that access and utilize Salem Street getting into and accessing Vinnins Square. Once again if I'm repeating myself I apologize. If I had listened to all of these meetings and some of these issues that have been previously addressed just I would not be bringing it up but I haven't. So I thank you for your time and I trust these will all if they haven't already been discussed can be addressed at tonight's meeting. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (36:45 - 36:46) Thank you Mr. Fitzum. [Speaker 6] (36:50 - 36:58) Any other comments Marissa? I've been seeing a hand go up and down. Lisa did you have a question? Yes. [Speaker 13] (37:04 - 37:05) Can you hear me? Yes. [Speaker 4] (37:05 - 37:06) Yes. [Speaker 13] (37:06 - 39:43) Okay. I'm very grateful that all these other people have the same concerns as I as you know Marissa. I've spoken to you before about that. I am a resident of six months six seventh eighth month now at Summit Estates in Swampscott and I have to say even now I have difficulty entering and exiting my home onto Paradise Road. And now that this is winter and I can look out the window and see a very good panoramic view I can sometimes see the police and fire can't get through the intersection and they have to go through the mall and Sunbeam Lane. So public safety is an issue and I think you need to know about it. I was curious about the idea of a rotary. Actually right now I am in Florida on vacation and I have to say whoever did the traffic here in Naples Florida was magnificent. Of course they have very wide streets here and they have plenty of rooms for making these things but what I do notice is when people have to the traffic lights when you come out and you want to make a left hand turn coming out of a mall the people coming forward can only go one direction. In other words they don't control the light. We don't have people going in two different directions straight and to the left or the right which means people have to stay at a red light longer. People won't like it but the traffic flows much better and what I'm asking for you to do is also have someone else study the traffic and come up with some creative imaginable ways to improve the traffic in that area now even before the construction happens. I wonder if the traffic light on Paradise Road and Vinnin Street where Paradise Road is a state road, who can change those lights? Does it have to be the state or can the town of Swanscott and Salem work together for that? Thank you so much for being able to talk to you today and maybe they might consider it. The other woman who spoke from Linden Avenue, I also feel the same way. I think that the project is way too large because there are too many cars for that right now and I don't know if that can be changed or not but please consider something to improve this traffic situation. I thank you so much for allowing me to speak. Good evening. [Speaker 4] (39:43 - 39:52) Thank you Lisa. Thank you Lisa. All right for now that looks like it covers all the questions, comments. [Speaker 1] (39:54 - 40:56) Okay so there's no other hands up right now then I think we will close the public engagement part of it and just move on to our own hearing. So I don't mean to say that we're closing the public hearing, we're just not taking any public comment while we discuss our draft decision which is where we left off at our last meeting. So why don't we bring up that decision? Sure. I've made some comments in there. We have a working draft if you will but the purpose of this review tonight will be to kind of go through all this and as a board we're going to decide whether we accept it or it needs to be changed or whatever needs to happen to it. [Speaker 6] (40:59 - 41:12) I apologize my screen is not that big on my laptop so this is probably as big as I can get it. I wish I could do this side by side but I can't quite figure it out on this version of word. [Speaker 1] (41:15 - 58:40) Okay that's okay that's not a problem. So the first thing that happens as we describe the project and first of all I just wanted to say that I think that you know this has been kind of a long drawn out project. I think it's important to point out that because of the size of the project and the different sort of phases of what has to happen and the multitude of concerns and just issues in general that have to be looked into with a smart growth project which is what this is. I thought it would be very helpful to do a little explanation about what this particular zone is. You know several years back we re-zoned the town, re-zoned the Glover property, the smart growth 40-yard development parcel and that that enabled the any developer at the time it was you know the famous family had not sold it. It would enable the developer to create I think it was about a certain number of compact well-designed units some of which would be affordable and there were a variety of design criteria associated with that. Over the past year or so in conversations with the famous family and the applicant Leggett McCall the town administration came to an agreement to change the zoning on this property to permit by right 96 units on the property and to create the criteria which we are endeavoring to meet this particular development. This proposed new zoning was passed along to the planning board who did its review. We have we held our public hearings on it was advertised it then went to town meeting back in as it was June of last year and town meeting voted unanimously. I think it was one person that voted against it but town meeting voted to adopt the zoning and then the zoning goes to the current general's office it gets approved and the zoning's in place. So this has been the change in use in the property has been evolving over the past couple of years but it's essentially what town meeting has voted on now two times in terms of the future use of this property. So what is being permitted on the property now is what the applicant is allowed to build by right and that would be that refers to the number of units which is 96 that refers to the number of affordable units that on site which on the Swampscott side only which will be 17. There's a separate agreement in place with the town of Marblehead that has a third building and they'll be building 44 units in Marblehead. They have zoning that's town adopted zoning that is for all for all intents and purposes the same as ours. They have a smaller parcel of land and so they have fewer units in Marblehead. I wanted to first of all bring those facts to light. That's obviously we look at a lot of different aspects here. The applicant tried to present the best possible project they could you know having to sort of fit all of these units within a three acre site and have parking on site have open space on site have certain types of landscaping on site have some amenities on site and also have the buildings meet our design criteria. The applicant has done quite a bit of work on the on the exterior of the buildings to improve the appearance of the buildings and we think that they've you know they've done they've done a very good job very you know we're grateful for the work they've done to to make the buildings very attractive. In terms of the dimensions of the building and the facades of the buildings and the height of the buildings all of those criteria are are listed out in the zoning bylaw. So the 49 foot height of the proposed structure is allowed. The maximum allowable height in the bylaw is 50 so they also they fit within that that particular criteria. One of the things that that I think is is really important to discuss here is the site you know many people are are very familiar with the Glommer site. It was a restaurant for many many years as as we all know but it's what's really important and I am this is going to be included in the in this draft decision that Marissa is about to go through. I will be including a a background piece on the property because one particular aspect that I brought up from the very start was that we all most people know that this is a historic site and we you know we needed Glommer House restaurant and some people knew that it's called the General Glommer House and they learned about the General Glommer Farm and but I don't even think many of us were myself included and I was a former historical commission member didn't understand the extent of the original property that still exists on site nor do we ever really focus so much on on Glommer's ties to that property and I am going to indulge myself tonight by starting this off by reading you some history that I think is I think will will only add to the site and and then we and we'll you know certainly if I were about going to live on a site like that I think would be so we know the history so John Glommer you know who was he he was born in 1732 he died in 1797 he was an American fisherman merchant military leader from Marblehead served as a brigadier general in the Continental Army during the American was born in Salem province of Massachusetts son of a house carpenter he's four years old his father died and shortly thereafter the family moved to Marblehead as a young man Glover became a cord wainer and a rum trader and eventually a shipowner merchant married Hannah Gale in 1754 following the Boston Massacre in 1770 treaties of correspondence were formed Marblehead elected Glover along with future revolutionists Elbridge Jerry and Azor Orne to committee posts after the First Continental Congress passed the non-importation agreement sanctioning trade with the British Glover was elected to enforce the embargo as a member of the committee of inspection military career Glover was active in the militia for many years before the revolution with his earliest service dating back to 1759 1775 he was elected lieutenant colonel of the 21st Massachusetts regiment from Marblehead he became commander of the unit after the death of Colonel Jeremiah Lee in April 1775 Glover marched his regiment to join the siege of Boston in June 1775 at Boston General George Washington chartered Glover Schooner Hannah to raid the British supply vessels the first of many privateers of worship authorized by Washington for this reason the Hannah has been occasionally called the first vessel of the Continental Navy or its later successor the United States Navy. The Marblehead militia or Glover's regiment became the 14th Continental Regiment this regiment became known as the Amphibious Regiment for their vital nautical skills was composed almost entirely of seamen mariners and fishermen after Washington lost the Battle of Long Island aka the Battle of Brooklyn in August 76 Glover's Marbleheaders evacuated the army across the East River to Manhattan Island in a surprise nighttime operation saving them from being entrapped in their fortified trenches on Brooklyn Heights in subsequent actions the New York campaign the regiment fought well against the British at Kips Bay when the Redcoats invaded landing on Manhattan and Bell's Point last action of was its most famous burying Washington's army on confiscated river hull or boats from upstream across the Delaware River at night for a surprise attack on Hessian forces at the Battle of Trenton in New Jersey on the morning of December 26 1776 the regiment was disbanded as enlistments expired at year's end. Glover went home to tend to his sick wife to look after business affairs turned down a promotion to Brigadier General in February 1777 but rejoined the war and accepted the promotion after a personal appeal from General Washington as commander of a brigade made up of four Massachusetts regiments served in the successful Saratoga campaign along the Hudson River in the summer and fall of 1777 and the failed Battle of Rhode Island in 1778. He stationed along the Hudson for the remainder of the war guarding against British move up the river in New York City. Hannah Glover's first wife died in 1778 he married again in 1781 he retired from the army in poor health in 1782 and returned to his business interests but not all of Glover's capital was invested in seafaring ventures he also liked to speculate in land local lots of lands far removed from Marblehead including lands in Vermont. By far the most important piece of real estate acquired by Glover in the post-war period was his purchase of a confiscated loyalist estate. The property belonged to William Brown one of the wealthiest loyalists in Essex County who owned some 4,000 acres in Massachusetts and 9,500 acres in Connecticut in addition to numerous houses and land in his hometown of Salem. Because he accepted an appointment as judge of the superior court in the colony and the post of a damus counselor from General Gage Brown's name was linked in the banishment act of 1778 and he was forbidden to return to Massachusetts on pain of death. A year later under the conspiracy act property was forfeited in order to be confiscated forming a committee of three members in 1780 general court issued instructions for the sale of his property. Glover was particularly interested in one of Brown's estates on the main road running from Marblehead to Boston located near the Marblehead Salem limb boundary line. After submitting a petition to the Massachusetts legislature the Marblehead general was given permission to purchase the property in February 1781. Three months later the land passed into Glover's hands for the sum of 1,369 pounds. Lying on the outskirts of the town and surrounded by lovely countryside as you can imagine the estate consisting of a large farmhouse and simple design along with 180 acres became Glover's residence in the post-war years. Located away from the hurry and bustle at Marblehead's wharves was an ideal place for the retired general to spend his declining years. Glover moved not only his family but his business establishment to the new location. His residence still standing to this day has been converted into one of the better known restaurants along the north shore known as the General Glover House. So this is all well documented information that I just read to you. I thank you for indulging me even though I took my opportunity to do it as I find the history of the ownership of this house and what's left of it to be an incredibly important part of this property and I think that we all should feel honored that this land still exists here. And you know and we've had many discussions with Legge McCall and you've been very gracious in terms of discussing the history of the property with us and I think it was important I know it was important to me to to read this tonight to kind of read it into the record and again I will have a piece of this that will appear as background information on the final decision but because we don't want to be the people that are the ones that make this history go away. We don't want to be the ones that just shut it all down and we never hear about it again. We have one of the rare sites and although I'm not suggesting that we put apartments into the old Glover House by any stretch there have been numerous discussions and again I'm grateful to the applicant and all the different people that we've talked to like at McCall that they have engaged us and the historical commission in. So again thanks for indulging me on that and let's pull that that decision back up. We will be talking about what we can do to salvage some of that property what would be the appropriate action to honor the site and again these some of these things have been discussed with Mr. Feldman attorney for the applicant but we'll talk some more during the review of the decision. So thanks for that. Okay so let's see so we have some different first of all any comments questions before we get started or is everybody ready to get to the review if we are? Okay trying to get my this out of the way so I can see. So why don't we we'll begin here. I don't think there's anything here of dispute it's the first part of this just identifies property where it's located 299 Salem Street the applicant the owner of the project eligibility. I have there are some comments in here that were offered by attorney Feldman and some that that I have added in. I also as we go through this I would like to call out to the planning board members to ask you if any of you have comments or would like to edit add delete questions anything like that feel as if there's something missing or it's expressed in a way that you'd rather see changed I'd like you to just kind of jump right in you can unmute yourself so you can be ready to make whatever comments you think necessary and that also goes for the legate team if there's something that we have missed or is misrepresented in some way other than being an opinion of ours but if there's something that's feel free to call that out okay I think we all understand all right so the authority planning board has the authority is the approving authority the application just talks about when the application was first viewed by the planning board and then we talk about when the public hearing opened and the public hearing opened [Speaker 4] (58:40 - 58:53) on October 17 2022 you go to the next page Marissa there we go okay so here I just talked [Speaker 1] (58:53 - 59:32) about when we opened the the meeting on the but we that we were unable to discuss the meeting until our November 14th meeting on advice of council simply because we hadn't been yet approved by the attorney general's office the board we just mentioned the members of the board and I may want to attend a public hearing session but I guess well Bill's not here tonight we can make a note of that we talk planning board retain the services of the following consultant using funds deposited in the escrow account and that was the water sewer [Speaker 3] (59:32 - 59:38) and infrastructure I think I think Bill is here I think he's just not a panelist okay he's raising [Speaker 6] (59:38 - 59:53) his hand yeah thank you thank you promote you to panelists is it not working um I've tried a couple times to promote you it should pop up on your screen yeah can you hear me now yes well [Speaker 1] (59:53 - 59:57) thanks Bill I'm sorry I didn't I didn't see your name there and I so I didn't know you were here [Speaker 14] (59:57 - 1:00:09) I apologize no I um I had trouble getting on the phone let me uh yeah okay so moving on we have [Speaker 1] (1:00:10 - 1:01:58) yep oh okay you're there okay great can you hear us okay okay so um moving on submittals this is just a list of all the um all the plans that have been submitted I believe it is complete I'm gonna move my this over here because I can't read the whole screen okay let's see um on let's say findings of facts so now we move on to the findings um so we had um two different sets of findings essentially that we were going to be looking at in this particular case we have the actual um criteria in the zoning bylaw and the zoning bylaw is called the Glover multi-family overlay district the zoning bylaw is um basically has you know the sets the criteria for the project um gives us all the dimensional regulations and so forth it also says that it will um it shall comply with um the design guideline guidelines are design standards pardon me they are the smart growth design standards that um apply to this particular development so first the findings will go through um let's see plenty were revised and considered all submissions by applicants consultants members of the public and comments made during the November December and January public hearings um I think we can include