[Speaker 1] (3:46 - 3:54)
Great. Thank you. Hi, welcome to the town of Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals December meeting.

[Speaker 1] (3:54 - 3:55)
We are going to get started.

[Speaker 1] (3:55 - 4:03)
We have Tony remote and then our fifth member for this petition is away,

[Speaker 1] (4:03 - 4:04)
but she's going to watch the

[Speaker 1] (4:05 - 4:11)
Watch the video. So our first order of business is to approve the minutes from 9-16,

[Speaker 1] (4:11 - 4:12)
10-21,

[Speaker 1] (4:12 - 4:15)
10-28, and 11-18.

[Speaker 1] (4:15 - 4:17)
Can we just have a motion to do I'll that?

[Speaker 2] (4:17 - 4:19)
make a motion to approve those meeting minutes.

[Speaker 3] (4:19 - 4:20)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (4:20 - 4:21)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (4:21 - 4:22)
All in favor?

[Speaker 2] (4:22 - 4:22)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (4:22 - 4:22)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (4:22 - 4:22)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (4:24 - 4:26)
All right, and then we're also going to continue,

[Speaker 1] (4:26 - 4:33)
we're going to skip for right now our second item, we're going to go straight to the petition 2518,

[Speaker 1] (4:33 - 4:36)
which is 80 Periton Road,

[Speaker 1] (4:36 - 4:40)
which is, has requested to be continued to our January meeting,

[Speaker 1] (4:40 - 4:40)
which is,

[Speaker 1] (4:41 - 4:42)
20th,

[Speaker 4] (4:42 - 4:44)
It's January 20th.

[Speaker 1] (4:44 - 4:46)
okay,

[Speaker 1] (4:46 - 4:47)
which is 120.

[Speaker 1] (4:49 - 4:51)
So we just need a motion to continue that.

[Speaker 5] (4:51 - 4:52)
I'll do the motion to continue that.

[Speaker 1] (4:52 - 4:53)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (4:53 - 4:53)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (4:53 - 4:54)
All in favor?

[Speaker 5] (4:55 - 4:55)
I.

[Speaker 2] (4:55 - 4:55)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (4:55 - 4:55)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (4:55 - 4:56)
Excellent.

[Speaker 1] (4:56 - 5:04)
And then petition 25-19 is also requested to be continued to the January 20th meeting.

[Speaker 5] (5:05 - 5:06)
Make a motion to continue that.

[Speaker 1] (5:07 - 5:07)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (5:08 - 5:09)
Then Mark's going to second it.

[Speaker 2] (5:10 - 5:10)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (5:10 - 5:11)
And all in favor?

[Speaker 2] (5:12 - 5:12)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (5:12 - 5:13)
Aye. Excellent.

[Speaker 1] (5:13 - 5:13)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (5:14 - 5:16)
So all the business is done.

[Speaker 1] (5:16 - 5:21)
So now we're going to return to petition 2515,

[Speaker 1] (5:21 - 5:23)
which is 10 New Ocean Street,

[Speaker 1] (5:24 - 5:27)
and the Comprehension of Special Permit for Veterans Crossing.

[Speaker 1] (5:29 - 5:32)
We had a lot of very recent...

[Speaker 1] (5:33 - 5:45)
um information so we're all i i'm not sure how everyone else feels but um i'm still kind of going through it we got a lot of stuff yesterday and today and um and

[Speaker 1] (5:48 - 5:56)
um yeah so there's just definitely a lot to go through so do you want to does someone um want to start

[Speaker 1] (5:57 - 6:03)
with kind of answering or do you want to start with sort of what the concerns were or where should we where would you both like to start on that?

[Speaker 6] (6:03 - 6:04)
Maybe summarizing.

[Speaker 1] (6:04 - 6:10)
Yeah. I mean I can do a quick summary. There were I'm just trying to find my sheet. There.

[Speaker 1] (6:14 - 6:18)
Alright. So there were a lot of concerns about the culvert, number one. About

[Speaker 7] (6:18 - 6:19)
As the meeting started,

[Speaker 7] (6:19 - 6:20)
I can't hear anybody.

[Speaker 7] (6:20 - 6:21)
I think you're still on mute.

[Speaker 1] (6:22 - 6:22)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 8] (6:24 - 6:24)
Thanks for being here.

[Speaker 1] (6:24 - 6:25)
Okay,

[Speaker 1] (6:25 - 6:26)
we're going to wait. We're going to wait tight.

[Speaker 7] (6:27 - 6:28)
Great.

[Speaker 7] (6:28 - 6:28)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (6:32 - 6:33)
Can you hear us now, Tony?

[Speaker 7] (6:33 - 6:34)
Yeah.

[Speaker 8] (6:34 - 6:34)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (6:34 - 6:35)
Oh, great.

[Speaker 1] (6:35 - 6:35)
Excellent.

[Speaker 1] (6:35 - 6:35)
Okay,

[Speaker 1] (6:36 - 6:36)
sorry about that.

[Speaker 7] (6:37 - 6:38)
Yeah, no worries.

[Speaker 8] (6:38 - 6:39)
Good to see you. Good to be here.

[Speaker 1] (6:39 - 6:43)
All right, so as far as...

[Speaker 1] (6:43 - 6:57)
There were a lot of concerns about the culvert and the design of the culvert and I noticed that when we got the responses there was sort of a lot of wait and see like we're gonna these these are problems gonna be solved later on down the line.

[Speaker 1] (6:59 - 7:01)
And as far as I'm concerned,

[Speaker 1] (7:01 - 7:02)
that makes me uncomfortable.

[Speaker 1] (7:03 - 7:10)
Like I want to make sure that we have this stuff straightened out before we move forward with a comprehensive special permit because this is an area where we know there's a lot of flooding.

[Speaker 1] (7:11 - 7:12)
We know when there's flooding,

[Speaker 1] (7:12 - 7:15)
people have sewage in their yards.

[Speaker 1] (7:16 - 7:21)
We know that the sewage and the storm are overworked already.

[Speaker 1] (7:21 - 7:23)
So if we're going to be putting in additional burden,

[Speaker 1] (7:23 - 7:26)
I want to make sure it's all ironed out.

[Speaker 1] (7:26 - 7:47)
this process where we have peer review we have the engineers here to kind of go through that so there's also so there's that those concerns about the culvert definitely some concerns about the sewer and I don't know if anybody wants to highlight the top

[Speaker 1] (7:48 - 7:48)
Things are.

[Speaker 9] (7:48 - 7:49)
Sure.

[Speaker 9] (7:49 - 8:01)
I do have a colleague joining me. Eileen, I don't think she's on yet, but I can certainly get started and Eileen can join me when she joins. But definitely the three utilities we were charged to look at, water,

[Speaker 9] (8:01 - 8:01)
sewer,

[Speaker 9] (8:01 - 8:02)
stormwater.

[Speaker 9] (8:02 - 8:03)
So stormwater,

[Speaker 9] (8:03 - 8:14)
the big item was the culvert relocation. And we talked a lot with Gino and Marcy last week and the week before about kind of the ownership of that project. Does it belong in this?

