[Speaker 1] (5:58 - 6:17) Thank you. I welcome everybody to our January meeting of the Swampscott Zoning Board of Appeals. We have two quick things to take care of before we get to the first thing on our agenda, and that's we're going to skip to number three, which is Petition 2518, [Speaker 1] (6:17 - 6:22) which has made a request to continue to our February 10th meeting. [Speaker 1] (6:23 - 6:25) Let me just get a motion to continue. [Speaker 2] (6:25 - 6:27) I'll make a motion to continue to February 10th. [Speaker 1] (6:27 - 6:28) Give me a second. [Speaker 3] (6:28 - 6:28) Second. [Speaker 1] (6:28 - 6:29) All in favor? [Speaker 2] (6:29 - 6:29) Aye. [Speaker 1] (6:29 - 6:30) Aye. [Speaker 3] (6:30 - 6:30) Aye. [Speaker 1] (6:30 - 6:32) All right. So they are continued. [Speaker 1] (6:32 - 6:35) And then we also have petition 2519, [Speaker 1] (6:35 - 6:37) which is for, [Speaker 1] (6:37 - 6:40) has requested to withdraw their petition without prejudice. [Speaker 1] (6:41 - 6:42) And get a second. [Speaker 2] (6:42 - 6:48) I'll make a motion to allow petition 2519 to withdraw without prejudice. [Speaker 4] (6:48 - 6:49) Second. [Speaker 1] (6:49 - 6:50) All in favor? [Speaker 3] (6:50 - 6:50) Aye. [Speaker 2] (6:50 - 6:51) Aye. [Speaker 1] (6:51 - 6:51) Aye. [Speaker 1] (6:51 - 6:51) Excellent. [Speaker 1] (6:52 - 6:56) All right, so that's set. We're going to do our meeting. We're going to do our um [Speaker 1] (6:56 - 7:01) minutes at the next meeting because we just got this packet today so we're going to skip that and [Speaker 2] (7:01 - 7:02) Okay. [Speaker 1] (7:02 - 7:03) approve them at the next meeting. [Speaker 1] (7:04 - 7:23) Alright so we are here to move forward with the petition 25-15 which is VBH Veterans Crossing and we have had a busy month there's been a lot going on and if we just kind of how we got here last meeting. [Speaker 1] (7:24 - 7:48) Um we had our first set of peer review from um from the town-hired engineers and we had a quick sort of um response to that. We had at our last meeting asked for more and since then there's been a lot of back and forth between the engineers with response and um and um our peer review as well. So my question is if we could have [Speaker 1] (7:49 - 8:09) If it's possible for um our engineer team to kind of go through and see just you've read their most recent response and if and we have um but we don't have a written kind of acknowledgement from you of that so far and I just wanted to go through and see if there's things that you see are still open and things that you see as closed. [Speaker 1] (8:10 - 8:14) And I'm gonna try to get my document so that I can follow along. [Speaker 1] (8:17 - 8:20) Is that are you ready to do that? If you're not, that's that's yeah. Okay. [Speaker 1] (8:32 - 8:32) Yep. [Speaker 1] (8:32 - 8:34) Okay, do you need a microphone? Do you have a microphone? [Speaker 5] (8:34 - 8:34) I have a microphone. [Speaker 1] (8:34 - 8:34) Or mic? [Speaker 5] (8:34 - 8:36) Okay, guys, didn't know if we need [Speaker 6] (8:36 - 8:37) Do you have to push it? Push? [Speaker 1] (8:37 - 8:39) No, if it's lit, then [Speaker 5] (8:39 - 8:39) You're [Speaker 1] (8:39 - 8:39) you don't. [Speaker 5] (8:39 - 8:39) good, [Speaker 1] (8:39 - 8:39) Okay. [Speaker 5] (8:39 - 8:39) okay. [Speaker 1] (8:39 - 8:39) Okay. [Speaker 1] (8:39 - 8:40) Yeah. [Speaker 5] (8:43 - 8:44) We reviewed the [Speaker 1] (8:46 - 9:12) flow capacity calculation for the culvert and the culvert relocation and our concern was with adding in bends to maintain the hydraulic capacity of the culvert so the applicant has changed the layout to add in less severe bends I would say so less energy loss and also increase the width of the culvert [Speaker 1] (9:13 - 9:14) Um [Speaker 1] (9:16 - 9:27) it's um it checks out, it's just I I don't know if it's um I don't know if there's a cost, you know, if costs cha I'm sure there will be a cost increase, but um if there's been a [Speaker 1] (9:30 - 9:33) thing with that, um it's [Speaker 1] (9:34 - 9:36) seems to the final [Speaker 1] (9:37 - 9:38) the final calculation [Speaker 7] (9:39 - 9:52) I didn't see anything that was missing that was taking into account 'cause uh the previous ones I um would ask about, you know, what this head loss or energy loss would be. So um [Speaker 7] (9:54 - 9:56) that seems, you know, that [Speaker 7] (9:56 - 9:59) it can work. It's going into Pine Street now. [Speaker 1] (10:24 - 10:25) crossing utilities and such. [Speaker 1] (10:26 - 10:35) I would think that there are going to be impacts and that the slope may change and there'll have to be adjustments as the [Speaker 1] (10:36 - 11:01) design proceeds because this is like say 30 percent design the other plans are closer to more like 90 percent you know but the culvert design is like a preliminary design layout so I would think that it's going to be adjusted as it moves on to final design because it's you're going to find out more information and changes are going to have