February in there because we have listened to those as well you can add February up there Marissa um the Glover multi-family overlay district includes the development it talks about what's in the development in terms of the number [Speaker 3] (1:01:58 - 1:02:16) of bedroom units which is correct just stop there really quick this is a very small point but I think if I'm reading the red line correctly we need quotation marks around GMOD because we're defining it and we don't have to use it later on as GMOD so okay just consistent yeah [Speaker 4] (1:02:17 - 1:02:29) thank you in addition to 44 units so this kind of talks about the entire development and what is there [Speaker 1] (1:02:30 - 1:03:55) landscaping and open space installation of utilities necessary to provide access and services to the building proposal includes 144 parking spaces in accordance with the 1.5 space per unit requirement set forth in section 41081 and 41 parking spaces located in Marblehead will be available for use by Swampscott residents of Glover residences have been in square um it's not been done for okay so this is correct that's provided in section 41073 of the Swampscott zoning bylaw determining compliance with the parking requirements and other dimensional requirements land that is not within the town of Swampscott but is part of the development lot as is the case here shall be used that is correct building heights are within the 50 foot maximum height limitation of the GMOD that's correct um number two section 41010 of the Swampscott zoning bylaw requires a planning board to consider the following criteria in application for site plan review under the regulations pertaining to GMOD I can't see any more but that so there we go right so there are four criteria that have to be met under the GMOD the first is to promote low impact in a sustainable development [Speaker 6] (1:04:05 - 1:04:10) Angela you're cutting out there a little bit sorry okay I have my little microphone here on too [Speaker 1] (1:04:11 - 1:06:07) okay so you can read the one through four we have um architecture and landscape design that is consistent with GMOD's visual character and identity of the town of Swampscott uh number three or three eyes I never kind of got that to establish development standards and ensure context sensitive design and creative site planning the reuse of existing buildings and construction of new buildings and number four to provide for diversified housing stock the variety of costs and close proximity to local bus lines including affordable housing helps to meet the needs of the of the town's population and promote that deals with what to do in the case of a conditional approval as provided in section 410117 planning board may impose conditions to ensure compliance with the requirements of section 41010 and the applicable design standards or to mitigate extraordinary adverse impacts on nearby properties consistent with the provisions of MGL master law chapter 40a and its applicable regulations and to ensure that future opportunities for development are not unduly restricted um I would may require construction of an approved development project to be phased for purpose of coordinating the development project with any mitigation required and we will be phasing some of this we discussed that a little later in the decision but that's just part of the bylaw uh number four the planning board makes the following findings with respect to overall consistency with the purposes and standards of the GMOD that we will be addressing now all four of those criteria that I just read number one the proposed development by virtue of its 96 compact [Speaker 4] (1:06:07 - 1:06:20) residential units can you scroll up Marissa thank you including 17 affordable is a comprehensive [Speaker 1] (1:06:20 - 1:07:00) landscaping plan for buffering screening privacy resiliency and open space in the clubhouse the majority of garage and surface parking located behind or within the buildings and other design elements such as but not limited to the plaza and the market in recognition of historic importance of the site provides an opportunity for the development to offer a distinctive attractive and livable environment number two by virtue of and these are all points that these are planning board's responses to this these are the findings so I want the any board member to just interrupt me as I'm reading just please jump in if you have comments [Speaker 16] (1:07:00 - 1:07:19) sure question for you Angela in that subsection one there we use the term compact residential units do we ever I mean do our zoning bylaws ever define what compact is is that it just sticks out to me as arbitrary yeah it's a term that's used in the design [Speaker 1] (1:07:20 - 1:08:00) guidelines of our 40r which is what we're essentially what we're using and I think what what it's what it's meant to I mean as you look at this particular project most of the units are small they're one and two bedrooms we have a few three bedrooms but they're not with the goal being that the the units become more compact and the open space and the green become you know greater than it might normally be in a development like this where you might see less green and more parking parking behind the site or under the buildings and create more green space right [Speaker 16] (1:08:00 - 1:08:06) that makes sense the the term compact is used in the design guidelines though it is yeah okay [Speaker 1] (1:08:06 - 1:09:21) that's fine I just wanted to make sure that's that's that's commonly used in 40r design guidelines and that's what I was based upon okay makes sense maybe rather too by virtue of its location have been in square the site offers all benefits of transit-oriented development immediate access to public transportation as well as let's see as well excuse me it's easy easy pedestrian or bicycle access to shops and restaurants the proposed development will create pedestrian walkways for circulation within the site as well as improvements to existing sidewalks crosswalks and adjacent bus stops a circulation plan that priorities prioritizes pedestrian bicycle vehicular safety is provided for a successful financial environment the site is distinguished as the former homestead of general john glover as it has been importantly associated with small identity has historical significance that shall be recognized through some degree of preservation and then we do have one of the recommendations the appendix number just needs to go in there [Speaker 3] (1:09:22 - 1:09:36) wait does that follow that does that last sentence speaking to historical significance is that its own point because it wasn't enumerate to about traffic circulation it's about um [Speaker 1] (1:09:37 - 1:11:44) so we were on right number two okay so we could scroll back up it talks about number two talks about visual character and the identity of the town of swanstock high quality site planning okay i say architecture and landscape design that is consistent with gmod's visual character which is the compact design and the identity of the town swanstock okay got it thanks okay sure and number three the development promotes sustainable strategies through its reuse of an existing previously developed property as well as its conversion of existing impervious paving to additional open space on the property which will improve and manage stormwater runoff best management practices and will result in greater site permeability than what previously existed sustainability features of the development are set forth on exhibit a distinguishing this site as a prominent revolutionary war era homestead will contribute to its context sensitive design and will result in creative site planning and the reuse of existing buildings and construction of new buildings see appendix whatever it is and we get into more what we're exactly talking about the appendix and then the number four that's all about diversified housing stock so this is just addresses exactly what we're doing there so the development is as proposed provides for a diversified housing stock at a variety of costs close proximity to local bus lines and includes 17 affordable units the might need a period there it looks funny the proposed unit configuration to be included and the two buildings will help provide a diversified housing fill specifically the affordable housing proposed will meet the following criteria and then i just list all the criteria for the affordable units um and how that is [Speaker 4] (1:11:45 - 1:12:08) um applicants so you can read through all those things those are just pulled right from the those are pretty much pulled right from the bylaw any questions on that questions comments on number four additions any thing that does not look good [Speaker 1] (1:12:10 - 1:14:23) okay hearing none we'll go on number five so now we're moving from the um the zoning piece of it from lover multifamily overlay to talk about the smart growth overlay design standards so number five the board makes the following findings with respect to the specific requirements of the smart growth overlay design standards if you have your design standards handy which sure you all do you can um you can read along because they're all numbered here so this is going to require some editing um but uh number four in the printed out version of the smart growth overlay design standards if you see the actual standards and you're looking at the numbers number four in this uh guide in the standards is guiding principles the proposed construction reflects the use of building materials such as architectural asphalt and shingles panel board and batten horizontal siding shingle siding standing seam metal roofing stone veneer overhang soffits variety of window types and exterior wall surfaces that incorporate design detail through a combination of architectural elements materials varying setbacks and roof lines to ensure that buildings are visually interesting and complement the immediate commercial venice square neighborhood and entry to town overall site design will incorporate a landscape park to include a monument noting the historical significance of the site which was part of a land grant to general john glover in payment for his service as a brigadier general in the continental army during the revolutionary war the homestead was occupied by glover from 1781 until his death in 1797 um that was pulled right from the um right from the design standards description the original homestead exists within the buildings currently on site and will be assessed by professional structural integrity structure which depending upon its condition may be incorporated into the monument [Speaker 4] (1:14:23 - 1:14:35) site on the property any comments about that angela well i i i just want to make sure i [Speaker 2] (1:14:35 - 1:14:47) understand what that's saying so the structural engineers are going to look at it and depending upon what they determine it's going to get incorporated into the design help me understand [Speaker 1] (1:14:47 - 1:18:13) what you're thinking there what we're thinking is that um what we're thinking is and i think you you were at our meeting when well at the historic not our at the historical commission meeting we were talking about this so in a perfect world what would be the most you know the best best situation that could possibly happen it would be to to retrieve um whatever salvageable material is available and use it to recreate a little you know um 800 square foot house um on the property which would essentially fit in the space where the monument might be placed now this is just these are just you know it all depends on on on what's available um we all know what the condition well we don't we know what we've seen of the condition of the house the original house that's there um we're not talking about the entire house with the l hanging off the end it's this is just the little square house the original house and um we do have the appendix um uh the some sort of a timeline of the evolution of the little house and what the original form was and what was added on so on and so forth so we know that there are some structural pieces that are there so the idea is that we have an obligation to examine these pieces that literally date back to 1700s that are you know first period structures on the land and to see if there is anything salvageable and my understanding is the way this happens is that these structural engineers and i'm by no means any expert in this but i'll just tell you what i was told that they go on site they they get inside of the building they evaluate it by by examining the actual foot itself the beams the structure whatever it is for integrity so will this withstand be moved and reassembled is there is there enough there is there that to be moved and reassembled is it you know i mean we don't even know if it's possible you know if it's possible i mean you've seen the pictures that that bad took i'm sure that the that the uh that the engineers will find so pretty much the same thing so so what we're putting in here is not you'll see when you look at the it's their recommendations they're there if we can find this then we'd like to see that if that's not available then we're going to retrieve pieces from the site maybe try to reconstruct it someplace else and salvage as much as possible and in that situation and would be kind of the very least we could do would be to create the stone monument but we feel it is our you know doing due diligence in paying homage and and the appropriate tribute to the site we have to at least explore the potential [Speaker 2] (1:18:14 - 1:20:33) or for saving part of the structure so so andrew let me let me let me start try to say this i have to wait and see the appendix i'm hearing this for the first time right what happened at the historic commission i think i made it clear that there will not be room on site for this structure temporarily or permanently understood if it could be preserved great we're willing to cooperate and work with the community to give them an opportunity to preserve it it is not the property owner's responsibility or job and we're we've designed this entire project i don't know how you're going to take the monument area and start putting structure there um you guys have looked at the site plans you've been through it with us on the site plans and i don't i can't i just want to i'm sorry i'm only expressing concern that we have a vague requirement maybe it gets cleaned up in the appendix but this language what it says is that it's going to be assessed by the professional structure engineers to determine the integrity and depending upon its condition may be incorporated into the monument of the site that's an who's who's going to make that determination who's going to pay for the incorporation that's just not the obligation of the applicant and it would not be an appropriate condition so i'm trying to figure out how we how we can certainly we want to work with you guys to give the community every opportunity to salvage and preserve we understand the importance we're not diminishing it at all but it's not a historic site it's not a historic structure it's not a landmark it's none of those protected provisions and we're which we're trying to do something for the 21st century that i think is important help reclaim that property provide housing provide affordable housing and do it in a way that's sensitive to the community so how how do you that language as it is i think needs some [Speaker 4] (1:20:33 - 1:20:47) work that's all i'm giving you a reaction okay any comments from the board i understand the [Speaker 3] (1:20:48 - 1:20:58) by the applicant in that this this language is aspirational um but i it doesn't i don't want to [Speaker 1] (1:20:58 - 1:21:35) close the door on something that we might be able to do i think we do ourselves a great disservice so i'm not saying that it has to that you know maybe the language is wrong maybe we can fix the language i'd like to i don't want to say that it that it can't happen i'd like to leave the possibility out there that maybe we'd all be surprised and there's a opportunity we look at the plaza space at roughly 14 000 square feet and you look at this little tiny structure at whatever it is you know 800 square feet it's not um you know it's no i i don't think i don't [Speaker 3] (1:21:35 - 1:23:15) think this is something as simple as a language issue i think that there there may be a disconnect between the history i don't know if this comes from the historical commission and i know we have different historical groups in town but but there may be a disconnect between the historical preservation idea and the applicant and this that but i said this is aspirational this last sentence here you know the original homestead you know etc etc um this idea that depending upon its condition may be incorporated that doesn't mean anything because it doesn't obligate anyone to do anything and so other it seems like this is just being like if this is what is put into the decision it will make us feel good because we're you know quote unquote keeping the door open but it's not requiring the applicant to pay for incorporating a feasible structure onto the monument site and so what's the purpose of saying this if we're just saying it might is it is it are we trying to well let me ask are we trying to say that the applicant wouldn't stand in the way of the town moving the feasibly movable structure to different part of the site is that what we're saying or are we asking the applicant to pay to [Speaker 1] (1:23:15 - 1:23:29) do that i think we're you know again i'm putting words in the mouth of um of historic commission members but but i will admit that you know i do share um i do share the desire to create a more [Speaker 4] (1:23:29 - 1:23:39) meaningful i mean look if if we can't get if there is like a poker on site then they're all [Speaker 1] (1:23:39 - 1:23:52) we can do maybe is salvage artifacts and that's going to have to be enough um i think it's yeah when you say aspirational that's actually uh that's a probably a very good word so [Speaker 3] (1:23:54 - 1:23:59) what i want to do is i know that i know that putting an aspirational condition the condition [Speaker 1] (1:23:59 - 1:24:23) is a requirement that the applicant needs to well this is a finding and that's the other issue so i okay this and the and the conditions are two separate things so maybe it's just their comments their findings and and maybe just saying that i can leave this at the original homes that exist within the buildings and will be assessed by professional structural engineers [Speaker 2] (1:24:24 - 1:25:01) determine the integrity of the remaining structure period again as long as that assessment is being done by someone else and being by someone else yeah i i i i absolutely know it is i i i understand andrew that it is and we're going to cooperate with that but you guys were approving a site plan that's been meticulously developed with civil engineers and with the planning board and with the comments of the town boards how do you how do you um add a structure to that site plan [Speaker 4] (1:25:03 - 1:25:16) i don't i i i i'm lost here well i think that it's it's a matter of whether or not if you [Speaker 1] (1:25:16 - 1:25:38) also believe it's important to um to try to preserve a structure that's been there since you know such a long time and that does have historic significance i mean regardless of um what's been recorded or or anything else i mean there