[Speaker 9] (8:14 - 8:16)
permit? Is it a town-owned project?

[Speaker 9] (8:17 - 8:18)
Should it be on a parallel track?

[Speaker 9] (8:18 - 8:21)
So I think those discussions are still ongoing,

[Speaker 9] (8:21 - 8:23)
but my understanding from Gino, and I think he's online,

[Speaker 9] (8:24 - 8:30)
is that he wants to keep the culvert discussion within the comprehensive permit discussion and not remove it because we

[Speaker 1] (8:30 - 8:30)
had Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (8:30 - 8:31)
talked about

[Speaker 1] (8:31 - 8:31)
I

[Speaker 9] (8:31 - 8:31)
this

[Speaker 1] (8:31 - 8:31)
mean,

[Speaker 9] (8:31 - 8:31)
before.

[Speaker 1] (8:31 - 8:39)
it was definitely brought up on day one of this hearing as far as what would happen with a culvert and it was definitely on the developer's side.

[Speaker 9] (8:40 - 8:41)
the moving of it.

[Speaker 9] (8:41 - 8:41)
Okay.

[Speaker 9] (8:42 - 8:45)
But the town has received some grant funding, I understand,

[Speaker 9] (8:45 - 8:46)
to do it.

[Speaker 9] (8:46 - 8:49)
So to some extent it's going to be a public project,

[Speaker 9] (8:49 - 8:51)
publicly bid project.

[Speaker 9] (8:52 - 8:55)
So that's one of the big stormwater concerns.

[Speaker 9] (8:56 - 9:02)
On the sewer side we had some concerns about the sewer they were tying into on Pine Street is very flat,

[Speaker 9] (9:02 - 9:04)
the existing sewer.

[Speaker 9] (9:04 - 9:06)
The initial tie-in point,

[Speaker 9] (9:06 - 9:08)
so they did, since our discussion,

[Speaker 9] (9:08 - 9:12)
move the tie-in point a little further down to where the slope is greater.

[Speaker 9] (9:13 - 9:20)
So we're going to look at that a little more closely and just ensure that there's enough sewer capacity there to take this additional flow.

[Speaker 9] (9:20 - 9:22)
Because there was some flow calculations done,

[Speaker 9] (9:22 - 9:26)
and true that the last building was, you know, considered light industrial,

[Speaker 9] (9:26 - 9:30)
and there's sewer flow calculations you can do that correspond to light industrial.

[Speaker 9] (9:31 - 9:36)
And this new use actually shows a lower sewer flow if

[Speaker 1] (9:36 - 9:36)
Yeah,

[Speaker 9] (9:36 - 9:38)
you use the categories,

[Speaker 9] (9:38 - 9:42)
but we all know that there was, you know, not a lot going on in that building before,

[Speaker 9] (9:42 - 9:47)
so there is in real life going to be a lot more flow regardless of the use and the calculations.

[Speaker 1] (9:48 - 9:49)
right.

[Speaker 1] (9:49 - 9:52)
Rather than these sort of abstract calculations based on other,

[Speaker 1] (9:52 - 9:59)
you know, it says they were using the 18,000 square foot factory in Massachusetts estimated wastewater.

[Speaker 2] (10:11 - 10:15)
Sure. Sure, and just yeah, true that up. Um so that was kind of our big sewer

[Speaker 2] (10:16 - 10:44)
concern was the tie-in point but they did move it so we're going to look more closely at where they moved it to. And then on the water side the initial plant set had showed a 12 inch main in Pine Street where they were going to tie in and it's actually only a six inch there and GNO has had some breaks on that main and has seen the condition of the main that's not in great shape so we did provide a comment saying you know is it is there enough capacity it's not a 12 inch it's a six inch

[Speaker 2] (10:44 - 10:59)
So those discussions are ongoing. I mean, according to the hydrant flow there is enough capacity, but we know that the the integrity of that main is not great. So um and it's only a six inch. That according to Gina was choked way down just because it's so old.

[Speaker 2] (10:59 - 11:09)
So that's kind of the high level things with the water, sewer and storm water. And um if Aileen comes on she can chime in.

[Speaker 2] (11:10 - 11:14)
But I mean we can start there. I mean there's a lot of details in each one, but

[Speaker 1] (11:14 - 11:14)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (11:14 - 11:17)
those were the kind of the high level things we've been talking about the last couple days.

[Speaker 1] (11:22 - 11:22)
Jacob, you go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (11:24 - 11:29)
Good evening. My name's Jacob Lemieux with Hancock Associates. This on is everyone hearing me okay?

[Speaker 3] (11:30 - 11:56)
uh Civil Engineer on the project, 315 Elm Street in Marlborough, Mass. So uh as far as the culvert goes, we understand that the board wants surety before they move forward in issuing the comprehensive permit that that replacement is going to be able to be done in kind and within the scope of the project, which um is understandable. Uh the reason that

[Speaker 3] (11:57 - 12:09)
Generally, for this type of a design we would ask that the it be conditioned so that we can move past the comprehensive permit stage and get into the

[Speaker 3] (12:09 - 12:13)
stage where we pull in contractors who will do the specific design. So we're

[Speaker 10] (12:13 - 12:13)
g

[Speaker 3] (12:13 - 12:24)
planning on pulling in a company such as Conspan who does ground water culverts and they have all the calculation and design manuals uh to calculate the capacity properly.

[Speaker 3] (12:25 - 12:37)
We can do a preliminary capacity study uh which just shows the amount of flow that that that that section that we're replacing of culvert can handle and that we can replace it.

[Speaker 3] (12:38 - 12:48)
With the sections of culvert shown on the plans and uh mathematically match those capacities, so um we

[Speaker 3] (12:49 - 13:13)
We would not ask that you go forward without surety that the culvert's going to be done as part of the project, but rather that it be conditioned in a way that allows the project to continue and get into that stage with you having a surety that that's going to be done, even if it's as simple as a condition saying it'll be replaced in kind with equivalent flow at a minimum.

[Speaker 3] (13:16 - 13:40)
to rep to be replaced pending peer review and ultimately what generally happens and what we've done over at Elm Place and Swampscott here uh for the previous filings is that we work this plan which is the preliminary plans that shows the feasibility of the project and the waivers that are required for the project. Um the zoning board of appeals will make that could that

[Speaker 3] (13:40 - 13:45)
a comprehensive permit issuance with a condition that um

[Speaker 3] (13:45 - 14:12)
Well, we'll work through each individual condition. So if there are specific conditions like you want uh so many parking spaces or s so much lighting, we can we can work through that. And John and I work through that with you to come up with specific conditions and also some general conditions such as maybe uh conditioning that the um building permit be issued only upon the submittal of a final comp

[Speaker 3] (14:12 - 14:24)
conform plan set to the planning board to I mean to the zoning board to then be peer-reviewed in its finality as it as the design plans rather than just the preliminary schematic plans

[Speaker 3] (14:25 - 14:27)
I think this is a great area to ask Paul about

[Speaker 1] (14:27 - 14:27)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (14:27 - 14:30)
uh his thoughts on those types of conditions.