to be made with that [Speaker 1] (11:02 - 11:20) So there is a more recent plan. The one on the screen now is is one iteration back. So there there w I think that's the one thirteen plan. But there was a one fifteen um that I think is what Heather's talking about. We haven't commented on the one fifteen drainage um diagram, right? That's not [Speaker 2] (11:20 - 11:20) the No. [Speaker 1] (11:20 - 11:22) most recent up there. The red, there's [Speaker 2] (11:22 - 11:22) No, [Speaker 1] (11:22 - 11:22) one that's after [Speaker 2] (11:22 - 11:23) the one that's, [Speaker 1] (11:23 - 11:23) that, [Speaker 2] (11:23 - 11:23) yeah. [Speaker 1] (11:23 - 11:23) right. [Speaker 1] (11:24 - 11:24) It's [Speaker 3] (11:24 - 11:25) Um [Speaker 1] (11:25 - 11:25) basically [Speaker 3] (11:25 - 11:26) just so we're all talking about the same thing. [Speaker 1] (11:26 - 11:51) Yeah. When I looked at that one, I think there was a little misunderstanding of which angle I had um identified as being greater than forty five. So I just called, you know, the engineer Jacob to just let him know to clarify which one so then he made an adjustment to add in other smaller angles. So now I think there's [Speaker 1] (11:53 - 11:53) four [Speaker 3] (11:53 - 11:54) Officially so. [Speaker 1] (11:54 - 11:58) or so it's that the north [Speaker 1] (11:59 - 12:19) you know it's by the corner of the VFW the east corner that in that the way it's shown that angle is not that's greater than 45 degrees so that was the one I was referring to in the comment so that's since been corrected and then in the most recent schematic [Speaker 3] (12:22 - 12:23) Okay, I don't think we have that here. [Speaker 1] (12:27 - 12:28) Oh, I don't think it was submitted. It was [Speaker 1] (12:29 - 12:29) It was [Speaker 3] (12:29 - 12:29) That was [Speaker 1] (12:29 - 12:29) not [Speaker 3] (12:29 - 12:38) back and forth with you, but it hasn't been submitted. Okay, that that's fine. That happened. So um that will be if you could just send that over s um so that Yeah. uh Krista can get that up, [Speaker 1] (12:38 - 12:38) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 3] (12:38 - 12:39) so that we can all look at it. [Speaker 3] (12:40 - 12:46) And then as far as a profile, it's I think there was one of my comments was requesting a profile um [Speaker 3] (12:47 - 13:04) and it was said oh it's been submitted, but that's that's not there's no profile there. A profile would be like um or describe it. You're showing the elevation like a a like almost like a cross-section of the proposed pipe and you show the [Speaker 1] (13:06 - 13:19) the grade the it's like following the contours of the proposed pipe and then any intersecting pipes um you're gonna have things that you cross so that's as the design advances um [Speaker 1] (13:19 - 13:22) that's my understanding that that would be done in the future. [Speaker 1] (13:22 - 13:23) Okay. [Speaker 4] (13:24 - 13:27) Is it op is it okay if I chime in or just [Speaker 1] (13:27 - 13:27) Sure. [Speaker 4] (13:27 - 13:27) wait? [Speaker 1] (13:27 - 13:27) Sure. [Speaker 4] (13:27 - 13:31) Yeah, so Jacob Lemieux-Hancock, Associate Civil Engineer on the project. [Speaker 4] (13:31 - 13:59) So I the idea with the design as it moves forward once we've got the existing culvert excavated we'll go in and inventory all the existing crossings and the field existing conditions of any pipes that are in the way of the culvert and that's when the design would progress to the level of you know up to construction level design would be with those existing [Speaker 4] (14:01 - 14:06) impediments in the ground taken into account with the actual field locations of them all documented. [Speaker 4] (14:07 - 14:26) And then we would move forward based on that with the design. So right now the design is based off of manhole inlets and interpolation between elevations from the top of the culvert where we excavated it and survey and survey located it and [Speaker 4] (14:27 - 14:47) I think in order to really see in order to create an accurate profile that's going to give you any more information that is shown on the site plan there, we need to have that exposed and get the locations on any of those utilities that are in the way before we can really address that or show it basically. [Speaker 1] (14:49 - 14:50) For the [Speaker 3] (14:55 - 14:59) Okay, I'm I'm talking about profile for the prop like the proposed route, but the um [Speaker 4] (14:59 - 14:59) Right. [Speaker 3] (14:59 - 15:00) yeah, not the existing. [Speaker 4] (15:00 - 15:20) Well, well, that's what I mean is when we've got the I at the site excavated for the existing and the proposed uh that's when we'll be able to locate that. So we're gonna excavate down in the location of the new proposed culvert as well as loc location of the existing culvert to expose both of those things. [Speaker 4] (15:22 - 15:48) And we Hancock Associates, we've been speaking with Gino and we will be the ones or at least