there is no denying that it has historic significance [Speaker 2] (1:25:41 - 1:25:48) and yeah so the question is i i really believe andrew that with money you can almost do anything [Speaker 1] (1:25:48 - 1:26:19) no agreed and and so and um i i i know that that that you know we've talked about the monument we've talked about the site we're using you know items that we've already discovered on site in the in the in the um monument and then allowing kind of you know examination of the site and so forth i think that the idea is just to not close the door on using that monument site for something [Speaker 4] (1:26:19 - 1:26:31) a little more um for you know for uh for you know re-establishment of the of not re-establishment [Speaker 1] (1:26:31 - 1:28:06) for reconstruction of and preservation of that of that little house and there there are multiple um examples of this you know all over in terms of you know a historic house that exists on a property on a site so let me just hold on one second it wouldn't involve it wouldn't involve um moving any of the buildings that are there it's it would be dealing strictly within the the outline the parameters of the of the um little entryway the monument plaza if you will so i don't know if it would work either it's leaving the door open to that it's just leaving and this is really going to be an issue between you know between you between the applicant and the historic commission um when you talk with them i mean i'm putting it in the designs and in the you know in this decision because i think it's important that gets brought up in in the findings but you know in terms of what happens to it that really is between you know you and historic commission when you're going through the whole um significance you know hearings and so um so um you know i just i'm how i'm fine taking that language out of there at the end there because i understand what you're saying then my my my point here is not telling you that you have to build a structure on that site it's just as um you know i think that we are you know we should stick with what the what the actual findings are and what we as a planning board should be controlling [Speaker 4] (1:28:06 - 1:28:16) and should be expressing in terms of findings on this project so i'm uh so marissa why don't you [Speaker 1] (1:28:16 - 1:28:55) take out from starting with the you know you're going way back up here yep from the bottom of it um and just put a period after structure and get rid of the rest of the sentence what uh in which paragraph you're in the right paragraph go down to the second line yep going down down structure oh structure remaining structure period and get rid of the rest of it so that way it's just a finding and that's all there is to it well and that's an accurate statement what you you're right [Speaker 2] (1:28:55 - 1:29:01) angela what's what you wrote there now is accurate because yeah so it is going it is going to be [Speaker 1] (1:29:01 - 1:31:03) so that's so that's yeah that's fine okay with that then yeah and what about the board is the board okay with that too yeah i'm okay with that yeah okay so moving on so i renumbered these because in the you don't do the little letter i and the um the and the smart growth um design standards the way that they're laid out is their number difference i want to make sure that we were referring to the specific numbers of these um topics in the um in the design standard so starting with the building height and massing which runs from 5.1.1 to 5.6 so there's nothing here that it's is not in compliance i mean the height and massing is scale the portion exterior it's consistent with the multi-family construction and the commercial area of indian square in compliance with requirements of gmod there's no issue there we'll get rid of that little i two i three i's and all that that has to be edited excuse me again we i'm talking about sidewalks six one to six six everything um you place one of the buildings on the site allows improved pedestrian vehicular circulation consistent with design standards no problem there and we get down to seven eight seven seven one to seven eight location of building and garage entrances consistent with design standards and so far as they provide direct access um sight lines are compliant with traffic standards and shown on the two site distance plans submitted by the applicants traffic consultant we have those and will be maintained by keeping the site line shown those kind of clear landscaping snow piles may not be uh with the site distance and we get to um the topic 7.9 to 7.10 the um the site [Speaker 4] (1:31:05 - 1:31:06) sorry the design [Speaker 1] (1:31:09 - 1:33:29) so we do exactly what it says so the requirement there 7.9 says the entrance to any internal parking shall be secured with a gate in order to limit access the gate shall include a visual and audible notification to alert pedestrians of existing vehicles and 7.10 says in the district internal site driveways shall be designed to prohibit vehicular access access from venice square to sandal street in order to disallow vehicular property so basically this deals with the gate so we mentioned you brought this up you know several meetings ago and um i talked about this with the um with the building inspector and the um building commissioner rather and the the head of the um with gino presto head of public works um this morning and he put in the following the applicant waiver from the board of the applicant requires a waiver from the board to exempt them from the requirement to install gates to the entrance so what he was suggesting when we what i would suggest here is that um to kind of address this whole traffic and mitigation aspect that we would grant a temporary waiver until that time with 60 occupancy when we are revisiting the numbers later on in this um in the uh conditions and at that time we can reassess whether or not um that has become an issue for the town and that can be assessed through the building commissioner and the um and the by you know information from the place from um whatever other you know uh methods that you know wants to use to determine whether or not this has been an issue and if it has been it's if it's determined that it has been then we reserve the right to rescind the waiver um and to have you install the gate and that will be that would be you know again decided at 60 percent occupancy any comments on that is is the [Speaker 3] (1:33:29 - 1:33:55) idea i guess i'm missing how because to me a gate has to do with keeping people out of the property who are not supposed to be at the property how is how is it envisioned that a gate would help with traffic mitigation in the surrounding area and what i guess what would that 60 assessment [Speaker 1] (1:33:56 - 1:34:30) need to show in order for a gate to be helpful we get to that 60 assessment paragraph we can sort of talk about what what is going to happen there and perhaps um who's on we have sam and i don't know if one of the people from legate want to talk about what this 60 assessment um of rather uh occupancy um agreement in terms of reassessing no wait i understand i understand [Speaker 3] (1:34:30 - 1:34:35) that it in terms of the traffic light timing but i'm just i'm trying i'm trying to figure out [Speaker 1] (1:34:36 - 1:35:09) what what do we have an issue with cutting through do we have an issue so these two points the 7 9 7 10 specifically say the entrance to any internal parking shall be secure with a gate in order to limit access gate shall include visual and audible okay to alert pedestrians and exiting vehicles next line internal site driveways shall be designed to prohibit vehicular access from venice square to salem street in order to disallow vehicle cutthroats so it's okay so this isn't [Speaker 3] (1:35:10 - 1:35:22) this is going to be set there'll be two kind of two questions at the 60 point there will be do we need to change the traffic lights because we have queues going back on the street that's not [Speaker 1] (1:35:22 - 1:35:42) really something to do with the gate the question depends if it's being linked to the gate if they're saying that the traffic's backing up in the gate because people are stopped and there's you know traffic from the site being kind of pouring out into salem street and those are things that have to be evaluated and we certainly we're not going to know that no but the the the gate point is more [Speaker 3] (1:35:42 - 1:35:52) here about in practice are we seeing people use this property as a cut through that's the real question as far as and if that is happening to a great extent that's when we start talking about a [Speaker 1] (1:35:52 - 1:36:34) gate is that the idea right and it seems like that's a an appropriate time to revisit it because right now i mean i think we've said during these conversations that we don't you know the the applicant doesn't think that the gate is necessary and we were you know for the most part in agreement with that i mean you know if you don't need to put a gate in there that's going up and down perhaps you know let's not do it but you know now that we're talking about you know once it comes to having to actually waive that and the fact that it is a it is a requirement of of the of the design standards that we have to i think we should give ourselves some [Speaker 3] (1:36:34 - 1:36:40) opportunity to re-evaluate yeah i just wanted to understand what kind of what criteria we would [Speaker 1] (1:36:40 - 1:36:45) be re-evaluating it on but i understand now it was also you know this was something that was also [Speaker 4] (1:36:46 - 1:36:57) recommended by w um angela can i ask a question please because i'm confused because i didn't i [Speaker 12] (1:36:57 - 1:37:21) don't see where this is a requirement are you're talking about internal you're talking about parking within the buildings or you're talking about no no no at that at the entrances so you're suggesting the entrance to any entrance to the project is going to have a gate that only residents would be able to access that's that's what i'm reading i haven't seen that requirement anywhere [Speaker 1] (1:37:21 - 1:37:32) um so in the smart growth mdr foyer overlay design standards it's number 7.9 and 7.10 [Speaker 4] (1:37:42 - 1:37:50) if you um you not have a copy of that or i don't no um i can go back and look at i mean that's the [Speaker 12] (1:37:50 - 1:37:57) first this is the first time hearing of that so i did read it out angela maybe or pardon me could [Speaker 3] (1:37:57 - 1:38:10) so i'm looking at it right now so it says the the entrance to any internal parking shall be secured with a gate in order to limit access so i guess the question is what internal parking is [Speaker 2] (1:38:10 - 1:38:34) yeah so i i let me let me just i mean again if we look at the site plan there's a driveway off of salem street the driveway takes you into the site um from that driveway you can access parking um and there's so is it is the idea that we're going to gate the parking within the site [Speaker 1] (1:38:35 - 1:38:51) the idea was that there'd be a gate going across the entrance to you know entrances to salem street and i mean we can only control what's in swamp scott so i don't know i mean i thought marblehead had a similar um guideline but i don't maybe the arrows are not the same [Speaker 12] (1:38:51 - 1:39:12) yeah i'm sorry i read the confusion is internal as in internal to buildings as opposed to internal to the lot because there will be a gate for internal parking in the buildings there's a driveway running through the middle of the site so i don't know yeah i'm sorry i mean that that's [Speaker 5] (1:39:12 - 1:39:53) how i had read it and um assuming and and the the the main driveway through the site as you know is designed with the with the bends and so forth to keep it to be extremely inconvenient for somebody to do the shortcut especially with folks backing out onto that and pedestrians crossing um it would seem that if at some point it was a problem a few well-placed you know speed bumps on that twisting uh main drive would be appropriate i don't know they'd ever want to you have obviously ups folks and and guests and so forthcoming babysitters whatever coming in and [Speaker 1] (1:39:53 - 1:39:57) out of the site using the way it's written too because of the next seven senses and you're [Speaker 4] (1:39:57 - 1:40:09) going to search this internal site again yeah i'm sorry we can't hear you rachel i'm sorry [Speaker 1] (1:40:09 - 1:40:24) can you hear me now yes okay sorry about that um so we had yeah so the first one seven nine entrance to any internal parking i think maybe it's just that this is poorly written i think [Speaker 3] (1:40:24 - 1:40:54) this is supposed to refer to a garage because the second sentence say parking lot or parking garage i think internal parking means like indoor parking because just where it says the gate shall include a visual and audible notification for pedestrians that's i'm thinking of in the city when you have a parking garage you have a you know incoming car flashing um you wouldn't have that at the street if you had a gate on the street you wouldn't have a notification system [Speaker 2] (1:40:55 - 1:41:05) well because we don't have any parking entrance off the street that's exactly right mr you're you're 100 correct that's that's not how the project was designed right so you're right that [Speaker 1] (1:41:05 - 1:41:26) doesn't make any sense because then this will say you know and i think that is a problem with the way these were written which is the entrance they should have said any internal parking lot or garage what it should say internal parking garage and what else would you call it can you know uh [Speaker 3] (1:41:26 - 1:41:48) yeah internal parking garage which is why it's very confusing but yeah if we're trying to reserve a right to put to make them put a gate on the street i don't think that's what yeah i mean i think it i think i think this again i think that is onto something you know [Speaker 2] (1:41:49 - 1:42:08) the applicant doesn't want people coming through just as much as the community wouldn't want it and so you know that's a there's a common interest there and we don't expect there to be a lot of cutthroats because it's not an easy driveway to navigate but if we observe it we're going to put [Speaker 1] (1:42:08 - 1:42:48) speed bumps in and then so we did talk about we did i did ask you about putting a speed table doesn't have to be a bump but a speed table towards the um that you know the straightaway end like so when you come in the marvelhead entrance and you just make that first corner there's kind of that straightaway that people can you know if they are going to speed down felt that a speed table i think here it says speed bump but it is a table that we were talking about to be located near that east end and i thought you had agreed that you would do that yeah i mean we can certainly [Speaker 12] (1:42:48 - 1:43:02) assess if you want to assess at 60 occupancy if we have a cut through problem that we put speed bump you know or two in there we can we can do that all right i'm i'm okay with that if [Speaker 1] (1:43:02 - 1:44:21) you want to reassess that at 60 occupancy and we can decide if that's necessary yeah what is the board feel about that so we're gonna so we're gonna say we don't think obviously that we don't need the waiver because that refers to indoor parking right okay so that we have to even do we have to make that finding like oh i think we just take that whole thing out right yeah i just go it comes out and we go to off-street parking parking stand is a regress with some other part of the building and other parts okay especially building one and you need a speed well so you know um let's say at the 60 occupancy um you can re-evaluate whether or not speed bump or speed table whichever you would prefer to use um yeah i think the tables are a little less um but whatever whatever you know traffic calming measure if it becomes an issue if traffic calming is determined to be an issue at 60 occupancy then you would agree to to install speed bump or speed table or traffic calming measures is that a better way to put it that's a better [Speaker 3] (1:44:21 - 1:44:30) way to put it okay no not not the way this is being typed it well uh hold on before i finish [Speaker 6] (1:44:30 - 1:44:41) this and and correct me on the language too should i put this in as a condition and not a finding yes i think so here and reiterate it in the condition section [Speaker 3] (1:44:42 - 1:45:06) it's not it's not that if traffic calming is an issue then an analysis will be done right it's that at 60 occupancy um as part of the traffic analysis if um um if cutting you know if cutting through the property has proven to be an issue [Speaker 4] (1:45:06 - 1:45:44) then the applicant agrees to install traffic mitigation measures such as a speed bump or speed table and i don't know that that if cutting through the property has proven to be an issue at that that's a little wishy-washy yeah yeah um we can fix the language on that and you don't have to say where is where to locate it then i think that that is something [Speaker 1] (1:45:44 - 1:45:52) that they can be determined at the time would you agree is that agreeable to take the location out [Speaker 2] (1:45:52 - 1:46:08) yep and i and and and i think um marissa's right that we're going to cut and paste that sentence into the traffic condition yeah yep that's fine when the time comes you'll you'll move it to the [Speaker 1] (1:46:08 - 1:46:28) traffic condition okay well exterior lighting i mean i think that we have um plan that we have uh is is is is our exterior lighting plan at this point is that a final plan yeah yeah and is [Speaker 5] (1:46:28 - 1:46:40) the there's a i forgot the sheet number it's in the landscape set there's a full photometric uh plan of the site that indicates okay the candle level and that there's no spillover off [Speaker 1] (1:46:40 - 1:46:47) of our property what we didn't have was an actual visual of what the light posts look like [Speaker 5] (1:46:47 - 1:46:55) yeah those are also in the landscape set as well i didn't see that i didn't see them depicted maybe [Speaker 4] (1:46:55 - 1:47:02) i might have missed it yeah let me see if i can find the sheet number angela [Speaker 1] (1:47:16 - 1:47:39) do you want to keep going while i look uh sure why not um okay so that takes care of that exterior lighting and i think it you know we're essentially the board requires a contingent but the applicants kind of ownership and maintenance of all that's um okay so it's an apartment complex so it's it's [Speaker 2] (1:47:39 - 1:47:45) there is no condominium ownership and there is no hoa that's not a concept that that's applicable [Speaker 1] (1:47:45 - 1:48:02) when i don't think i put that i don't think i said condominium plan no you said the applicant will submit a plan of ownership owner who you know who owns the property and who's like who's maintaining the common area so it'd be like the pool the pool house and so forth well the way the [Speaker 2] (1:48:02 - 1:48:35) way it works is this decision is going to get recorded on the record title and whoever owns the property um even if like it sells it after 10 years the next person's still going to have to maintain it it's part of the it's part of the approval for the site it's it's not specific to a particular owner it runs with the land okay so it's the idea shall i take out ownership just i think