[Speaker 1] (14:30 - 14:30)
Yeah, because

[Speaker 3] (14:30 - 14:30)
He's

[Speaker 1] (14:30 - 14:31)
in general

[Speaker 3] (14:31 - 14:31)
probably scared

[Speaker 1] (14:31 - 14:33)
this is our this is our time to do the peer review,

[Speaker 1] (14:33 - 14:40)
this is when we have those resources. So the concern about waiting to as a condition of the special permit is will this peer review ever happen.

[Speaker 1] (14:40 - 14:43)
We have we have someone here who is telling us that the engineering,

[Speaker 1] (14:43 - 14:51)
you know, that the concern there's concerns about the two 90 degree angles in this short amount of space and there's, you know, a bunch of other concerns that like I said.

[Speaker 1] (14:52 - 15:02)
we just got a lot of this information, so we're still kind of going through it all, but the response was we'll figure it out along the way or we'll wait and see and that for for some of these things I would love to

[Speaker 4] (15:03 - 15:04)
Right, but I'm also,

[Speaker 4] (15:04 - 15:06)
my understanding with a lot of,

[Speaker 4] (15:06 - 15:17)
I I know from like the Elm Place one that we did, learning that um with if there's something that's a a town-wide problem

[Speaker 4] (15:18 - 15:25)
putting it on the developer to do it. This is different because it's actually on the land that's being used.

[Speaker 1] (15:25 - 15:30)
Yeah, it can't the the town would not be moving this culvert if this project wasn't happening.

[Speaker 1] (15:30 - 15:33)
So the the culvert is being moved to make room for this project.

[Speaker 4] (15:33 - 15:34)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (15:34 - 15:37)
We know there's problems in this area that are long that are have

[Speaker 4] (15:37 - 15:38)
Right, but

[Speaker 1] (15:38 - 15:38)
been I going

[Speaker 4] (15:38 - 15:38)
don't

[Speaker 1] (15:38 - 15:38)
on

[Speaker 4] (15:38 - 15:38)
know

[Speaker 1] (15:38 - 15:38)
a long if time,

[Speaker 4] (15:38 - 15:39)
we can

[Speaker 1] (15:39 - 15:45)
but we are we also know we are we are adding there's that there is going to be huge increase in

[Speaker 1] (15:46 - 15:50)
and strain on these systems that we know can't handle the they can't handle the capacity they have now.

[Speaker 4] (15:50 - 15:50)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (15:50 - 15:56)
So if we're adding adding a strain and not doing any of the infrastructure to support it,

[Speaker 1] (15:57 - 16:00)
it it's gonna be it's gonna cause

[Speaker 4] (16:00 - 16:07)
I'm just wondering about what our what our jurisdiction is here and authority, and I think Paul could really help us out,

[Speaker 2] (16:07 - 16:07)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (16:07 - 16:09)
he probably has a great idea about that.

[Speaker 5] (16:09 - 16:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (16:11 - 16:11)
I call

[Speaker 6] (16:11 - 16:13)
I'm not sure if it's a great idea,

[Speaker 6] (16:13 - 16:15)
but I'm certainly happy to help out.

[Speaker 6] (16:15 - 16:17)
So in the first instance,

[Speaker 6] (16:17 - 16:22)
the board has to issue a decision at the end of this process,

[Speaker 6] (16:22 - 16:24)
and that decision has to encompass everything.

[Speaker 6] (16:24 - 16:28)
You cannot leave for later peer review of any subject.

[Speaker 6] (16:29 - 16:34)
Any peer review that's going to occur has to happen as part of this hearing process.

[Speaker 6] (16:34 - 16:36)
It can't happen afterwards.

[Speaker 6] (16:36 - 16:39)
Now, you can try to craft a decision.

[Speaker 6] (16:40 - 16:48)
that addresses concerns and requires additional information to be submitted with the final plans,

[Speaker 6] (16:48 - 16:48)
because again,

[Speaker 6] (16:48 - 16:57)
the board is ultimately issuing a decision on preliminary plans, not on final plans, so there is some leeway there,

[Speaker 6] (16:57 - 17:00)
but you cannot do a peer review of those final plans,

[Speaker 6] (17:00 - 17:07)
which is to say you can't leave for post permit review.

[Speaker 6] (17:08 - 17:14)
Whether or not the stormwater system is going to adequately function,

[Speaker 6] (17:14 - 17:19)
that has to be determined as part of the review while the hearing is still open.

[Speaker 6] (17:21 - 17:35)
I think that the question as to whether or not the town has some responsibility for addressing this issue or whether it's on the developer is an interesting question. There is certainly...

[Speaker 6] (17:35 - 17:49)
significant amount of Housing Appeals Committee case law that says that the municipality can't require an applicant to be responsible for more than whatever their fair share improvement is.

[Speaker 6] (17:50 - 17:59)
So to the extent that there is some improvement needed anyway irrespective of this project, you can't place it upon the burden of the applicants to make those fixes,

[Speaker 6] (18:00 - 18:07)
but the board certainly can require the applicants to contribute its fair share if they see the appropriate as necessary.

[Speaker 1] (18:09 - 18:10)
Thank you, Paul.

[Speaker 1] (18:10 - 18:11)
That's really helpful.

[Speaker 1] (18:15 - 18:15)
So

[Speaker 1] (18:16 - 18:25)
I mean we can rather than go through all the uh everything one by one, I think that there's um there's a lot there that, like I said,

[Speaker 3] (18:25 - 18:25)
I Mm.

[Speaker 1] (18:25 - 18:31)
don't know if even everyone on this board has digested it yet because it just came in um today, but um

[Speaker 1] (18:31 - 18:41)
I think that my feeling is that a lot of these questions that were brought up by our peer review need to be resolved. They can't just be we'll wait and see. Um I don't think that's fair to the neighbours.

[Speaker 4] (18:42 - 18:43)
Well, that's what Paul's telling us

[Speaker 1] (18:43 - 18:43)
And Paul's

[Speaker 4] (18:43 - 18:44)
too.

[Speaker 1] (18:44 - 18:44)
telling us

[Speaker 4] (18:44 - 18:44)
We don't

[Speaker 1] (18:44 - 18:44)
you we can't

[Speaker 4] (18:44 - 18:44)
don't have

[Speaker 1] (18:44 - 18:45)
do a peer

[Speaker 4] (18:45 - 18:45)
second

[Speaker 1] (18:45 - 18:45)
review.

[Speaker 4] (18:45 - 18:45)
bite at it.

[Speaker 1] (18:45 - 18:50)
Yeah, we don't have an opportunity to do a second peer review. So um

[Speaker 1] (18:52 - 18:58)
So I don't know where you want what you want to do if you want to more thoroughly answer the

[Speaker 1] (18:58 - 19:06)
concerns of the peer review and we can then discuss those answers hopefully we'll have a little more time to digest it before we meet again.

[Speaker 4] (19:09 - 19:18)
My thought on it was that after this meeting we really should have Marzi peer review.