all you have to do is say take out ownership take out ownership and just say the [Speaker 4] (1:48:35 - 1:48:46) applicant's going to maintain the common area okay so maintenance plan for all common area [Speaker 2] (1:48:49 - 1:49:02) well it's the it's the submitting of the plan i mean it's again it's it's we have an obligation to maintain the common area who are we submitting the plan to what does the plan say who who says [Speaker 1] (1:49:02 - 1:49:13) okay i understand i understand okay so why don't we go back there and just say the you know the owner shall maintain all common areas exactly that we that we're [Speaker 4] (1:49:13 - 1:49:41) obligated to do okay just say shall maintain right uh all common area okay great and 10.4 was a [Speaker 1] (1:49:41 - 1:49:56) about the monument you know noting historical significance of the site including reference to general glover that's also in the guideline so i just said it you know that shall be included on the open place okay so the next one is the landscaping [Speaker 2] (1:49:58 - 1:50:30) one sorry one small comment that's a design guideline which we have already provided for so i think the way that should read is a monument noting the historic significance reference has been included in the design it we've included it in the design and the condition is is that we're going to work with the historical condition about the write-up of the plaque and the salvage items but we we don't have any we don't have any kind of we don't have any [Speaker 1] (1:50:30 - 1:50:35) any visual of the monument i mean nothing's been designed nothing like that well i think [Speaker 2] (1:50:35 - 1:50:48) that has put in a plan of the visual of the of the little area with the with the sundial and the flagstones and the benches and the place where the plaque is we don't we haven't the words of [Speaker 1] (1:50:48 - 1:50:59) the plaque certainly haven't been written so what are you suggesting that a monument noting the historic significance of the site will be included no what i what i was suggesting was [Speaker 2] (1:50:59 - 1:51:05) a monument noting the historic standard of the site including revenue has been included [Speaker 1] (1:51:05 - 1:51:56) in the design it's that's fine okay that's fine we've done the monument being you know general and upward so that's fine has been included that's fine open space yeah uh over okay so landscaping addition to landscaping features being cleared on site once the site was predominantly covered in asphalt appropriate accent landscaping features and plantings will be added street lines will be reinforced with plantings and the design complements the adjacent streetscape uh see additional comments in section four below oh well are you going to put irrigation that was my question there you never discussed irrigation on the site you have grass you've got some other you know [Speaker 12] (1:51:58 - 1:52:02) there will be irrigation for the for some of the site yes yep okay [Speaker 5] (1:52:04 - 1:52:12) and it's not depicted on the plan there's not an irrigation plan per se i think um the discussion [Speaker 1] (1:52:12 - 1:52:17) on the landscaping plan i was just thinking if you noted on the landscaping plan [Speaker 5] (1:52:19 - 1:52:26) um yeah there's not an irrigation plan as part of the landscape set okay no okay so but it would [Speaker 1] (1:52:26 - 1:52:31) it be could you just mark where it would be on the site is that something that you would normally do [Speaker 5] (1:52:31 - 1:52:46) or or not yeah i mean in the in the um when we do the working you know contract documents the landscape architect architect typically indicate zones of irrigation where there might be drip [Speaker 1] (1:52:46 - 1:52:59) irrigation and so forth okay and does that typically um i mean do you include documentation of that on the site is like my question just because i hadn't seen anything so i'm just [Speaker 5] (1:52:59 - 1:53:12) asking the question yeah and not normally not normally at this point uh but as part of the of the permit set the building permit set you didn't see it so shall i can i just say some [Speaker 1] (1:53:12 - 1:53:31) irrigation areas will be included on the site yes okay so marissa can you put that in there just x out my green sentence and say some and which is vague enough i think irrigation [Speaker 4] (1:53:33 - 1:53:50) areas i suppose will be included on the site well yeah we'll be including the construction plans okay thanks um i don't think i have to [Speaker 1] (1:53:50 - 1:54:27) mention buffering in addition to adjacent properties i don't even know why that's been there because i don't think it's an issue and the buffering i mean it's certainly included in the landscape plan so i don't think we need to that can just come out 12 um well we say has been addressed you know what however you want to put it it's kind of an on issue um any comments where i'm going so far anybody no okay so let's go stormwater management oh so 13.64 requires an [Speaker 15] (1:54:27 - 1:54:43) operation and maintenance plan be submitted brian drummond can you hear me yes yeah so i think i think the tree committee would like to get a copy of the plans that's been crossed out okay [Speaker 1] (1:54:43 - 1:56:17) so that that's in a different place and um right now i've been told you're you're you're swinging back and forth so right now we've closed the public comment section of the meeting so it's just the um the applicant and the board but um but we um we do have the um the the uh tree committee and their recommendations are included okay thank you okay so let's say stormwater management okay this came from uh from yeah gino said uh prior to construction which is fine that's fine because i think you know in here and the design criteria have said prior with the with application and we're like that makes no sense at all because you know anyway yeah that's fine so it can be prior you know you'll get submit that prior to construction okay um any questions no you guys will jump right in if you need to as set forth in items one through five inclusive above and considering the conditions set wasn't one five no it's one through thirteen one through thirteen inclusive and can support the addition below plenty requires the application for site plan review and plan submitted as amended conform to the criteria set forth above that the public health safety and welfare have been ensured so this is something that the [Speaker 4] (1:56:17 - 1:56:35) board needs to agree to because this is essentially an approval of where we are so far everybody's okay with that all right so let's keep going let's uh down to recommendations from [Speaker 1] (1:56:35 - 1:56:41) town agencies um recommend it be as much open space as possible open space is enlarged during [Speaker 3] (1:56:41 - 1:56:47) hearing i have a question here so are these so is the red the recommendation that came from a [Speaker 1] (1:56:47 - 1:57:01) town agency and the blue our response the blue is um the response is that i don't know why some of it's red i mean i wrote i wrote a lot of the red stuff but some of it the blue was attorney [Speaker 6] (1:57:01 - 1:57:08) fellman's edition in his draft and then the red so yeah so it's confusing it's confusing the way [Speaker 3] (1:57:08 - 1:57:16) it's written because we have we basically yeah we have a recommendation and then a response to [Speaker 2] (1:57:16 - 1:58:02) recommendation um well what happened the what happened was the town agencies made recommendations to the planning board the planning board asked us during the public hearing to consider those and we then modified the plans in response to to address those recommendations we didn't ignore them and so i was trying uh i wasn't quite sure what this section was about if it was just to say that you got recommendations you could just leave it in the red i was just trying to say that through the public hearing process the recommendations resulted in um changes to the to the development plan to respond to the recommendations i guess what [Speaker 6] (1:58:02 - 1:58:29) happened was when i did the first draft of this decision um you know and i was compiling all the comments from the different agencies across town um i formatted them into a sort of i guess i considered them recommendations and not necessarily conditions that were imposed and then i you know if they were to become conditions they would have to have been fully adopted by the planning board and recognized by the planning board so if these have all been addressed you know i think they can [Speaker 3] (1:58:29 - 1:59:07) be stricken well no no i think it's helpful to have this in here because it shows the evolution of the project right um in a positive way i just think that it needs to we need to expand that second sentence a little bit to make it clear that as a result of that recommendation open space was enlarged maybe that's yeah as a result of that recommendation open space was enlarged during the public hearing process right i think it might be helpful if we could be a little more specific as to how it was enlarged like if we're going to say we eliminated the parking spaces we [Speaker 4] (1:59:07 - 1:59:12) added the park area we hit at the dog park i mean we created that whole green section in the middle [Speaker 3] (1:59:12 - 1:59:37) of the sun yeah i mean my my personal opinion is if we're going to say that we was enlarged like this is all a little bit uh superfluous anyway but if we're going to do it the reason to have it is to bolster the the decision and so we should lay out what was done to enlarge the open [Speaker 2] (1:59:37 - 2:00:13) space i mean i'm just making a good point if i could suggest marissa before the word open just say in response open space was enlarged during the public hearing process for example in fact you're best person is to tell me how to describe that green area by the yeah i mean i think you [Speaker 5] (2:00:13 - 2:00:31) could say a common a common green was added a dog park was added um as a result of these of this increased open space yeah hopefully this was a common green common green and dog park red [Speaker 2] (2:00:31 - 2:00:37) okay and i does that is that the type of specificity mr zugi i think makes sense yeah i [Speaker 3] (2:00:37 - 2:00:50) just i just think that this is this is in here in order to show the evolution of the project and it's but but let's let's actually show it and say it yeah and then then on the second one the [Speaker 2] (2:00:50 - 2:01:05) sustainability features we created a an exhibit to describe them all because that did come up the public hearing several times and we responded to it and so there's a an exhibit that has like [Speaker 4] (2:01:05 - 2:01:24) 15 or 18 items on it it's going to come up later so then yeah i think you want to do the same thing here is just to say in response response yeah and then because they're on exhibit a i don't think it [Speaker 1] (2:01:24 - 2:02:12) get any more just on that yeah okay so focus on native trees majority planting will be a native species um focus shall be given to native trees and then we could just uh you can even take out majority of planting will be of native species because we have a landscape plan set and i know that you had incorporated a lot of what the tree committee had had recommended i recall and if i also recall that you felt that the recommendations of the tree committee were were quite good and were taken into account when it was um you know when you made up your [Speaker 3] (2:02:12 - 2:02:31) list to propose plantings that's my i'm gonna so i'm gonna suggest here instead of taking out the majority of planting will be of native species i would add that um to the end of the blue sentence um as you know yeah landscape provides a list of all proposed plantings [Speaker 4] (2:02:31 - 2:02:47) the majority of which will be of native species that's good dave and it was requested that any [Speaker 1] (2:02:47 - 2:03:00) existing trees be saved when possible and in response a site again in response a site visit with the swamps bed tree committee between the with you know a visit with the swamps bed [Speaker 4] (2:03:00 - 2:03:14) tree committee will take place trees that are able to be saved on site is that accurate that you know the answer to that i think you you've already done some of that with some of [Speaker 5] (2:03:14 - 2:03:47) the members right yeah i i think this condition was um our landscape architect when um prior to construction when when building footprints are known blocking the site with the tree committee and seeing if there are any species that could be saved you know understanding that there's site utilities and grading and so forth going on um certainly i know that perimeter trees for sure are easily saved there's a few potential ones in the middle of the site but it's hard to tell right [Speaker 1] (2:03:47 - 2:06:58) great where they fall right understood that i mean i was part of that discussion as well and i recall that that's how it's how that went okay so we're okay so far right so now we're talking about this is in perpetuity um okay so you can scroll down now again so let's you know this is you were kind of throwing everything that had come in um in this sequence so we're trying to get this right what's the condition what's the recommendation so on so forth so that's let's just discuss this as we keep moving on okay um so number one let's see development shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the updated site plan civil set mentioned the board i mean that's that's correct uh licensed pets this is i guess number two pest contractor is required during the length of project kind of standard um yeah that's all standard includes applicants shall comply with conditions set forth in appendix blank uh oh well this was an agreement that applicant will notify historical commission of any archaeological artifacts that are uncovered during the demolition we have a whole list of um press but let's just look at it like this so we um there is an appendix piece and uh which kind of lists you know i thought it would be important for the historical commission to instead of just kind of talk about you know we're going to this artifact and it's going to go there to be really specific so you'd know exactly what they are asking for like these two rails and these specific stones from this location so that it was it was kind of you know described in a way that that was um it was very clear in terms of what had been agreed to um at the monument site oh is there is does the appendix exist does um we haven't i don't think uh marissa i don't think that you gave it a number or a letter yet or anything no not yet um this is the do you want me to pull a lot of this a lot of this might be redundant to that so it's just you know we might want to just see you don't want me to pull up the attachment well let's just read through this first and then look at that that will notify historical commission of any archaeological artifacts that are uncovered during demo and construction shelby coordinators yeah this was something that that's a sentence that's been around for a while as far as i know the town or commissions uh or commission here what does this mean what does that mean yes professional consultant and officials from the town [Speaker 4] (2:06:58 - 2:07:09) of marvel had at the town's or commission what expense is that the word that's missing i'm just [Speaker 2] (2:07:09 - 2:07:16) i'm yes that that is the word that's that that it's it comes at the at the in the next sentence [Speaker 1] (2:07:18 - 2:07:52) uh right see that's where i thought it was very um the applicant will use reuse historic elements i mean that to me was very vague like what in the building you know at the entrance i mean on the site you know i i wasn't i thought we should be really specific about what it is that could you know if there was something that's they wanted specifically used in the site that we needed to be specific about it um so it's okay part of what we were [Speaker 2] (2:07:52 - 2:08:25) trying part of what we were trying to do here is we may find an artifact that we don't know exists now right and we were adding that sentence at the end to say look if we find something to the extent that it's practical okay we could reuse it we'll reuse it and we'll coordinate with the historic because if it's not usable on site then i think that the prior sentence says that i yeah the artifact will be given to given to the historic commission yeah [Speaker 3] (2:08:28 - 2:09:00) well we're on the subject of vagueness um the applicant will notify the historical commission of any archaeological archaeological artifact um and i i know it's saying that that's going to be done in coordination with a professional consultant but i guess that's my question is how are we defining a archaeological artifact you know how will how will the applicant know that what they are coming across in their demolition is an artifact right that's why they're they the the [Speaker 1] (2:09:00 - 2:09:28) historic commission is doing a that's hired a structural engineer at the outset to um kind of you know evaluate the site and then based on that report it's my understanding that they want to do like a a very limited archaeological um excavation and and this is from what i understand they're looking at very small areas like you know two feet by two feet or something [Speaker 2] (2:09:28 - 2:09:35) in a couple of different spots um so i've uh i've included that language already in here [Speaker 1] (2:09:36 - 2:10:04) okay so so that was um and and that you know based on that archaeological you know excavation that they it's my understanding that that's how maybe there's like shards of things or there you know there are relics that are turned up that happen to be you know they're clearly dated back to 1700 so maybe that qualifies as as as something so i think that they're [Speaker 4] (2:10:04 - 2:10:21) looking to the professionals to be able to identify that that would be my understanding i think maybe the maybe what would make it clearer to me is if these two the second and [Speaker 3] (2:10:21 - 2:10:45) the third sentence were flipped essentially i think it would i think it would still say the same thing but if it would say that um demolition and construction shall be ordinated and supervised by the historical commission and collaboration professional consultant and officials blah blah applicant will notify the historical commission of any archaeological artifacts that are uncovered during demolition and construction i just if [Speaker 1] (2:10:45 - 2:10:50) i hear what you're saying because now you've talked about you know hiring somebody and then [Speaker 3] (2:10:50 - 2:10:54) it's clear there's going to be a consultant who is making the determination as to what [Speaker 1] (2:10:54 - 2:11:30) is an archaeological artifact yeah and i think and in the so in the appendix um that's where the commission listed specifically like the the items that they have what i understand discussed with you uh that have were identified on site presently like the lampposts and certain um certain patio type stones and um some wrought iron pieces and so forth that so they identified those pieces so that's a little more specific and that was in that appendix right yeah so [Speaker 2] (2:11:30 - 2:12:43) i'm sorry go ahead paul what i was going to say was we just got to break this up there are certain things that have already been identified right sure we could be specific that's what number two of this was doing as shown on the l as shown on development plans the applicant shall include certain historical elements that have already been identified the sundial the flagstone and depending upon what's in the appendix we can expand the list i mean okay so two was to cover what's been identified okay one was to sort of cover a um a process that when we demo the building that our contractors we notified that this is a historic site that do the demolition carefully so that if there are artifacts that are revealed they're properly managed that's that's what number the that first paragraph was designed to do so the appendix reference should be in the next paragraph or if we needed at all well we just expand the list okay so right you can either [Speaker 1] (2:12:43 - 2:13:13) i think you it's it'd be useful to have it to have it in there um but um anyway you can i agree with dave about flipping the sentences i think that makes sense so flipping and number two flipping the red sentence underneath the blue sentences kind of that's where you know that where it says this activity no i'm talking about the applicant shell hold on a minute so that [Speaker 3] (2:13:13 - 2:13:28) instead of saying this activity you would say demolition and construction and that sentence would come before the sentence that precedes it right now saying demolition construction [Speaker 6] (2:13:28 - 2:13:32) like bad demolition and construction shall we coordinate it into the rest [Speaker 2] (2:13:32 - 2:13:36) yeah at the supervisor which is a little i think it has to be coordinated coordinated [Speaker 3] (2:13:36 - 2:14:09) yeah yeah that historically coordinated with the not exactly exactly they're not going to supervise our demolition yeah oh and then and then that sentence goes ahead of the sentence that starts applicant before it you go all the way to expense exactly yeah that's it right under the highlighted text or the appendix right there yep well and that appendix that first sentence is actually moving it sounds like too yeah yes we're gonna move that first okay so [Speaker 6] (2:14:09 - 2:14:18) this like that delete it from here yes and then this is getting moved to the next item [Speaker 2] (2:14:19 - 2:14:39) yeah i think going up to do with that one is if you go down to the next one which is also number two it should be number three at this point where it um has start sundial in the parentheses yep we should just say see appendix because we'll look at the appendix because that was [Speaker 1] (2:14:39 - 2:14:48) what i was going to suggest yeah no just see appendix right and then we'll look at the appendix [Speaker 4] (2:14:48 - 2:14:58) and then we don't have to list the items separately here right okay perfect and then exactly that's [Speaker 1] (2:14:58 - 2:15:03) that's good okay now mike you were trying to say something and you couldn't get a word in [Speaker 10] (2:15:04 - 2:16:05) yeah that's okay you guys are getting plenty of words in for me i think this is good no no no this is like i'm finally in my wheelhouse instead of yours yeah this is this is good dave and i think yes exactly uh i did have something on this one specifically because you know hitting things with hammers is still partially in my wheelhouse so um i think this the way you reconstructed this makes sense it still says out of marblehead in there um oh i guess you're coordinating this with marblehead all right yeah and then swamp scott okay i think i'm good with this one i just wanted to make sure that you know the historical commission wasn't supervising anything they were there they were properly notified properly coordinated with and that there was like a demolition plan that was run by basically so [Speaker 1] (2:16:06 - 2:16:15) yeah that's it i think we covered it okay now we're okay so we okay move to number three [Speaker 4] (2:16:16 - 2:16:34) number three i think is pretty self-explanatory until yeah it's a permanent it's a permanent obligation it's in perpetuity it makes perfect sense okay so so when do you want to show us [Speaker 2] (2:16:34 - 2:16:40) the appendix do you want to look at it now yeah because we're okay if we're going to pass on it [Speaker 1] (2:16:40 - 2:17:01) let's just be done with it and the board hasn't hasn't um you know historical commission submitted this and the board can you know these are their comments if the the you know so again where this first time that the board seeing this as well they were just um these updated comments were [Speaker 4] (2:17:01 - 2:17:36) just submitted and we're as if you can pull that up yeah there you go so it's pretty detailed but i think if that's helpful so that i need you looking at these because you're going to know [Speaker 2] (2:17:36 - 2:17:42) what they're referring to and make sure that's what's on your what you were intending on the plan [Speaker 5] (2:17:43 - 2:18:19) no no that that's right the only concern is as you know you know trying to pick up the sundial or the flagstones it's not guaranteed 100 that they're going to come up intact no matter how careful you are so i'm not sure if there's language that says yeah the first bullet point it says that i think yeah yeah but the list the list is the list we had spoken of um and some of locations are were not set yet um i don't i think yeah i don't know that that was part of it so much [Speaker 1] (2:18:19 - 2:18:26) as my concern was that it'd be very specific so that there was you know it it jived with what [Speaker 5] (2:18:26 - 2:18:35) has been discussed with you and you know yeah this this was the list that we had um looked at [Speaker 2] (2:18:35 - 2:19:14) we can work with yes can you uh can i can i make one suggestion right at the beginning where it says applicant must incorporate uh the following artifacts uh from the existing site into the public memorial plaza then it says please be specific about the items that they're proposing that was just a note that was in there yeah so that we want to take out right and i just um you know um um that was when they were putting their that's formed together right now i just want to take a recommendation yeah i just want to take a note out [Speaker 6] (2:19:14 - 2:19:19) because it doesn't make any sense right we're taking out the memorial plaza like no no we're [Speaker 2] (2:19:19 - 2:19:56) taking out the parenthetical please be specific about the item right there exactly and then and but but i think what we need to put in here after sundials tiles wrought iron is to say um with with the acknowledgement that um such reuse may not be possible or you know because if it if you can't do it you can't do it whatever that's concern is um just we got to have some we got to have some way of if they bring out the stone and the stone to send this disintegrates i [Speaker 3] (2:19:56 - 2:20:09) can't use it uh yeah do you want to just do you want to just say applicant must to the extent feasible incorporate the following artifacts that works and they are using best efforts [Speaker 1] (2:20:09 - 2:20:16) using whatever and to the extent feasible yeah yeah that's a good idea angela yeah yeah um and [Speaker 5] (2:20:16 - 2:20:41) not all these elements are going into that memorial plaza we talked about some of the old light posts being at the bus stop where those are and some of those there's a lot of that iron gate work that yeah wouldn't appropriately be at the plus of what would be in my mind it's out more near the that public common though you know that area so all you have to do there the sundial and [Speaker 2] (2:20:41 - 2:21:00) and the tiles and the uh rod iron um when you say memorial plaza data and and at other locations within the site what you have to do is after marblehead after salon before the colon and [Speaker 4] (2:21:00 - 2:21:09) other locations within the site we're going to incorporate the following artifacts in the [Speaker 2] (2:21:09 - 2:21:19) memorial plaza and other locations within the site so after the word salem you put and other [Speaker 4] (2:21:19 - 2:21:26) locations within the project site because that'll cover use of that wrought iron and some of your [Speaker 2] (2:21:26 - 2:21:33) landscaping features right that yeah i know that that that works well within the project site [Speaker 1] (2:21:33 - 2:21:46) right yeah i and you know i would just say that you know there are you know certain sort of important pieces that i think that you know the commission would want to see at the memorial [Speaker 3] (2:21:46 - 2:22:01) there's a plan there's a plan of that that was okay all right in the bullet points like where we talked about the sundial that's talking about going to the plaza same for the flagstones and we have a plan that that prepared where we identify okay [Speaker 4] (2:22:05 - 2:22:23) so keep going you can keep reading any just you know and scroll multiple restore rewire and so on paths but here you might want to say wrought [Speaker 1] (2:22:23 - 2:23:05) iron lamppost we restore every wires reset along paths and within them okay all right so that that's is that um is that language okay with you in terms of within the memorial plot along paths and within the plaza yeah that makes sense okay um iron fencing putting support posts and spires scrolls and finials including the bribery gates and front walk gates they appear to have been moved somewhat but this is very detailed so it's just to help identify no it is but like for example the [Speaker 2] (2:23:06 - 2:23:16) fireback down at the bottom i do you see that one i yeah yeah i mean the fireback exists almost [Speaker 5] (2:23:16 - 2:23:35) i think behind the bank and we talked about i'm not sure we talked about putting it in the plaza area i you might want to leave that exact location um to be maybe fine in the plaza area but i wouldn't want to commit to it just yet that's possible and also there's see all [Speaker 1] (2:23:35 - 2:23:50) this please be specific stuff that can all come out see the parentheses all that stuff are just notes of like being specific and that that that yeah we already have uh that when you go back to [Speaker 2] (2:23:50 - 2:23:57) the conditions you're right it is repetitive we already yep we already say that right so we can [Speaker 1] (2:23:57 - 2:24:24) either take it out of one or the other whatever i mean i i felt that was what was important here is that was the communication of what the understanding is um just so that we you know it's easy for for um for things to get overwhelming especially once you're in the you know the midst of trying to get all this stuff done and move stuff around and so i'm going to suggest angela that all [Speaker 2] (2:24:24 - 2:24:41) the bullet points are are appropriate for the appendix because when you go back to the decision yeah that's we said see appendix for these specific items but these other items if you yeah they're already if you go back you'll see that they're that they are covered [Speaker 1] (2:24:41 - 2:24:59) yep they are so you can take that out so scroll back marissa so we're talking about fund establish install store so that that's already in there yeah we can go back and look at them and they're all in there now they are i i bet i know okay so all of those [Speaker 4] (2:25:00 - 2:25:21) paragraphs come out we'll check the next one yeah and the other one too all right so then we have oh hold on sorry i went too far okay bad willow on-site access yeah we've got [Speaker 1] (2:25:22 - 2:26:16) no buildings in sight by registered result that value witnesses condition okay identified as original deeds potential salvage oops hi uh must be salvaged a little more specific right than what we have i think so yeah attention will focus primarily on the original glover structure with in the existing buildings if you want i can add attach a little map or a little outline of exactly the you know the site they're talking about a feasibility of moving that structure to another location or somewhere on the existing site so that's you know vague enough in addition the original entrance to the sunbeam in including etched glass preserved and repurposed um i don't know what that maybe that's a discussion that you had with them [Speaker 3] (2:26:16 - 2:26:22) um doesn't that that doesn't that sound more like a bullet point like shouldn't that be moved up to [Speaker 2] (2:26:22 - 2:26:57) the list of items i guess i'm trying to understand when we get to this assessment this assessment will include the determination of the feasibility of potential salvage of the structure itself and the components materials you know start on all about which must be salvaged as part of the okay but again yeah that would not be that wouldn't be on you that's not on the applicant and where it's going right mission has to tell us and they got to take it there okay so let's put [Speaker 1] (2:26:57 - 2:27:13) that in there as part of the um assessment and you know the assessment will be you know just we can put um we'll include her that's fine at the very end you know this you only have to say such as [Speaker 2] (2:27:13 - 2:27:31) such undertakings right will be at the expense of the historic commission or town locations to be determined by the such undertakings um uh will be right at the expense of the historic [Speaker 4] (2:27:31 - 2:27:37) commission because they get grant money apparently historical commission or the town [Speaker 2] (2:27:37 - 2:27:49) um um um and uh and and locations as determined by the historical commission [Speaker 12] (2:27:49 - 2:28:03) and the town and that locations as determined okay yeah the only concern i have there is that which must be salvaged i mean again that's at the discretion of the historical commission whether [Speaker 1] (2:28:03 - 2:28:11) it's going to be salvaged or not uh okay so hold on a second which may be salvaged as part which [Speaker 12] (2:28:11 - 2:28:17) which will be or maybe which may be salvaged you know at again at the discretion of the historical [Speaker 4] (2:28:18 - 2:28:36) commission yeah so we can change the must up there to may that's fine okay that's fine any other comments on that attention focus okay the only thing i would say is when we say in that [Speaker 2] (2:28:36 - 2:28:44) locations it needs to say off-site locations because i don't want to commission now you know [Speaker 3] (2:28:44 - 2:28:52) again right exactly well wait but to go back to the conversation we had before i think that's [Speaker 1] (2:28:52 - 2:29:02) something that i don't that's not something that i'm comfortable putting in in there that i mean i think that's something that you take offline with your discussions with historical commission [Speaker 2] (2:29:03 - 2:29:28) you know this is kind of this is but but andrew it's going to be a planning board condition that let the historic condition and us work it out during the significance hearings and that you're putting it in the planning board um i mean sad let me get your reaction you haven't reacted do we have room where the plaza is to put the house no i'll be i'll react there's not [Speaker 5] (2:29:28 - 2:31:05) even close to enough room yeah i i don't think it's appropriate to to the design or anything i mean i just don't know there's not enough room it crowds it but just it's sort of a bit foreign to the whole site concept and idea um and i you know i admit to being skeptical about about salvaging the house from the standpoint that three of the walls of it on the first floor are not there anymore the front wall that you see from the street which has the front door which never was the front door was a window when the house is first built is original the side wall when you walk into the right opens up into a into a dining room addition the back wall is open up to the l and then the left wall has been has been pretty much removed so i i'm skeptical about it's i mean you can build a replica of it and but you know we i haven't worked on a half a dozen or so buildings of that vintage and moved them but the whole structure was intact um this one is going to be i'm a little skeptical about its ability to be moved and i'm you know i may have sensitive to the history don't get me wrong i just um and to pause pause anything can be preserved or but it will be pretty much everything you'd see or most everything you'd see in the building would be new um and and reframed and and so forth it's not like we can we can get some beams in here and pick the whole thing up and move it you know 50 feet left or put it on a bit on a truck and i i don't i don't think this is something [Speaker 3] (2:31:05 - 2:31:10) that we need to be getting into and by saying off site by saying off site where we are inserting [Speaker 1] (2:31:10 - 2:31:15) ourselves into that discussion i agree and i don't want to do that that's something that can be you [Speaker 3] (2:31:15 - 2:31:28) know i just i don't want to do that so just it may it probably is true everything you're saying that i can't possibly be there i don't think we should be making that determination [Speaker 1] (2:31:28 - 2:31:52) i just notice what a lot of this is going to end up being about is is just exploring whatever can be done and feeling as if did what was right by the site and the history and you know i i i also am aware that like three of the walls are missing so then can i ask for one minor modification i i [Speaker 2] (2:31:52 - 2:32:03) agree with what was just said that you are asserting yourself when i put in those words off-site it's just say as determined by the historical commission town and applicant [Speaker 1] (2:32:03 - 2:32:16) that's fine that we we got to put it on our land if you can't accommodate it okay no agreed i i don't have any problem with that no one's going to force you to put it there that's right it's an [Speaker 5] (2:32:16 - 2:32:21) ad it's not an or no it has to end yeah yeah yeah and then you're right now the planning board is [Speaker 4] (2:32:22 - 2:32:36) okay it has to be and and not or yep that's that's correct i think that i think that covers that [Speaker 2] (2:32:36 - 2:32:42) point i think it's no i think so too that that that makes something that can work all right so [Speaker 1] (2:32:42 - 2:32:45) we can go down let's see scroll down in addition to the above [Speaker 2] (2:32:47 - 2:32:58) archaeological i mean if you do you want to put the other ones i like to take out the paragraph about the attention will focus that's something we'll deal with the historical commission because [Speaker 1] (2:32:58 - 2:33:14) again it's saying that well that is there that is what they're asking essentially they're limiting it to say we don't we don't want you to we're not interested in noodling around any other part of the site except for that little building that's basically what i understand but it says in the [Speaker 2] (2:33:14 - 2:33:28) feasibility of moving that structure to another location or somewhere on the existing site for restoration that's the the challenge there isn't i mean that's what i was out front with the historic commission the other night i said there isn't a place on the site [Speaker 3] (2:33:30 - 2:33:42) that's the part if they want to if they want to focus their attention that they're for the consultant they're paying for to look at it i guess they can sure yeah it's not you know [Speaker 4] (2:33:45 - 2:33:50) um i i don't think it agrees to i don't think it puts you in any kind of a position they you know [Speaker 1] (2:33:50 - 2:34:10) that's they want exactly if they want to pay the consultant to give their opinion