[Speaker 4] (19:19 - 19:29)
Hancock working and perhaps with Paul trying to figure out when all the facts are known as to what we have,

[Speaker 4] (19:29 - 19:44)
what needs to be done, what can be done, and working towards what's an appropriate condition to assure that we'd be able to issue this permit or not at the time that we need to vote.

[Speaker 4] (19:45 - 19:54)
really trying to get the process um on the right track because it seems like there's a lot of moving pieces with public

[Speaker 2] (20:02 - 20:02)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (20:03 - 20:05)
That's why I'm a paper guy, not an engineer.

[Speaker 3] (20:06 - 20:06)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 4] (20:07 - 20:31)
But if I if I may something say something. Uh John Smolak, attorney for the applicant. I guess I I you know, I don't disagree with what Paul had to say and I think it's worth uh further discussion uh in terms of uh you know what needs to be done to resolve that particular issue. But I mean there's also a protection for the town to ensure that the matter is resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit or some other milestone.

[Speaker 4] (20:31 - 20:32)
milestone.

[Speaker 4] (20:32 - 20:45)
And I've been in circumstances where, you know, limited peer review has been done to assure and satisfy that concern in other decisions that I've dealt with.

[Speaker 4] (20:45 - 20:46)
So I'd

[Speaker 1] (20:46 - 20:46)
But

[Speaker 4] (20:46 - 20:46)
like

[Speaker 1] (20:46 - 20:46)
that's

[Speaker 4] (20:46 - 20:46)
to,

[Speaker 1] (20:46 - 20:47)
voluntary,

[Speaker 1] (20:47 - 20:48)
right?

[Speaker 4] (20:48 - 20:48)
that's true.

[Speaker 1] (20:48 - 20:56)
I think that's what Paul is saying is that we could put the condition in, but it really doesn't have any teeth because

[Speaker 1] (20:57 - 21:07)
we can't have it, but if the if the applicant voluntarily says oh yeah we want to make sure this is right and does it, it's it's it's voluntary they can do that.

[Speaker 4] (21:08 - 21:11)
Right. Well, I th you know, certainly we want to resolve this uh

[Speaker 4] (21:11 - 21:39)
And uh, you know, we also have a a situation where where Yeah, we certainly understand the fact that we want to resolve this particular issue on the other hand too, we have uh uh sort of deadlines for filing uh for our uh for the state filing. So so we certainly you know, we certainly have the incentive to uh, you know, resolve this issue and and to perhaps throw some funding toward it for dedicated uh for peer-review and and such that

[Speaker 4] (21:39 - 21:48)
that there would be a a situation where we could have a r a precondition of the issuance of the building permit, the um the sewer matter has to be satisfactorily resolved. Uh

[Speaker 5] (21:48 - 21:49)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1] (21:49 - 21:49)
So

[Speaker 4] (21:49 - 21:51)
uh the satisfaction of the uh

[Speaker 1] (21:51 - 21:52)
What about

[Speaker 4] (21:52 - 21:52)
RFPD? D B D B W_

[Speaker 1] (21:52 - 22:05)
I know I know we have this tight time frame for voting, but I know that the and I understand you have a a time frame for permitting or for looking for different funding.

[Speaker 1] (22:06 - 22:06)
Uh

[Speaker 4] (22:06 - 22:06)
Mm.

[Speaker 1] (22:06 - 22:20)
I don't know where both of those are lining up right now and if perhaps if this issue does continue to present a problem, if the petitioner would extend their time

[Speaker 4] (22:20 - 22:20)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 1] (22:20 - 22:21)
voluntarily

[Speaker 1] (22:22 - 22:27)
for us to act on the comprehensive permit if it looks like everyone's working to try and get this solved.

[Speaker 4] (22:28 - 22:28)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 6] (22:28 - 22:31)
Yeah, we haven't what when do we have until February our February meeting would

[Speaker 7] (22:31 - 22:31)
Yes.

[Speaker 6] (22:31 - 22:32)
be would be when

[Speaker 8] (22:32 - 22:51)
Today we're at day 116 for the permit and then we have until February 19th I think I believe we work that we have the timeline if you just bear with us for one minute because I thought it was February 19th I believe.

[Speaker 8] (22:52 - 22:55)
it yeah it's actually

[Speaker 6] (22:55 - 22:55)
February 18th.

[Speaker 8] (22:55 - 22:57)
yeah that it's actually february 18th

[Speaker 6] (22:57 - 22:58)
18.

[Speaker 8] (22:58 - 23:03)
then that would be 180 days since the sensitive hearing opened up and

[Speaker 8] (23:05 - 23:06)
then we have 40 days after that

[Speaker 9] (23:06 - 23:06)
Madam

[Speaker 8] (23:06 - 23:06)
to finish

[Speaker 9] (23:06 - 23:06)
Chair,

[Speaker 8] (23:06 - 23:06)
you

[Speaker 9] (23:06 - 23:06)
Jim

[Speaker 8] (23:06 - 23:07)
yeah

[Speaker 6] (23:08 - 23:11)
Sorry, who's that coming from? Are you still

[Speaker 8] (23:11 - 23:12)
it's still being

[Speaker 9] (23:12 - 23:12)
Pisnell

[Speaker 8] (23:12 - 23:12)
worked on

[Speaker 9] (23:12 - 23:12)
from

[Speaker 8] (23:12 - 23:12)
or

[Speaker 9] (23:12 - 23:13)
Hancock Associates.

[Speaker 9] (23:15 - 23:18)
I'm also working on the project with Jacob Newman.

[Speaker 9] (23:18 - 23:27)
Um just wanted to kind of offer my my input here with regards to to the process.

[Speaker 9] (23:27 - 23:33)
We understand the concerns with regards to the the three main issues which are the culvert,

[Speaker 9] (23:33 - 23:39)
the water supply and the the sewer.

[Speaker 9] (23:40 - 23:42)
I think we're on we've got we're on top of the sewer.

[Speaker 9] (23:43 - 23:45)
I think some some of the sewer issues

[Speaker 9] (23:45 - 24:03)
In the area Gino can tell you there was a lot of clogged pipes in the area and he's his department has worked diligently to not only clean clear those pipes but also slip line those pipes and when you slip line

[Speaker 9] (24:03 - 24:07)
Sewer, you do increase the the capacity.

[Speaker 9] (24:08 - 24:23)
We've taken the peer-reviewed comments and and moved this move the connection point into I think a pipe with more slope on it and we can continue to work with with the peer reviewers to work that out.

[Speaker 9] (24:23 - 24:26)
So I think we can get on top of the sewer fairly fairly quickly.

[Speaker 9] (24:27 - 24:28)
As was said

[Speaker 9] (24:30 - 24:31)
With regards to the water,

[Speaker 9] (24:31 - 24:58)
um, hydro flow test approximate to the site uh d d you know do show good volume and and pressure. Um we'll continue to work with with Gino on on any concerns that they they he has with regards to the to the age of the pipe. Um but as uh uh as Mr. Haverty said um you know we've gotta separate what might be an existing condition from from something that's um

[Speaker 9] (25:00 - 25:03)
that's formed or caused by the the project itself.