that's there's no reason they can't do that i don't know whether it has to whether that's a bullet point or whether it's a all right kind of a yeah i i think we're we're covered by the [Speaker 3] (2:34:10 - 2:34:16) world yeah just in the original entrance i can't be talking but i think this i think this sunbeam [Speaker 1] (2:34:16 - 2:34:23) in thing is a ballpoint this is an item yeah yeah so just grab that paragraph and just drag it up [Speaker 4] (2:34:23 - 2:34:33) with the other bullets anywhere and while we're up at the bullets i we had talked about uh changing [Speaker 3] (2:34:33 - 2:34:40) the cast iron fire back but we didn't do it um to be moved and reset instead of in the plaza area to [Speaker 4] (2:34:40 - 2:34:58) um just in the pilots all within the site yeah yeah okay i just go to the bottom one last last [Speaker 2] (2:34:58 - 2:35:09) sentence of this okay in addition to the above yeah so this is the archaeological assessment i have this cover we just see how they described it they were again they were just trying to get [Speaker 1] (2:35:09 - 2:35:23) specific of what they you know what they're hoping to see and again it's not this is just uh okay engage by the historic commission will excavate small again this will be you want to [Speaker 2] (2:35:23 - 2:36:09) say at the expense of yeah so the only thing is if we go back to the language um that i stuck into the decision it what i did there is i put a time frame around that i said there will be no demolition prior to august 1 2023 right and the applicants shall allow the commission access to do this right so that's what's missing i mean um wegged has already committed that it won't it'll give an opportunity through august through july 31st and so i want to i don't want to have a condition that then puts this project off into november again you know that's something that i [Speaker 1] (2:36:09 - 2:36:38) can't i don't either and i don't think that's where this is going to be honest i just don't i think the whole reason that the historic commission has been as involved as they have and they're trying to be as specific as they have with their requests is because they don't want to get into a situation where there's been no communication all of a sudden they get a demo permit and they have to sit and and say well what are we going to do now we haven't we haven't really hammered out all these details and you don't want to get in a situation where anything [Speaker 2] (2:36:38 - 2:36:50) gets put off schedule all i'm suggesting is where this the second sentence where it says an archaeological expert all you have to do is say prior to august 1st 2023 [Speaker 1] (2:36:52 - 2:36:58) an archaeological without a doubt in fact yes that's all i'm asking that's fine yeah i don't [Speaker 2] (2:36:58 - 2:37:22) have any problem with that that's i'm just trying to put a time frame in there so in the in the sentence that begins and argue just say prior to august 1st 2023 and because you know you're the planning board is now um prior to august 31st august 1st not 21st it's august 1st yeah [Speaker 3] (2:37:23 - 2:37:27) is it the first sentence is prior to the start of construction is that when the assessment's [Speaker 2] (2:37:27 - 2:37:33) happening or is it happening prior to the start of demolition well that's why it's prior it would [Speaker 1] (2:37:33 - 2:37:49) be before the according to wait a second how can they do archaeological assessments if the i think they're talking about after demolition that's something you should discuss with them because how do you even do that well what they said building still sitting there well what they [Speaker 2] (2:37:49 - 2:38:01) said the other night was they weren't expecting to do the assess the art this archaeological assessment these one by one foot that they described was based was not where the foot [Speaker 1] (2:38:01 - 2:38:13) where the structures currently exist right you know what i i'm gonna you can i don't want to put a date in there i'm not sure what they're talking about i don't know what you know no no angela [Speaker 3] (2:38:13 - 2:38:21) we need a date in there because otherwise this acts as a bar to prevent them from doing their [Speaker 1] (2:38:21 - 2:38:28) work in perpetuity what if they want to do right but what if the assessment happens after the demo [Speaker 2] (2:38:28 - 2:38:47) shouldn't it happen after the demo well that's not what she said she said that they had some mapping of the areas that they were interested in oh and it's not where the structures are today and they wanted to get in there and do it before they demoed oh and it's not where the structures [Speaker 1] (2:38:47 - 2:39:09) are that's what she described okay i'm not i'm not clear on that so look i'm you know it's one thing to change some language i'm just not she says prior to the start of construction see here's what happens i see i understand where your concern is so but let me just suggest that here's the way [Speaker 2] (2:39:09 - 2:39:34) i think it works if it's prior to demolition they get all the areas that don't have a building if it's during demolition we just spent all that time explaining how it's going to be supervised demolition is going to be coordinated with the historic commission so we got it we got it covered to say it's the first sentence here that needs to go out so how can they oh [Speaker 6] (2:39:35 - 2:39:45) angela i just received an email from kim on the historical commission and her original wording of this sentence was prior to demolition and not construction okay oh okay well thank you i mean [Speaker 1] (2:39:45 - 2:39:51) it just made no sense to me so that's what i wanted to know thank you all right that takes [Speaker 2] (2:39:51 - 2:40:13) care of that well i like well again i would in addition a target on the site will be prior to the start of demolition it's really we were talking about prior to august 1st with the anticipated demolition will be delayed until at least august 1st that's that wasn't the delay that that was [Speaker 1] (2:40:13 - 2:40:20) that's what you told us was your anticipated earliest demo that's what i i when i when i [Speaker 2] (2:40:20 - 2:40:27) said to the commissioners we will we will not do any demo prior to august right that was in my [Speaker 1] (2:40:27 - 2:40:39) understanding your that was the plan anyway so i didn't i wasn't i didn't feel like you were making that exemption for anybody but that was your plan no i actually asked leggett how long [Speaker 2] (2:40:39 - 2:40:57) can you delay demolition they said well we can wait we'll commit to wait at least until august so i think you i think they would potentially have started earlier but we that's semantics we don't have to get into it all right so you can you know i don't you put the [Speaker 1] (2:40:57 - 2:41:10) date it's fine prior to the start of demolition that's fine um okay so we're and the rest of it is just being you know detailed about yeah that's okay the rest of the donating stuff [Speaker 6] (2:41:10 - 2:41:17) to us so i think that's it so everything is a good it's good as is [Speaker 2] (2:41:18 - 2:41:24) that like how we've added it but we got to go back to the decision now right now you got to [Speaker 4] (2:41:24 - 2:41:51) delete a bunch of language because it's here now so prior to demolition so this number two should stay because this is where we're getting the title examiner and we're engaging a qualified [Speaker 2] (2:41:51 - 2:41:58) consultant to do the thing yeah that stays this next one three can go because this is the paragraph [Speaker 4] (2:41:58 - 2:42:06) we just worked on so paragraph three can yeah that was the one we just did that before demolition and [Speaker 3] (2:42:06 - 2:42:18) are we referencing because we reference the appendix up above right is that the idea yeah because we want to keep the reference to the appendix in the decision somewhere [Speaker 6] (2:42:20 - 2:42:27) yeah um you're right it's in so it's here in conditions and uh in perpetuity no but these [Speaker 3] (2:42:27 - 2:42:49) are different yeah no we've in perpetuity refers to the item number one so no that's it that's the demolition checklist is different yeah that's the health department i can't no so i think that this probably should stay then because this is a different yeah all we always say is is an [Speaker 2] (2:42:49 - 2:42:57) archaeological dig shall occur as described in the appendix right yeah okay so then leave it there [Speaker 4] (2:42:57 - 2:43:26) and say yeah probably yeah write it like that just archaeological dig shall occur as described in the appendix yeah now we can get rid of the rest okay yeah you can delete the rest of that [Speaker 1] (2:43:28 - 2:44:13) right you don't need the rest right now yeah i can go okay uh evaluation okay so now we're down to the other stuff prior demos now we're talking about the traffic counts this was something that um oh you still need number three but you'll figure it out just don't lose your number three above yeah i'll format it later okay applicants shall provide an evaluation of December 22 so this was not something that i put in here uh they conducted a turn up there is a need for additional traffic signal timing adjustments that evaluation shall be reviewed by qualified traffic engineer upon submission to town identify if there are any necessary follow-up actions [Speaker 2] (2:44:13 - 2:45:12) i'll back up for the next so let me just there's there can i just suggest that's it well if you if you look at um i we have a traffic mitigation section when it comes later where we talk about the whole traffic count issue um so applicants shall provide an evaluation of December 22 traffic counts to the board after they uh if they are conducted a turn there's a need for additional traffic signal timing adjustments right that was something yeah yeah set evaluations shall be reviewed by a qualified traffic engineer upon submission to the town okay to identify if there are any necessary follow-up actions keep on going that's it that's the end of that one all right uh bill let me just ask you quickly did vanessa get out there in December of 2020 yeah they did the they [Speaker 12] (2:45:12 - 2:45:16) did a study but we haven't heard the results from them okay but we have the caps we just haven't [Speaker 2] (2:45:16 - 2:45:33) yet okay okay all right so i think that that can stay as is it's a prior demo we got to give this to you guys we got to get it from vanessa and get it into you okay all right moving up and [Speaker 6] (2:45:35 - 2:45:38) that's everything prior to demo now we're moving on to prior to construction [Speaker 4] (2:45:38 - 2:45:51) yeah i had a question on this first one here because this this reads that the planning board [Speaker 3] (2:45:51 - 2:46:05) has to review the final construction review and endorse the final construction documents and i'm just is that it's something that planning boards do not usually not you so why is it in [Speaker 2] (2:46:05 - 2:46:12) there i don't know we didn't we didn't put it in this was a paragraph that that you guys added and [Speaker 1] (2:46:12 - 2:46:36) i'm just trying to i don't i don't see any reason for me to look at for us to look at that i mean i don't uh construction i'm gonna tell me if i said a final construction documents when they have to be you know the commissioner building a direct and director community economic development for endorsement and confirmation that they are substantially consistent with the requirements [Speaker 3] (2:46:36 - 2:46:48) of this decision period that should be the end of the rest of the day in there no i'm saying that that should be and then the rest i think the rest should be deleted i think oh yeah i like [Speaker 1] (2:46:48 - 2:47:01) this this has been 30 days of their filing by the applicant and prior to inception of construction and that we would do a peer review of the we need to sign we do we have decided after the [Speaker 2] (2:47:01 - 2:47:07) appeal period is over this is not again this is we don't know where this language came from [Speaker 6] (2:47:07 - 2:47:24) this might have come from marblehead um i think that's what that rings a bell i will say that we are doing something very similar to this with the zoning board for elm place the the final site plan is does require the um endorsement of the voting members of the zoning board for [Speaker 2] (2:47:24 - 2:47:35) elm place right but that's a site plan not construction drawings because the construction set's going to be a hundred pages of sheets of of detailed drawings okay so yeah then i think [Speaker 3] (2:47:35 - 2:47:56) am i right about that pat wait yeah no i've never seen this before honestly before marissa i want so i want to i want to just confirm that well so you just talked about elm place but you said site plan and is that so is that the case that they're reviewing the site plan they're not reviewing the [Speaker 6] (2:47:56 - 2:48:02) final construction document correct just the site plan right okay we're talking about right no yeah [Speaker 3] (2:48:02 - 2:48:07) the idea that we would look at construction documents i hey no it's the building inspector [Speaker 10] (2:48:07 - 2:48:14) yeah i'm looking at i'm looking at marbleheads yeah so my it's it's it's directly lifted out of [Speaker 3] (2:48:14 - 2:48:20) there i think why does marblehead want to do that i don't know i don't know well that's [Speaker 5] (2:48:21 - 2:48:37) yeah i can't say i've ever done that before in any of my projects usually the building inspector and the and the director of community and economic development look at the plans make sure they're consistent with what the decision showed you know the buildings are as tall and all that kind of [Speaker 2] (2:48:37 - 2:48:48) stuff and and and the reality is as a matter even if you didn't have this condition that's the way the wall would work the building commissioner can't give you a building [Speaker 3] (2:48:48 - 2:49:01) permit on plans that aren't consistent with the zoning decision right i'll follow this decision but marissa i think you might have taken out one sentence too many because i think we is that the final construction documents shall include at a minimum the following i think we [Speaker 1] (2:49:01 - 2:49:09) okay oh yeah definitely you're jealous there hold on well final construction documents shall include [Speaker 3] (2:49:09 - 2:49:13) this that this is all site plans no no not not that whole part just the last sentence [Speaker 4] (2:49:16 - 2:49:24) yeah you have to delete the applicant up to final so we're not at the end of the peer review thing [Speaker 6] (2:49:24 - 2:49:30) is coming out yeah okay so the final construction documents no no no the the rest of that whole [Speaker 3] (2:49:30 - 2:49:37) sentence comes out keep on oh i didn't realize there you go okay you got it you got it it's just [Speaker 6] (2:49:37 - 2:49:41) they all start to look the same you know yeah a hundred percent this is hard right construction [Speaker 1] (2:49:41 - 2:49:58) documents this is all site plan stuff lighting plan landscaping plan yeah so so the lighting utilities plan oh signage design has to signage needs to go through through us we have to approve [Speaker 5] (2:49:58 - 2:50:13) signage in the siting yeah that's right and the lighting plan is shown as sheet l dash 702 and that includes a fixture schedule okay that's helpful this doesn't seem like it's uh [Speaker 4] (2:50:13 - 2:50:33) so is that all we have on there so guys this doesn't seem to be finished uh should i keep going yeah you just have to delete will there be irrigation [Speaker 6] (2:50:33 - 2:51:16) because we oh sorry yeah there was that question i obviously yeah thank you that's it after final building and construction plans yeah so good going um angela we talked about this with gino this morning do we want to include building department and public works um yes and if there's pest management involved we want to [Speaker 4] (2:51:16 - 2:51:38) health yes okay i would just say as applicable just say as applicable yes the health department's not going to weigh in on the with the building [Speaker 1] (2:51:38 - 2:52:16) right no as applicable right uh water main pipes and so um we have the the whole thing with your water main and and the um i guess we have on the sewer atlas plans okay you submitted that um what about we were going to put in here as maybe as just an appendix um the chart that we got from um you know our our civil engineers are the you know the what is it vicky vicky and [Speaker 6] (2:52:16 - 2:52:26) eileen um yep vicky and eileen's matrix yep so where does that fit in um i can list it as an [Speaker 1] (2:52:26 - 2:52:33) appendix i think that makes sense and just um we reviewed this with um i mean bill you were there [Speaker 2] (2:52:33 - 2:53:15) too bowler and and um yeah so if you scroll up marissa let me suggest where you put that reference that appendix if you scroll up no up the other way up yeah just scroll up you see where we we have final utility plans yep under d uh in accordance with all uh all uh including off-site construction um and and addressing items in appendix blank and then that appendix give it a is the matrix that everybody went through okay because it's it's it's it's it's in connect with [Speaker 4] (2:53:15 - 2:53:23) the utility plant that's what right that was it makes sense angela i'm okay with that [Speaker 8] (2:53:26 - 2:53:47) okay going back down some of these items like seven and eight are on that matrix but it's okay [Speaker 2] (2:53:47 - 2:53:53) we could say them again yeah that's okay so yeah we could say them again it's it's fine [Speaker 1] (2:53:55 - 2:53:59) it's amazing a great job with that it just makes it so easy to go through all that stuff [Speaker 4] (2:54:02 - 2:54:07) i can actually understand about a certain percentage of it anyway [Speaker 1] (2:54:13 - 2:54:30) that's good so um right so you are going to conduct the test pits prior to construction term investigations in ohio that's good yeah yeah okay good um anything else below the eight because i can't see anything else yeah there we go nine drinking water calculations [Speaker 4] (2:54:31 - 2:55:06) there uh submissions it should be dhcd not dhtc the first one right yeah yeah i just talked to graham this morning he popped in when i was doing this stuff so yeah in terms of the fire and all that um [Speaker 6] (2:55:08 - 2:55:17) okay fill up that is it for prior to construction and this is all prior to co [Speaker 4] (2:55:19 - 2:56:12) okay did that earlier where it says applicant must demonstrate that also i'm scott and marblehead apparatuses i assume that means like fire apparatuses apparatus number seven sprinkler control valve shall be it says labels to be labeled [Speaker 2] (2:56:16 - 2:56:28) that number that in number nine is out is oh it is correct we're getting electric power right but you other water and sewers coming from swamp scum [Speaker 1] (2:56:29 - 2:56:35) right that all the drainage goes out the sewer goes out through salem is that right [Speaker 2] (2:56:36 - 2:56:43) yes and that's so it's so number nine ish it's received its power okay that's fine yeah [Speaker 5] (2:56:43 - 2:56:51) all right i think that note in number nine about response time is maybe an editorial comment [Speaker 4] (2:56:53 - 2:57:03) isn't probably needed um yeah right strike that i'm not saying it's not true [Speaker 3] (2:57:08 - 2:57:18) and then go down because i think number 10 has a yeah at the end of number 10 there