[Speaker 9] (25:04 - 25:14)
With regard to the the culvert, it's important to note that we're not adding any water to this culvert and it has it has a capacity.

[Speaker 9] (25:15 - 25:20)
I think the peer-reviewed team their concern is the introduction of these angles

[Speaker 9] (25:21 - 25:32)
in the culvert to relocate it and the impact that those additional angles will have on the culvert's capacity.

[Speaker 9] (25:33 - 25:41)
It is our design premise here to not decrease the capacity of the culvert.

[Speaker 9] (25:42 - 25:51)
So the way we do that is to make up for the fact that there are these angles which introduce some restrictions,

[Speaker 9] (25:51 - 25:52)
some head losses,

[Speaker 9] (25:52 - 25:56)
is to widen the culvert.

[Speaker 9] (25:56 - 25:58)
We ran some...

[Speaker 9] (25:59 - 26:14)
We were asked to do some preliminary calculations, we just ran those today and it's looking like the that the culvert could be would have to be widened to five or six feet from four feet to to accommodate for that.

[Speaker 9] (26:14 - 26:16)
We can share those preliminary calculations.

[Speaker 9] (26:19 - 26:46)
with the peer review team to to make sure that they're comfortable that that is that is technically possible technically feasible so unlike a stormwater design that might you know that we need to treat stormwater and recharge stormwater and attenuate stormwater this is a fairly simple question which is

[Speaker 9] (26:46 - 26:53)
What's the impact of putting some angle points in this culvert to the capacity?

[Speaker 9] (26:54 - 26:55)
We can answer that,

[Speaker 9] (26:56 - 26:58)
we can get our arms around that.

[Speaker 9] (26:58 - 27:05)
What we're asking the board to consider is to condition the final details of that,

[Speaker 9] (27:06 - 27:12)
which is something that is baked into the 40B process,

[Speaker 9] (27:12 - 27:15)
only requiring preliminary plans.

[Speaker 9] (27:15 - 27:17)
Final plans will detail,

[Speaker 9] (27:17 - 27:22)
you know, physically how the cover will be constructed,

[Speaker 9] (27:22 - 27:31)
but we can answer the question during the process, how do we maintain capacity?

[Speaker 9] (27:31 - 27:39)
How do we make sure that there's no reduction in capacity and therefore there's no change from the existing condition?

[Speaker 9] (27:40 - 27:40)
Again,

[Speaker 9] (27:40 - 27:42)
we're not adding any new water to this.

[Speaker 9] (27:43 - 28:10)
uh cover so it's not a question of of analyzing that it's just a question of analyzing what is the current capacity and what is the capacity of the relocated cover and as long as we prove that they're equal um i think with with pass the test and we can get to that that point of uh of comfort so i think what we're looking to do is is to find

[Speaker 9] (28:11 - 28:39)
um define the level of detail that we need to provide to to get to that comfort point and then as as is the normal process within 40B condition that final plans and details be provided to um provided after the comprehensive permit but prior to prior to the start of construction I will

[Speaker 9] (28:40 - 28:47)
I will challenge Mr. Haverde on his point on period.

[Speaker 9] (28:48 - 28:54)
I've been involved with literally hundreds of chapter 411 reviews across the state,

[Speaker 9] (28:54 - 29:05)
both in capacity as a design engineer but also in capacity as advisor to zoning boards and I've seen countless

[Speaker 9] (29:06 - 29:23)
a comprehensive permits issued that have a peer-reviewed element in it that is post issuance of the comprehensive permit the condition has to be carefully crafted though to not be a subsequent approval but

[Speaker 9] (29:24 - 29:49)
be a peer review to verify that the conditions of the comprehensive permit have been satisfied and that the elevated construction level detail is consistent with the approved preliminary plans and I think that's totally acceptable it's something that at the applicant

[Speaker 1] (29:56 - 30:10)
And it allows your team to stay plugged in as those details are provided. But the big questions...

[Speaker 1] (30:11 - 30:14)
have to be answered as we're still in the process and I think

[Speaker 2] (30:14 - 30:15)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (30:15 - 30:18)
within the next within the next couple weeks we can do that

[Speaker 2] (30:18 - 30:19)
Okay,

[Speaker 2] (30:19 - 30:20)
thank you, Joseph.

[Speaker 2] (30:20 - 30:22)
It sounds like what we have,

[Speaker 2] (30:22 - 30:35)
the responses we have here that are sort of these copy and paste, this will be done further down the road, that you are actually working on those things and so there is more information forthcoming. What we got as a response was basically on C1 through 4,

[Speaker 2] (30:35 - 30:40)
the same copy and paste of this will be figured out down the line, but it sounds like you are working on it.

[Speaker 2] (30:40 - 30:51)
are working on figuring that out now and that you will have more information for us by our next meeting. Hopefully before our next meeting so that we can have time to review it rather than getting it all this last minute.

[Speaker 2] (30:52 - 30:53)
So that sounds good.

[Speaker 1] (30:53 - 30:55)
Before you mentioned it, and Chair,

[Speaker 1] (30:55 - 30:59)
this is, we're evolving on the fly now and hearing your concerns,

[Speaker 1] (30:59 - 31:01)
hearing Mr. Haverty's input,

[Speaker 1] (31:01 - 31:08)
hearing the peer review input and appreciating your concerns.

[Speaker 1] (31:11 - 31:15)
The answers to these questions come forth within

[Speaker 2] (31:15 - 31:16)
Yeah, that's

[Speaker 1] (31:16 - 31:17)
the confines of the public hearing.

[Speaker 2] (31:18 - 31:21)
what we would like. We'd like to have answers to the questions that haven't been answered,

[Speaker 2] (31:21 - 31:23)
and then to,

[Speaker 2] (31:23 - 31:31)
the one that stood out to me was the answer to the question about the sewage capacity.

[Speaker 2] (31:31 - 31:32)
I would really like,

[Speaker 2] (31:32 - 31:34)
the question was.

[Speaker 2] (31:35 - 31:43)
The question was, the proposed housing will significantly increase water, wastewater flow from the land's previous use.

[Speaker 2] (31:43 - 31:49)
Have any studies been performed to determine capacity of the eight inch sewer in Pine Street?

[Speaker 2] (31:49 - 31:52)
And the answer was, there is no increase in capacity.

[Speaker 2] (31:52 - 31:55)
And I think that answer doesn't sit well with us.

[Speaker 2] (31:55 - 32:21)
Um so we really want to answer the question which was have any studies been performed to determine capacity of the eight inch sewer and Pine Street and the and answers to that question we know there's an increase. The answer can't be there is no increase because and if we want to verify that please use please reach out to Town Hall and get the billing for the for those spaces um the the VFW and the garage that was pretty much non-existent.

[Speaker 2] (32:21 - 32:24)
such not news over the past many years.

[Speaker 2] (32:24 - 32:25)
So that

[Speaker 1] (32:25 - 32:26)
Well, not

[Speaker 2] (32:26 - 32:27)
would be the way to kind of answer

[Speaker 1] (32:27 - 32:28)
yet,

[Speaker 2] (32:28 - 32:28)
that question.

[Speaker 1] (32:28 - 32:32)
but from the standpoint of...

[Speaker 1] (32:33 - 32:41)
When the sewers were put in the streets and what the flows were at one time, that's it. But today,

[Speaker 1] (32:41 - 32:46)
to understand the capacities of the sewer,

[Speaker 1] (32:46 - 32:59)
we would have to do something similar to what we did on the wind project and do flow monitoring and then understand what the peaks in that sewer are.

[Speaker 1] (33:00 - 33:13)
To then understand what what capacity is what capacity is remaining in that in that system and how does our how does our added capacity so it's not really something

[Speaker 1] (33:16 - 33:23)
that we could do you know with within this time frame so it's similar to win

[Speaker 1] (33:24 - 33:32)
That was conditioned post-permanent that that study be done and that we prove that the capacity is there.

[Speaker 1] (33:33 - 33:35)
And what the developer,

[Speaker 1] (33:35 - 33:44)
the risk the developer bore at that time was having to increase that, the size of that pipe.

[Speaker 1] (33:44 - 33:49)
Should the study find that there is insufficient capacity.

[Speaker 2] (33:50 - 33:51)
But we then run into the situation

[Speaker 1] (33:51 - 33:51)
Because

[Speaker 2] (33:51 - 33:51)
where we

[Speaker 1] (33:51 - 33:52)
of the time,

[Speaker 2] (33:52 - 33:56)
we may not be able to peer review that study,

[Speaker 2] (33:56 - 33:57)
which we would like to do.

[Speaker 2] (33:57 - 33:59)
So that's why we'd like it to be done before.

[Speaker 1] (34:01 - 34:11)
well, what I'm saying is that that's what happened on the wind project that was done after the issuance of the comprehensive permit,

[Speaker 1] (34:11 - 34:13)
essentially.

[Speaker 1] (34:16 - 34:33)
The information that's gathered at that time is what is the peak flow in the sewer and the available capacity is a fairly simple calculation.

[Speaker 1] (34:34 - 34:39)
And at that time, Gina was comfortable in reviewing that and saying,

[Speaker 1] (34:40 - 34:43)
okay, there's still capacity here.

[Speaker 1] (34:43 - 34:44)
And in that case,

[Speaker 1] (34:44 - 34:48)
we didn't have to increase the size of the bond.

[Speaker 1] (34:49 - 34:53)
But if just the flow monitoring itself.

[Speaker 1] (34:54 - 35:14)
takes takes six weeks so I think for us to engage somebody to go out there you know we're talking we're talking well beyond February to be able to do that and I think it is appropriate as it was and when to to condition

[Speaker 2] (35:16 - 35:22)
Um I mean if there if we don't have time to do all these things in the length of time and we need to have an extension then we need to have an extension.

[Speaker 2] (35:22 - 35:41)
This this neighbourhood is very different. This there is we there are known issues, there's known capacity issues. And so if we don't document them now um and then document what the added flow is, I mean the the neighbours have a right to have a a it's a concern about the added

[Speaker 2] (35:42 - 35:43)
flow to any capacity of these

[Speaker 1] (35:43 - 35:44)
And,

[Speaker 1] (35:44 - 35:46)
Madam Chair,

[Speaker 1] (35:46 - 35:54)
I'm not suggesting that we are not going to do our due diligence and make sure that there is no detrimental impacts.

[Speaker 1] (35:54 - 36:00)
I'm just talking about the timing on that study,

[Speaker 1] (36:00 - 36:02)
not trying to avoid the study,

[Speaker 1] (36:02 - 36:04)
not trying to avoid the subject,

[Speaker 1] (36:04 - 36:06)
we're just trying to.

[Speaker 1] (36:07 - 36:32)
um trying to work with with within the time and it was as it said it was it was appropriate to to do that post issuance of the comprehensive permit on on when and I and I see no difference I think if we could hear from from from Gino on this I think some of the prior problems

[Speaker 1] (36:33 - 36:55)
in the neighborhood where the sewer was was due to the clogging and that has been rectified and many of the lines have been slip line so on that that's the first step I'm not saying that that's the only step where we will commit to do the study and commit to

[Speaker 1] (36:58 - 37:08)
To improve the infrastructure should it be found that our projects entered into an overcapacity situation.

[Speaker 3] (37:12 - 37:14)
And if I may add,

[Speaker 3] (37:14 - 37:17)
and add to Joe's comments,

[Speaker 3] (37:17 - 37:20)
I think that it's perfectly reasonable to

[Speaker 3] (37:20 - 37:45)
uh proceed on on the basis of of what Joe suggested, uh even if it is a post-decision because you're we're not gonna get a building permit unless the s the town is satisfied as to that capacity. So so I think there is a protection there for the f for the town and and and again we're not trying to skirt anything, we're just trying to sort of uh sort of extend the conceptual

[Speaker 3] (37:46 - 37:56)
plans into a final stage such that the board feels satisfied going forward that all these matters will be resolved prior to a shovel in the ground or pulling a building permit.

[Speaker 4] (37:57 - 37:57)
Hmm.

[Speaker 2] (37:57 - 38:12)
Well, I think that there's a lot of questions that haven't been answered yet, so I think we're a little premature with this conversation. Um I'm hoping that we have a better response to the peer review um so that we can discuss it further. Um and I'd like to hopefully meet

[Speaker 2] (38:12 - 38:30)
y um when when you're meeting so that I can kind of hear where we're at along the process between now and next meeting, so that we have time to kind of say what um what I personally think we I'm only one person on this board but what I would need um to feel more comfortable. Because I think at this point um

[Speaker 2] (38:31 - 38:46)
There's just not there this isn't a great response to our peer review. Um it's not thorough enough. It's not it has just has too much weighting. But it sounds like that stuff you're working on um and everything's happening trying to you know happen very quickly. Um I don't know if anybody

[Speaker 5] (38:46 - 38:46)
Should we else hear from

[Speaker 2] (38:46 - 38:46)
has that.

[Speaker 5] (38:46 - 38:48)
Gino that suggestion about

[Speaker 5] (38:49 - 38:50)
the issues and then that are existing?

[Speaker 2] (38:53 - 38:56)
Sure, Gino. Are you there?

[Speaker 2] (38:58 - 38:59)
He's here in name.

[Speaker 1] (38:59 - 39:00)
I am. Can you hear me?

[Speaker 2] (39:00 - 39:01)
Hi, Gino.

[Speaker 1] (39:01 - 39:02)
Yep, I'm hearing you.

[Speaker 1] (39:02 - 39:02)
Hello,

[Speaker 2] (39:02 - 39:03)
So do

[Speaker 1] (39:03 - 39:03)
Mariah.

[Speaker 2] (39:03 - 39:12)
you have anything to add to the, I mean, at this point there hasn't been a flow study or a flow monitoring of that culvert, so,

[Speaker 2] (39:12 - 39:13)
I mean, sorry,

[Speaker 2] (39:13 - 39:19)
of that sewer drain on Pine Street, but do you have anything to add about what you do know about that drain?