it says within each building i don't know if that's shall we locate an enclosed and designated area [Speaker 4] (2:57:18 - 2:57:50) within each building is that supposed to be part of that previous sentence yeah within each building yes it is and i think um i guess uh just a bill bill if you're still on [Speaker 2] (2:57:50 - 2:57:57) you we've confirmed the i and i number right unfortunately [Speaker 1] (2:58:03 - 2:58:26) okay you can take out um all tree planting from the park i shall meet the required size um and as best i believe that the tree committee had requested a four inch uh a diameter tree that had been agreed to that's correct okay so can i leave that sentence in [Speaker 5] (2:58:26 - 2:58:49) there well i think angela the bylaw actually calls for the four and i think we were lobbying for three because sometimes you get a more that's more available species of three that but but then we just we said okay all right then the bylaw is fine that's fine things redundant to keep it yeah okay great [Speaker 1] (2:58:51 - 2:58:56) take the green thing take my green thing out as specified by tree [Speaker 4] (2:58:58 - 3:00:23) and yeah including a paper but yeah that's okay yeah the last one is asphalt plants yeah and that's supposed to be like certified yeah blah blah blah okay yeah so that's fine you can scroll up or down whatever okay okay any questions on that we good good all right move on okay so on traffic timings here so the applicant shall review the timings at the intersections [Speaker 3] (3:00:23 - 3:00:37) turn of changes can be made the application will implement changes to the timings within three months of achieving 60 occupancy that is confusing to me so what what what what what is [Speaker 2] (3:00:37 - 3:00:52) what the traffic consultant said is you want the product to be at least 60 occupied so you could see the effect of the project's traffic on those intersections before you go into the retiming study [Speaker 3] (3:00:52 - 3:01:30) right i think so i think that's what's confusing is that it should be that that upon 60 occupancy the applicant shall review the traffic signal timings because as it is now i agree we're saying that the changes have to be implemented within three months of 60 occupancy it seems like it that the 60 the 60 occupancy triggers the study right it doesn't trigger the changes being done right so i think marissa i think the answer is at the very beginning of number one you start by [Speaker 4] (3:01:30 - 3:01:45) saying upon achieving 60 occupancy of the project is exactly right comma then lowercase t the [Speaker 2] (3:01:45 - 3:01:59) applicant yeah sure yeah and then the applicant shall implement changes in traffic signal times the two incident within three months within three months of achieving yeah then it works again [Speaker 3] (3:01:59 - 3:02:05) well well i i don't know what the timing i don't know what the actual what should be within three [Speaker 2] (3:02:05 - 3:02:14) months of that of that uh review we got it are you good with that yeah hold on i said i didn't find [Speaker 4] (3:02:14 - 3:02:22) changes to the traffic signals are two inches like within three months of achieving i mean my [Speaker 1] (3:02:22 - 3:02:36) understanding was it at an occupancy that's kind of when we get the that's kind of when we hit that you know because in three months from then there could be 90 occupancy right right you do this study [Speaker 2] (3:02:36 - 3:02:47) all we were trying to do is give us give give you guys confidence that we weren't just going to do the study and then not implement the changes we were trying to put a time frame we're going to do [Speaker 12] (3:02:47 - 3:02:51) this study and we're going to implement the changes when three months of doing the study [Speaker 1] (3:02:51 - 3:02:55) is that a is that a reasonable amount of time to do the study i mean [Speaker 12] (3:02:56 - 3:03:01) i'm thinking is maybe it's within three months of completing the study right that's what i that's [Speaker 3] (3:03:01 - 3:03:12) what i'm suggesting instead of right instead of saying that when you hit 60 percent right three months of the study and make the changes which is what it currently reads right exactly so right [Speaker 2] (3:03:12 - 3:03:18) exactly so if we're going to do the study then within three months of the study being done [Speaker 12] (3:03:18 - 3:03:23) we got to implement the changes that's right within three months of completing the study [Speaker 3] (3:03:23 - 3:03:45) right exactly now i mean the only other piece is that the way this is written this you could take two years to complete the study by by the way this is written because all you're required to do is review the traffic signal timings and then the the timing mechanism why don't we say the [Speaker 2] (3:03:45 - 3:04:05) with due diligence review there we go put put in the words due diligence in that way if we're not doing it fast enough we'll be violating the condition and you can no no no no review keep on going up keep on going up it's the out there yeah right shall with [Speaker 4] (3:04:08 - 3:04:27) right that takes care of the issue there yeah okay for the green square paradise sorry um okay so the pcw is asking typically they'll ask for a [Speaker 1] (3:04:27 - 3:05:01) thousand dollars a unit but here they're asking for five hundred dollars a unit or forty eight thousand for the services relating to infrastructure operation of the transportation network that's assuming that they have to you know they have to do you know some kind of improvements on their own to mitigate whatever it might be that intersection so that was a request that i got from them and the uh sixty percent occupancy that reassess the temporary waiver that comes out [Speaker 4] (3:05:03 - 3:05:12) okay so is that in the bylaws somewhere i'm sorry i was just wondering where the where that [Speaker 12] (3:05:12 - 3:05:18) extra money comes from that's not in the bylaw anywhere is it no i think it's just a public works [Speaker 4] (3:05:18 - 3:06:04) thing much like the ini but is there an official policy on that subject i'll have to ask i'll have to ask them and so that that's that green is something you put in yes that was something that gino asked me for this morning you can delete the 60 occupancy thing about the waiver that comes out obviously is this something you want to you can you want to discuss with the dpw [Speaker 1] (3:06:04 - 3:06:11) tomorrow that's that's fine with me i mean i it's i know it's first time you've seen it so [Speaker 12] (3:06:11 - 3:06:24) yeah i mean obviously if it if we're happy to comply with the requirements that are in the statute or in the code i just i don't know this is a yeah we sure would like to have [Speaker 1] (3:06:24 - 3:06:35) an extra 50 000 i think they're looking at you know i think they're anticipating the necessary traffic mitigation that's going to happen there whether it be the only thing in the bucket for [Speaker 12] (3:06:35 - 3:07:05) anything else but yeah i think that's that's what we're doing right that's our whole we're we're doing traffic mitigation as part of the signal adjustment i think they you know that's no no no not similar signal adjustment it's all of the traffic mitigation that we've already talked about it's the sidewalks rebuilding the crosswalks changing the the lighting the flashing signals there's hundreds of thousands of dollars of traffic improvements that are going in that [Speaker 3] (3:07:05 - 3:07:20) maybe they're not aware of so angela what did what did you at the beginning of this a few minutes ago you had said something about usually they require a thousand dollars per unit but here so what do you what maybe you can well that's what he said that's what he said to me [Speaker 1] (3:07:20 - 3:07:39) that typically it would be any about a thousand dollars a unit that would be you know the reasonable when you're anticipating having traffic mitigation and and and work that you know i don't know i'm not that dpw guy so so that means that but that tells me that he's not aware [Speaker 2] (3:07:39 - 3:08:00) of all the traffic condition infrastructure off-site infrastructure we're doing that we're doing that aren't right we should talk to dpw bill because we're doing more than that we're the structure to mitigate to mitigate that we're not even creating yeah we're doing a lot more than [Speaker 1] (3:08:00 - 3:08:21) that well i'm you know whatever i'm sure he'll be happy to talk to you first thing you know whatever you want i mean i'm happy to um i don't know how you want me to you know upon you if you want to just leave this until we can i don't mind just putting a note there saying that that's going [Speaker 4] (3:08:21 - 3:08:31) to be confirmed tomorrow morning as opposed to yeah just just yeah i mean you're um you're not [Speaker 1] (3:08:31 - 3:08:50) going to issue the decision tomorrow right well we have to you know because tomorrow's our day 120 we have to be able to you know to have you know i mean obviously we have there's a lot of editing [Speaker 6] (3:08:50 - 3:09:31) that has to it has to go on here right so i mean what like you know speaking from zba experience it's common practice when a decision when the as long as the language is tight when the motion is made to close out the public hearing and make a decision on the project as a whole um you know like when when council writes a decision before it gets um filed by with the town clerk by whoever makes the motion you know there's sort of a back and forth email exchange about the decision just like here's a decision look over the language once more if it looks good you sign your name to it and you file it with the town clerk so there's room for you know days is for the decision [Speaker 3] (3:09:31 - 3:09:50) to be made it's for our it's not for the decision to be filed with the clerk it's for our vote is that right my understanding say that again that the 120 days that runs out tomorrow is for our vote it's not for the decision to be right right so you could make a vote tonight and then from [Speaker 6] (3:09:50 - 3:10:02) if this is following the zba protocol to like what they do with file if this is all mgl you know you have a hundred i think it's 90 days from making a vote to filing a decision i don't know if that [Speaker 2] (3:10:02 - 3:10:17) carries over to i don't know about that i think it's 14 but in any way if you have time and if you want it for purposes of tonight so the record is clear just just um put a parenthetical that [Speaker 1] (3:10:17 - 3:10:23) applicant to discuss with dpw yeah okay that's fine because that's okay with that that's what [Speaker 4] (3:10:23 - 3:11:02) we're going to do okay that's i'm fine with that okay thank you okay after registration for employment at the end of the second current season yep it must be part so for the purposes of our vote does that assume that that stands and the dpw discussion would overturn that green paragraph [Speaker 2] (3:11:05 - 3:11:27) yeah that if if dbw says oh now that we understand the infrastructure improvements that you guys are doing and we ask them where does this 48 000 come from and they say all right well if it's not it doesn't need not be required because you're doing what you're doing then we would expect the [Speaker 3] (3:11:27 - 3:11:46) planning board not to require it what if that isn't i mean i i assume that's what the conversation is going to be too um what if that isn't the conversation though and it goes more like that's great that you're doing all this mitigation but we also want you to pay this 48 000 what [Speaker 2] (3:11:46 - 3:11:52) would happen then well then the client's going to have to decide if they think that's an unlawful [Speaker 3] (3:11:52 - 3:12:02) condition that should be appealed so it would it would stay in well if you guys are putting it in [Speaker 2] (3:12:02 - 3:12:33) if dpw told you to put it in even though there's there's not a ruling i wouldn't i would think you guys would say to dpw where's the policy that requires you to charge this money and that's all we're asking yeah i didn't ask that question i'll be honest so i mean i and i the reason why i and i is in here is there's a there's a policy that that everyone is subject to not just hey this is a big project let's hit him for as bill said let's hit him for 48 000 [Speaker 14] (3:12:33 - 3:13:01) yes i'm just struggling at the vote with with or without that i'm not in favor or you know against that yet not without dpw information but if we have to vote tonight that puts us in a little bit of a unusual position and you as well as the petitioner right yeah i mean if can we say [Speaker 1] (3:13:01 - 3:13:15) pending discussion that you know applicant has with the dpw i mean we i'm not i don't i'm not worried about um you know if you talk to dvd and gino says take it out then i take it out that part [Speaker 3] (3:13:15 - 3:13:38) that part's easy yes the procedural like the procedural oddity here is if that isn't the result and if there's a disagreement between our dpw and the applicant over this provision what do you know this is our this is our decision ultimately and do we want it to be in there or not [Speaker 1] (3:13:38 - 3:13:51) and i i would defer to the conversation that you know this is something that i would defer to the conversation that you have with the dpw right but we're voting tonight is that you know you know like [Speaker 3] (3:13:51 - 3:13:59) if the conversation leads to a impasse between dpw and the petitioner well can i make a suggestion [Speaker 2] (3:13:59 - 3:15:04) on this one that can potentially solve it sure in your earlier condition uh on the ini you specifically say per the infiltration and inflow offset policy right so if the plan board's saying look if we have a policy that we make this these uh this this exaction then we're going to impose it but if there isn't a dpw policy then uh in the plan board's not inclined to just do it then then all you have to do is for this condition say applicant shall contribute five hundred dollars per unit if there is a dpw policy requiring it to do so and then that's your decision and then we'll talk to dpw tomorrow anyway but your decision is that we got a there's a policy there's a policy we got to pay if there isn't you're not going to require us to pay something that's just an ask i guess that's [Speaker 3] (3:15:04 - 3:15:46) what we're asking and then that becomes a question for the board then right that's for you guys right that's what i'm saying to my fellow board members that that is a question for us is if we put in that language then we're saying we're only requiring this if there is a written policy if there isn't a written policy and gino wants it anyway where do we stand on that that's the question we have to answer for ourselves this is we're going down a little bit of a rabbit hole here because like bits of some hypotheticals um which is just a little yeah it's unfortunate that we don't [Speaker 14] (3:15:48 - 3:16:02) we don't know for sure the situation can we change it to say that applicants shall contribute per written dpw policy the set amount required by whatever but there might not be one right so it's [Speaker 4] (3:16:04 - 3:16:06) that's our point yeah [Speaker 6] (3:16:14 - 3:16:23) so applicants shall contribute $500 per unit or $48,000 if there is a policy i would take [Speaker 14] (3:16:23 - 3:16:30) the limits out of it and refer to the they they would pay the expected amount based on the [Speaker 3] (3:16:30 - 3:16:43) procedures in the problem the problem there is that angela said that she thinks this is half of the whatever i'm confused because it sounds like i don't know that case that case they paid they [Speaker 14] (3:16:43 - 3:16:47) pay more right like we're not going to decide we shouldn't be deciding on how much money i don't [Speaker 1] (3:16:47 - 3:17:03) want to talk about you know contribute 500 you know um uh and i think what you said about a written policy is that makes the most sense i don't think we should have any any value in there [Speaker 14] (3:17:03 - 3:17:15) at all per unit like we can refer to whatever the policy is and they're they're accountable for that and you know give or take if it's 500 it's 500 if it's zero at zero if it's if it's [Speaker 12] (3:17:15 - 3:17:24) a thousand it's a hundred grand yep fair enough if it's a yeah we're having the other way the [Speaker 2] (3:17:24 - 3:17:55) other way we could do it is to say that the applicant shall uh comply with any policy written policy for contributions for infrastructure operations um um issued by the dpw and then it'll be up to the dpw to show us the policy and agree to how we comply with it they may say well here's a here's what we consider a policy and we may be able to reach an agreement with them on it if [Speaker 4] (3:17:55 - 3:18:10) there is such a policy yeah that's fine so applicant shall contribute per no i think applicant [Speaker 3] (3:18:10 - 3:18:21) shall comply with any written dpw policy relating to infrastructure contribution [Speaker 1] (3:18:21 - 3:18:27) relating to infrastructure contribution something like that is that right that makes sense [Speaker 4] (3:18:28 - 3:18:31) i'll let the lawyers write it [Speaker 6] (3:18:41 - 3:18:46) maybe he's about just period after contribution or [Speaker 2] (3:18:46 - 3:19:07) well applicants shall comply with any written dpw that requires an infrastructure contribution okay it's not not related to it's a policy that requires a contribution to or an infrastructure that requires a contribution related structure to mitigate [Speaker 6] (3:19:07 - 3:19:19) the product to mitigate the effects of the project yeah right that requires a contribution [Speaker 13] (3:19:20 - 3:19:26) i'll fix that related to no not related to sorry that requires a contribution to mitigate [Speaker 2] (3:19:27 - 3:19:39) uh requires a contribution to infrastructure to mitigate impacts of the project yep that's it [Speaker 4] (3:19:41 - 3:19:54) i'm agreeable we can take out the applicant to discuss because that's the condition yeah [Speaker 3] (3:19:56 - 3:20:09) okay that sounds good this this means that i think everyone's good with it it sounds like i i am but if there is no written policy we're not going to right say they have to pay something [Speaker 1] (3:20:09 - 3:20:27) there's no right policy for yeah right i'm fine with that okay so we know about the survival rate so number three there is no number there is no any any change what's the why is the blue [Speaker 2] (3:20:27 - 3:20:34) black highlighted on the on the appendix oh i i think it was oh there's a blue bike thing [Speaker 1] (3:20:35 - 3:20:47) because is it is that if it doesn't it's not um it's on the site plan but it's not in those swamps is it on the swamp scots oh it's not in swamp scot so it's like we're commenting on something [Speaker 5] (3:20:47 - 3:20:53) that's in marvelhead it's actually in swan in salem the actual bike it is but it's not it's [Speaker 2] (3:20:53 - 3:20:59) not wrong for the planning board to have taken that into account when it looks at how we're [Speaker 1] (3:20:59 - 3:21:05) mitigating traffic impacts yeah i guess i don't because we don't have any blue bike stations i [Speaker 3] (3:21:05 - 3:21:11) didn't see it as meaningful but you can specify if you want that it's on the salem portion of the [Speaker 1] (3:21:11 - 3:22:42) yeah that's that's okay with me that one's also included in the marvel head position i think as a reference okay so you can put it as uh you