[Speaker 1] (39:19 - 39:20)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (39:21 - 39:44)
Well one thing I can do I can't unequivocally state that we have resolved the sewage issue fall on Pine Street but what I can tell you is we've made significant improvements by removing all the debris that we had built up in that main over probably the last hundred years we did put line the mains I am confident that we have made progress however

[Speaker 1] (40:02 - 40:12)
So once they, we come up with a design for relocating the drain pipe going through the property and we move all the bends, I'm comfortable with that problem,

[Speaker 1] (40:13 - 40:20)
well there isn't a problem that we're not adding any capacity to that. So we should be in good shape with that preliminary design,

[Speaker 1] (40:20 - 40:22)
although I'm still waiting to see the final design.

[Speaker 2] (40:25 - 40:25)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (40:29 - 40:31)
Does anybody else on the board have questions about

[Speaker 4] (40:31 - 40:31)
Nope.

[Speaker 3] (40:31 - 40:31)
the

[Speaker 1] (40:31 - 40:32)
I agree with

[Speaker 3] (40:32 - 40:32)
peer review?

[Speaker 3] (40:33 - 40:33)
Mm-mm.

[Speaker 3] (40:36 - 40:53)
All right. So I feel like we have a lot we need a lot more information at this point. Um and we can hopefully review some of it between now like a lot sooner than the day before the meeting so that we can all kind of have questions and have time for you to actually respond to those questions before the meeting so we're not um

[Speaker 3] (40:55 - 40:57)
running down the clock. 'Cause I know that's a big issue.

[Speaker 3] (40:58 - 41:18)
Um and um I d also wanna open up to public c to the public comment to see if anybody has any questions we're you've listened to this and we're working on it. Hopefully this was enough for you, and we're going we this conversation isn't ending today. So if if that makes you comfortable, we can go to okay, thank you.

[Speaker 3] (41:19 - 41:20)
Um

[Speaker 3] (41:20 - 41:25)
And then is there anybody who is online who has a question they can use their raise their hand button.

[Speaker 3] (41:37 - 41:50)
Alright is there anything else? Oh Paul, I was wondering there's there's a um there was a new um sorry a new list of waivers. Do you have that?

[Speaker 5] (41:52 - 41:52)
Now?

[Speaker 3] (41:52 - 41:53)
Yep.

[Speaker 5] (41:53 - 41:54)
Yep, okay,

[Speaker 5] (41:54 - 41:54)
sorry.

[Speaker 5] (41:55 - 41:57)
I did get that in.

[Speaker 5] (41:57 - 41:59)
opportunity to review again.

[Speaker 3] (41:59 - 42:10)
I have not either, so um if that's something if you if you don't mind reviewing and and then sharing comments comments that we can then share with the board so we all can can look at that, that would be great. Um

[Speaker 5] (42:10 - 42:18)
Certainly um and I can actually get going on drafting the decision, if you would like, or I don't mean I don't know when you wanted me to begin doing that.

[Speaker 6] (42:18 - 42:22)
I I think that's a great idea. I know you might think it's premature, but it's such a short time frame

[Speaker 3] (42:23 - 42:25)
Yeah yeah, no that fine, that's fine.

[Speaker 6] (42:25 - 42:25)
the s

[Speaker 3] (42:25 - 42:26)
So start working on that, that would be great. And we

[Speaker 3] (42:26 - 42:27)
And we can,

[Speaker 3] (42:27 - 42:27)
um.

[Speaker 5] (42:27 - 42:40)
But it might be, and I do just want to respond to Joe Pizzano's comments as it relates to the timing and the sort of the ability to do a post-permit peer review.

[Speaker 5] (42:41 - 42:46)
So the decision that the Wheelie Controls is Aid,

[Speaker 5] (42:47 - 42:49)
Board of Appeals of Aid's very versus Housing Appeals Committee.

[Speaker 5] (42:50 - 42:51)
And in that decision,

[Speaker 5] (42:51 - 42:53)
the Supreme Judicial Court.

[Speaker 5] (42:54 - 43:19)
determined that a board of appeals when issuing a comprehensive permit has to make all decisions that are required for all local permits at the time that they're issuing a permit so you can't delay an approval to post permitting so that's sort of where I was coming from and saying that you really you can't do a peer review post permit in the sense that

[Speaker 5] (43:21 - 43:29)
Once you issue your decision the approval has already been issued. So if you come up with a peer review that states that something you know doesn't work,

[Speaker 5] (43:29 - 43:33)
there's nothing you can do because you've already issued the permit.

[Speaker 3] (43:33 - 43:33)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (43:33 - 43:44)
That being said there is certainly a fair amount of leeway to create you know conditions that don't require the applicant to fully design.

[Speaker 5] (43:45 - 44:01)
during the approval process and instead require post-permit so some of these issues with regards to whether there is sufficient sewer capacity well if the issue is whether or not they need to make upgrades to the municipal infrastructure

[Speaker 5] (44:02 - 44:08)
Um, that potentially could be resolved through conditions, you know, in your decision to state,

[Speaker 5] (44:08 - 44:12)
yes, we are approving a connection to the municipal sewer system,

[Speaker 5] (44:12 - 44:13)
however,

[Speaker 5] (44:13 - 44:15)
the final plans have to depict,

[Speaker 5] (44:15 - 44:22)
you know, that there will be adequate capacity and if not, what upgrades are necessary, you know, to create that additional capacity.

[Speaker 5] (44:23 - 44:26)
So there are ways of handling it where you can...

[Speaker 5] (44:27 - 44:34)
Make your decision, have that decision be, m solidified, but still dependent upon s you know, additional information.

[Speaker 3] (44:35 - 44:36)
Great, thank you.

[Speaker 5] (44:37 - 44:37)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (44:37 - 44:52)
Um I think the I do I I would want the capacity to be and I know you said it's a six week process, but if you know that it's a six week process, it should probably be starting, 'cause I think that's an important thing to do. Um

[Speaker 3] (44:53 - 44:55)
So I I would recommend doing it.

[Speaker 7] (44:55 - 44:55)
Sorry,

[Speaker 3] (44:55 - 44:55)
The

[Speaker 7] (44:55 - 44:55)
I didn't.

[Speaker 3] (44:55 - 44:56)
full capacity.

[Speaker 7] (44:56 - 44:57)
The full capacity, yes.

[Speaker 3] (44:57 - 45:13)
Yeah, I would recommend doing it. I know you said it's a six-week process, but it probably should probably should have started it four weeks ago then. But I think that should be a priority because I wanna know if we need upgrades to our um I wanna be able to condition that, but I also would like to know if we s if we see upgrades needed

[Speaker 7] (45:13 - 45:13)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 3] (45:13 - 45:15)
um and not have that be a surprise.

[Speaker 3] (45:16 - 45:16)
Oh.

[Speaker 5] (45:16 - 45:26)
We certainly want to make sure and assure the board that whatever we're going to do is going to be conditioned such that the board feels satisfied that we're going to be able to resolve those capacity issues.

[Speaker 5] (45:27 - 45:32)
One other item I did want to mention is that coming into this evening I was going to volunteer to draft the decision.