can take out ai delete reference to blue bikes and you can put provide it on the site on the sale in salem right or just on the salem portion of the site okay okay that's fine and you can take the highlight out whenever you can reduce the extent possible yeah parking location building in the previous area very short double-headed charging stations more if required by code uh plus you said yeah provision for future eb um we talked about that but uh in terms of preparing the conduits under hoping to for additional necessary okay no no no exterior lighting because it's not compliant yep so why do you certainly stand positive you use a local toilet for the plumbing for a lot of sense label uh why don't we talk oh i think we figured that that's in the chart you that um in terms of where the water is being metered you guys figured that out right yep okay let me say i'm meeting the stretch energy co-recorder then our value okay [Speaker 4] (3:22:44 - 3:23:49) you can scroll up okay um [Speaker 5] (3:23:51 - 3:24:02) it's a bit of a laundry list of items and there's no doubt will be more uh sustainability features included um in the project these sort of weather [Speaker 2] (3:24:03 - 3:24:19) we just we wanted to provide some lists because we wanted we wanted to respond to the comment that we're trying to build a sustainable conscious manner yeah there's no smoking allowed on site [Speaker 14] (3:24:22 - 3:24:34) what was the question yeah there's no smoking allowed on site or in the buildings that's correct seems a little harsh that does seem a little harsh doesn't it i would say in the buildings [Speaker 1] (3:24:36 - 3:24:41) well maybe is it the common areas of the buildings common areas [Speaker 2] (3:24:42 - 3:24:47) people you can't you can't tell them with no smoke will be allowed on site or in the common [Speaker 4] (3:24:47 - 3:24:56) areas that's yeah exactly which makes sense because yeah it's kind of gross that's like a [Speaker 10] (3:24:56 - 3:25:04) hold from lead probably there's some requirements about that yeah yeah that's fine a little bit [Speaker 5] (3:25:04 - 3:25:18) more general and that's fine we have we have no smoking buildings and no smoking within you know 70 feet of entrances but it's finally a bit a little bit looser yeah i'm just wondering do you [Speaker 14] (3:25:18 - 3:25:25) take the onsite out that's what i'm wondering about oh do you have any smoking cabanas or [Speaker 1] (3:25:25 - 3:25:52) anything nothing right now no no oh they're ashtrays out there i mean you're gonna have the people just gonna stamp out their butts on the pool you know i wouldn't i wouldn't want to have like smoking around that's gross what about in the pool house and stuff like that so if you're laying out there by the pool you have people kind of smoking cigarettes well no obviously there will [Speaker 12] (3:25:52 - 3:26:03) be no smoking areas i just on site is everything that's the entirety of the site yeah that's saying that there is i'm just wondering if we take the word on site out it will be no smoking will be [Speaker 2] (3:26:03 - 3:26:10) why don't we just say no smoking will be allowed on site to us in a specified location right [Speaker 14] (3:26:11 - 3:26:16) or in common areas it's unenforceable you're not going to be able to yeah i mean [Speaker 1] (3:26:17 - 3:26:25) i know there's a lot of things you do like that that you know not necessarily forceful it's like uh no please children please slow down you know [Speaker 2] (3:26:27 - 3:26:52) but you know the reality is is that for a lot of the population they comply with things like that you don't sometimes don't not have a rule because you have 10 percent of the people that don't comply i agree with you i agree i was going to suggest the rest of that say no soccer will be allowed on site uh unless in otherwise designated areas and you want to leave the common area of the [Speaker 12] (3:26:52 - 3:26:57) buildings out bill i just leave it the way you have it all right i would leave it the way you [Speaker 1] (3:26:57 - 3:27:14) have it yep yeah i think you should definitely prohibit it in common areas that's not that's just you know that's just common courtesy and it keeps it cleanliness and that's everything you don't want your building stinking like a no agreed yeah [Speaker 12] (3:27:17 - 3:27:21) we won't have it in the building they won't be smoking in the building it's more [Speaker 1] (3:27:21 - 3:27:25) an area outside yeah and people are going to smoke in the apartment i mean that's a whole [Speaker 2] (3:27:25 - 3:27:44) that's a different thing but okay so i guess i'm trying to say should we should we say no smoke would be allowed on site unless in otherwise designated areas and and nor will smoking be allowed in the common areas of the building right we can say no smoking will be [Speaker 6] (3:27:44 - 3:27:52) allowed on side on site including the common areas unless otherwise in or including common spaces [Speaker 3] (3:27:53 - 3:28:10) i mean i think i think by saying no smoking oh well are you trying to say that you don't want to you don't want to allow a common area to be designated as a smoking area which it won't be i don't know that this is something we have this is a list of sustainability features i don't know [Speaker 4] (3:28:10 - 3:28:29) that i think this is fine the way it is yeah i agree so the wall and floor separations acoustically engineered is that a sustainability feature well they're they're they're it is does [Speaker 5] (3:28:29 - 3:29:00) address noise pollution among the units noise pollution yeah this list comes from the basically the the lead checklist uh right the smoking one actually is from comes from the indoor environment section of lead um and uh yeah there's sort of a quality of life thing related to the noise and and using that acoustical the acoustical separation between units i think that makes [Speaker 1] (3:29:00 - 3:29:12) sense anyone who's lived in a place that doesn't have that is to tell you so is that is that all [Speaker 3] (3:29:12 - 3:30:34) that's written that's written here because i i just realized angela something that we haven't maybe we should have done earlier but we should probably do now quickly for the sake of the record being complete we haven't addressed the citizen petition we've talked about parking right sorry sorry we've talked about traffic in the course of reviewing this but um we should probably just and i got i wish we'd done it earlier and there were more people on but um we should probably just you know for the record okay that and i think i think we've kind of had this conversation before and i think it's the same conversation that we have a traffic study it's been peer reviewed that traffic study has been adjusted to address the fact that the counts were made during covid times and that to go through the expense of another traffic study that would tell us essentially the same thing is not something that is not it's not a good use of resources and that resources are better spent addressing how to properly mitigate the traffic not you know tweaking counts here and there [Speaker 1] (3:30:34 - 3:32:30) which is what a new traffic study would do right i agree um i think that a lot of what you know a lot of the concern is um because i've said before that it's the anxiety of of the unknown of kind of not knowing what's going to happen i think at some level you know you can see with you know another project kind of coming on board and then the anticipated overlays with 3a zoning and so forth that are bound to happen over the next year which will also impact this area and just the insufficient you know roadway infrastructure generally in that area that creates a lot of congestion is something that you need to look at on a much bigger level a wider level so again i don't think that um i mean i wish it was as easy as tweaking that traffic light i mean i'm not saying that maybe help in some situation but um you know it's i understand where the notion of the petition comes from and then i you know i think what people want is something that says look here's how it's going to work this is the plan and these are all the things we're going to do um we you know we are we don't have that um we don't know that yet we don't know that yet which is why we're looking to get to 60 percent occupancy revisit some of these things you know look at what the traffic mitigation things can do and on a larger scale you know we need to be able to address this issue with salem um really because that's where you know those two intersections [Speaker 3] (3:32:30 - 3:33:19) are and the 60 solution is actually a really a good one in that it addresses a lot of the concerns that have been raised about the fact that the traffic study does not incorporate the new elementary school it does not incorporate the new building in salem when we get to 60 occupancy those things will be operational and so those that you know that new assessment that will be done at that time will include you know the current situation a traffic study done now a new traffic study done now couldn't really take into account the realities of those as yet unbuilt projects and so you know we'll have more information at 60 and that's when [Speaker 1] (3:33:20 - 3:34:37) i agree and i but i also you know think it's important that we really acknowledge you know where this stuff comes from this is the third petition we had there are you know literally you hundreds of people that have been concerned and i get it i mean i you know everybody's concerned we all see this kind of you know more units and more units and it's happening everywhere and we are so you know um under you know this is uh we've been wanting to you know get redeveloped well i shouldn't say we've been wanting to develop the site but the site has been derelict for for many years um they you know we certainly have housing needs in town uh this is this type of development is it's not gonna just dwindle away so we need to you know be able to anticipate and work with the private volumes and um but i think it's important to just listen and understand where this concern comes from and uh but it's i think it's bigger than kind of you know simple fixes although i absolutely i did think the rotary idea was genius but hey you know it sounds like a simple procedure to me apparently it's not [Speaker 10] (3:34:39 - 3:36:01) you know i was gonna that was a joke that was kind of a joke but well i was gonna bring bring that that up because it was mentioned a couple of times tonight already and i don't want to you know talk too much about it but is there any way that um you can i don't know how to say this can condition or or mention in a finding or something in this whole thing that you know that a rotary or a greater study of the area's traffic needs to be done and that the development at this site shouldn't preclude that you know what i mean um like safe that's not this problem we're not causing i know i know hold on just let me just let me just finish my thought sorry i don't want to i don't want to unduly burden your project and i'm not making you do a rotary obviously i'm just saying i wonder if in a future study 10 years down the road said oh it would have been great to put a rotary right but you put all your utility on the spot or something you know so so i'm just curious like is there a way to i don't put it in this report in some way in some way [Speaker 3] (3:36:02 - 3:36:31) finding that refers to traffic and infrastructure and all that because if there i think mike if i think it would be a finding i don't think we could do a condition of having to do with the rotary but if there were a finding marissa can you go back up to the findings if there were a finding that talks about traffic we could have a finding that you know that the planning board is interested in learning more about the feasibility of a rotary something like that yeah i don't think [Speaker 10] (3:36:31 - 3:36:36) there is one that touches on traffic too specifically right so it was something that [Speaker 1] (3:36:36 - 3:36:48) talked about um the traffic plan there shall help um okay it's up here somewhere hold on [Speaker 4] (3:36:48 - 3:37:08) go over to the left so we can see uh circulation plan that prioritizes vehicular safety is provided and this is where we can [Speaker 1] (3:37:08 - 3:37:29) you know before we can say um if we wanted to say that we discussed you know um more extensive mitigation strategies such you know future mitigation strategies such as you know uh the uh creation of a you know rotary at the top of sale i mean it doesn't compel the [Speaker 10] (3:37:29 - 3:37:37) it's a finding like you said yeah i'm no lawyer so where we want to put it we should talk about [Speaker 3] (3:37:37 - 3:37:50) that we we talked about it yeah i think it would be in this in this too and but but it would be it would it would be a record that we talked about it it wouldn't be any sort of requirement that [Speaker 1] (3:37:50 - 3:37:59) anybody do anything about it right um i'm i've i think that's a good idea yeah and it would be [Speaker 3] (3:37:59 - 3:39:03) it would be right after yeah right after the circulation plan sentence it would be the planning board discussed the feasibility of the feasibility of um the implementation of a rotary at the intersection of salem street and binning street right um as a as a potential traffic calming measure and hopes to see future conversations on the subject with the town of salem and other stakeholders [Speaker 10] (3:39:04 - 3:39:41) yeah i think that makes sense yeah that's about all we can say right the only thing i was saying in addition to that and this is this takes it a one step further and it's so hypothetical that we can't say anything about it but you would just hate to for somebody to say oh the future traffic circle has got to be 50 feet in diameter and now you know it doesn't fit anymore because the the building was moved three feet further to the south it was you know what i mean but we just way [Speaker 1] (3:39:41 - 3:40:08) too many hypotheticals so yeah yeah okay i'm i'm okay with that so any other comments okay so were we at the bottom yet or not yeah we were we were through to the end that was the very last thing [Speaker 4] (3:40:08 - 3:40:48) there was that was the last page all right so have we covered everything so we don't have any waivers um we don't have the height waiver we don't have any other there's nothing else i that i've if i missed something which i don't think i did um you know about all this okay i mean that's the um so i was just i honestly haven't um [Speaker 1] (3:40:48 - 3:40:57) looking at marvelhead's decision to see how so i guess the way it says is they talk about the [Speaker 4] (3:40:57 - 3:41:09) waivers that i say pursuant to the global multi-family overlay district and the smart growth [Speaker 1] (3:41:10 - 3:41:35) design um standard bylaws and as authorized under as authorized under the design standards the board grants the following uh how many would be usable board grants the following frame board members vote issue a plan approval for smart growth or for the global multi-family overlay [Speaker 4] (3:41:35 - 3:42:00) district which is a smart growth project subject above stated conditions so because someone someone else needs to really uh make the motion i think um okay let's see i think someone else needs to make the motion but i'll [Speaker 1] (3:42:00 - 3:42:49) read it and you need to close your public hearing first oh thank you late okay so motion to close the public hearing second all in favor i get dave i can't see okay thank you all right so public hearing is paused thanks for the reminder so the board will now go ahead and vote on this um this petition uh i just think that some i think someone else wants to make the motion following members of the planning board uh or to issue a plan approval for the lower multi-family overlay district [Speaker 4] (3:42:50 - 3:43:13) let me make sure we say it the right way didn't write out anything okay i think what we want to say is pursuant to um and i'll just say section that what is it 4 10 0 0 [Speaker 1] (3:43:24 - 3:43:43) pardon me that's it 4 10 0 yeah okay so pursuant pursuant to section 4 10 0 0 um of the small start zoning bylaw and the um smart growth overlay district design standards [Speaker 4] (3:43:45 - 3:44:08) and as authorized under the smart growth design standards the board grants the followings okay i might have to talk about that what allows the smart growth project to be constructed plans it allows [Speaker 6] (3:44:13 - 3:44:18) angela i'm sorry just for just for record's sake you're fading in and out so i get the motion [Speaker 1] (3:44:18 - 3:44:26) i don't have a we don't have the actual language for the um the decision so that's what i'm i'm [Speaker 4] (3:44:26 - 3:44:39) reading hold on can i make a suggestion angela yep you may i think this is usually a very simple [Speaker 2] (3:44:39 - 3:44:56) vote somebody usually says that um i move that the planning board vote to approve the plan of approval requested by the applicant um subject to the findings and conditions of the proposed [Speaker 1] (3:44:56 - 3:45:34) decision easy for you to say okay so i would say that's the motion and that's the motion somebody seconds it okay oh so what who wants to make the motion let's put it that way because it probably shouldn't be me dave why don't you make the motion i say so moved you can we repeat it one more time let me repeat it then um i move to um that the planning board vote to um prove the application way you said it [Speaker 2] (3:45:34 - 3:45:52) the motion is that the planning board votes to approve the plan approval right all right that's it requested by the applicant subject to the findings and conditions of the proposed decision [Speaker 1] (3:45:52 - 3:46:07) that has been prepared by the plan and then the actual um the signing language will have all the references to the zoning bylaw and so forth correct yeah you don't have to reference the [Speaker 2] (3:46:07 - 3:46:14) zoning bylaw when you make your motion right now okay because application was pursuant to [Speaker 1] (3:46:14 - 3:47:31) the zoning bylaw okay so so i moved that the planning board approved the plan um plan approval that's what approval right requested by the applicant subject to the subject to the conditions and what was the other thing findings findings and conditions it's getting late yeah uh conditions mentioned here and is that it well set forth in the decision of the planning board thank you i am not a lawyer so moved okay and um all in flavor we have to do a roll no we need a second second oh second thank you um roll call angela ipolito i jade zucker i i crotia i got ted dooley i phil quinn i okay it's unanimous so um hallelujah well thank you very much as i [Speaker 2] (3:47:31 - 3:47:52) thought through that as i as i said at the beginning i i really do think the process that you guys engaged and improved uh the design and the plans and we were we were delighted to work with the planning board and appreciate all your time and effort thank you all we appreciate [Speaker 4] (3:47:52 - 3:48:00) your time and effort too um and look forward to moving on [Speaker 1] (3:48:03 - 3:48:29) likewise so we'll get this um get this written up and and uh and we'll i'm sure we'll be speaking to you again soon but thank you very much everyone thank you board and can we have a motion to adjourn then motion to adjourn okay great all in favor hey hi okay hi thank you everyone