[Speaker 5] (45:33 - 45:42)
Attorney Haverty is I guess already drafting it, but if the board would allow between now and the next hearing for myself to have a discussion.

[Speaker 5] (45:42 - 45:47)
have a discussion with uh uh with Paul uh about the uh contents of the decision and waivers.

[Speaker 6] (45:47 - 45:47)
Right.

[Speaker 5] (45:47 - 45:49)
we'd be happy to try to

[Speaker 5] (45:50 - 45:58)
sort of uh deal with those details uh and bring something more final to the board for the next meeting if we are able to resolve these other issues in advance as well.

[Speaker 3] (45:59 - 46:05)
Yeah, that's fine. Um I think we I think everyone here everyone in this board needs to look at those list of waivers and make

[Speaker 6] (46:05 - 46:05)
Right,

[Speaker 3] (46:05 - 46:06)
sure we

[Speaker 6] (46:06 - 46:06)
right,

[Speaker 3] (46:06 - 46:06)
can agree.

[Speaker 6] (46:06 - 46:07)
but letting them collaborate

[Speaker 3] (46:07 - 46:07)
Collaborate

[Speaker 6] (46:07 - 46:08)
on a is decision

[Speaker 3] (46:08 - 46:09)
helpful.

[Speaker 6] (46:09 - 46:09)
I think is great.

[Speaker 3] (46:09 - 46:10)
Yeah, yeah.

[Speaker 5] (46:12 - 46:13)
Come on.

[Speaker 3] (46:16 - 46:19)
Any other questions, concerns?

[Speaker 8] (46:19 - 46:19)
Not for me.

[Speaker 3] (46:19 - 46:27)
No, alright. Um we will continue this to our next meeting. Um I am also not against scheduling

[Speaker 3] (46:29 - 46:32)
meetings with the whole board if the board's available um.

[Speaker 3] (46:33 - 46:49)
That are separate from our regular monthly meeting because I Mm. know that we want to get this done and we w and so if if there's a bulk of information that we have time to sit and review and we think we should discuss it publicly um uh you know I'm I'm not against that. I I've done that before with four D projects.

[Speaker 9] (46:49 - 46:49)
Oh.

[Speaker 3] (46:49 - 46:55)
Um especially when there's a full docket just to get it not with everybody else but luckily it's been pretty light. But

[Speaker 9] (46:55 - 46:55)
But I think we

[Speaker 3] (46:55 - 46:55)
um

[Speaker 9] (46:55 - 46:59)
have to give them additional information we were that they're going to be looking for.

[Speaker 9] (46:59 - 46:59)
So

[Speaker 3] (46:59 - 46:59)
Did

[Speaker 9] (46:59 - 47:00)
let's make

[Speaker 3] (47:00 - 47:00)
you have a question?

[Speaker 9] (47:00 - 47:01)
progress.

[Speaker 9] (47:02 - 47:20)
Yeah, so would it make sense to have a progress meeting or would it make sense uh with the board or for internally for the the peer review and and Hancock to progress um in the next two weeks and have a have a meeting you you mentioned that you would also like to participate,

[Speaker 3] (47:20 - 47:20)
Would

[Speaker 9] (47:20 - 47:20)
would that

[Speaker 3] (47:20 - 47:20)
yeah.

[Speaker 9] (47:20 - 47:21)
be a bo would that be a joint

[Speaker 3] (47:21 - 47:22)
Well, we can't have the whole board there

[Speaker 9] (47:22 - 47:23)
or is unless that okay?

[Speaker 3] (47:23 - 47:26)
it's a public meeting. So I could go um but we can't we couldn't all go

[Speaker 5] (47:26 - 47:26)
We

[Speaker 3] (47:26 - 47:26)
otherwise.

[Speaker 5] (47:26 - 47:29)
can keep it important so that we can all understand sort of the lo

[Speaker 11] (47:29 - 47:37)
what level we need to bring the design to where the board feels comfortable that they're covered by whatever conditions are in the contracts.

[Speaker 9] (47:37 - 47:38)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (47:38 - 47:38)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 9] (47:38 - 47:41)
Yep. And I just just this I do think this particular

[Speaker 3] (47:43 - 48:07)
area of town is more sensitive when it comes to water capacity, sewage, and then we've got the culvert on top of it. I don't think it's this it can be well it's the same as another project it's just not this this neighborhood is very unique in the issues that they've had and adding to the capacity is something we have to really think about a lot so I just want to make sure that

[Speaker 3] (48:08 - 48:11)
Um that's why uh we might be seeing this differently than we saw another

[Speaker 6] (48:11 - 48:11)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (48:11 - 48:12)
project.

[Speaker 6] (48:12 - 48:21)
But my but my understanding is they the what we have for authority is only if they are making it worse than the existing condition

[Speaker 5] (48:21 - 48:21)
Mm.

[Speaker 6] (48:21 - 48:31)
do we have the ability to condition it and make them make improvements, but if it's a system-wide problem that we have

[Speaker 3] (48:32 - 48:34)
I that I yeah no I very I understand that but

[Speaker 6] (48:34 - 48:35)
It's

[Speaker 3] (48:35 - 48:35)
if that this

[Speaker 6] (48:35 - 48:36)
proportionate share of

[Speaker 3] (48:36 - 48:36)
the proportionate

[Speaker 6] (48:36 - 48:36)
that.

[Speaker 3] (48:36 - 48:53)
share exactly and when we like I said when we look at the answer to um I think it was S_ one um I think that answer needs to be fleshed out as to what the actual change is because because common sense says something different than what this says. So um

[Speaker 6] (48:53 - 48:53)
Yep.

[Speaker 3] (48:53 - 48:58)
we need to make sure that that's so that then we have that documented. Alright we have a

[Speaker 3] (48:58 - 49:00)
So we will continue this to our

[Speaker 9] (49:01 - 49:01)
Um

[Speaker 6] (49:01 - 49:01)
January 20th.

[Speaker 3] (49:01 - 49:03)
January twentieth meeting.

[Speaker 6] (49:03 - 49:05)
I'll make a motion to continue to January 20.

[Speaker 9] (49:05 - 49:06)
I'll second it.

[Speaker 3] (49:07 - 49:07)
All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (49:07 - 49:07)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (49:07 - 49:08)
All in favor?

[Speaker 9] (49:08 - 49:08)
Aye.

[Speaker 3] (49:09 - 49:10)
Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 6] (49:11 - 49:13)
I'll make a motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 9] (49:13 - 49:13)
Okay.

[Speaker 9] (49:14 - 49:14)
Second.

[Speaker 3] (49:14 - 49:14)
Second.

[Speaker 9] (49:15 - 49:15)
Second it.

[Speaker 3] (49:15 - 49:15)
All

[Speaker 6] (49:15 - 49:16)
Alright.

[Speaker 3] (49:16 - 49:16)
in favor?

[Speaker 6] (49:16 - 49:16)
Aye.

[Speaker 5] (49:16 - 49:17)
I.

[Speaker 9] (49:17 - 49:17)
Thanks.

[Speaker 3] (49:17 - 49:17)
Thanks.

[Speaker 6] (49:19 - 49:19)
Alright.