extensively now will be the ones that are the civil engineers of record on the design for the culvert moving forward. So we have a scope of work that incorporates, you know, all the structural design and the final design documents that are all stamped, 100% design drawings. [Speaker 4] (15:50 - 15:55) And that will be processed as part of the grant project. [Speaker 4] (15:55 - 16:04) So design for the, or the construction design for the culvert is included in the grant application for the one-stop money. [Speaker 4] (16:04 - 16:08) So that is a part of the project even past this point. [Speaker 4] (16:09 - 16:11) And I think talking to Gino, [Speaker 4] (16:11 - 16:14) his approach to this is that we would retain. [Speaker 4] (16:15 - 16:35) the same peer review staff to peer review the plans as we go along and obviously we don't have that information now, but when in order for us to get the grant money or in order for us to actually start the project, the town will need to request the grant money and they'll have to have bids, [Speaker 4] (16:35 - 16:42) so they'll have to have final pricing for the culvert to pull in those bid money, [Speaker 4] (16:42 - 16:42) so. [Speaker 4] (16:43 - 17:08) Basically, the town won't even be able to start the project until they have the money required to fund the project. So even if there's any overages or any additional design that needs to be finalised, uh they first of all will need to be a hundred percent funded. So the project can't go forward until the culverts replaced and the culvert can't re be replaced until it's funded, and it can't be fund Whoa. [Speaker 4] (17:10 - 17:37) And it can't be funded until we until we get to the point where we can start getting bids and I think that in order to do that we need to get past this point and we need to get the project going under the town's scope in the DPW jurisdiction because obviously we have incentive to get that project moving along and finished as quickly as possible which [Speaker 4] (17:37 - 17:43) we'll do uh because otherwise our project's not going to be able to move forward on on time. So um [Speaker 4] (17:44 - 17:55) The review of this and I know we've talked about conditioning this, but we don't necessarily I think need to condition a peer review of this after this. I think that [Speaker 4] (17:56 - 17:58) it's Gino's call is Gino on here? [Speaker 4] (18:01 - 18:01) No. [Speaker 5] (18:01 - 18:01) No. [Speaker 6] (18:05 - 18:06) If I if I may add [Speaker 7] (18:06 - 18:06) Yes, [Speaker 6] (18:06 - 18:07) something, [Speaker 7] (18:07 - 18:07) go ahead. [Speaker 6] (18:07 - 18:09) Madam Chair, I'm sorry, [Speaker 6] (18:09 - 18:11) John Smolak, attorney for the applicant. [Speaker 6] (18:11 - 18:17) What we're suggesting is that the design that's progressed so far [Speaker 6] (18:18 - 18:24) is generally typical of what we see, and maybe it's more advanced than what we usually see at this stage for a forty B project. [Speaker 6] (18:25 - 18:44) And uh this design is going to be advanced uh but it is part of a uh separate town project that's going to be under the jurisdiction of the town to as as uh Jacob had indicated to to bid out and to before it's bid out, it has to be desi finally designed. And um [Speaker 6] (18:44 - 19:06) I know that the board may or may not have seen the draft of the decision, but there's a provision within that decision that provides for both the fact that this project cannot proceed with a building permit until such time as that culvert is relocated. So that means designed, bid out, and constructed. [Speaker 6] (19:06 - 19:25) And so from that perspective that the town is protected and also as Jacob had indicated there is there would be peer review of that design as well that would be undertaken and that's accounted for under the grant funding that Hancock had prepared on behalf of and the applicant had prepared on behalf of the town so so [Speaker 6] (19:27 - 19:36) So what I'm saying is is is simply that uh this covered project is is in uh although it's an important project it's something that's being undertaken separately by the town. [Speaker 6] (19:36 - 19:54) And certainly we we can provide further design information as that design progresses, but that would be part of a separate uh process uh be on this this process here. And the other condition that's within the decision is the fact that we've accounted for uh overage in terms of funding in the event that uh [Speaker 1] (20:10 - 20:10) So I just [Speaker 2] (20:10 - 20:10) Understood. [Speaker 1] (20:10 - 20:11) want to yeah. yep. [Speaker 2] (20:11 - 20:18) Yeah. The the cover has to move obviously can't build the building. You you'd have to build a different building if you weren't going to move the cover. So the cover has to move. [Speaker 2] (20:20 - 20:32) I think there's still a lot of gray area as to how the culvert's gonna move and where it's gonna be and what the final look of this culvert is going to be. But the reality is it has to move outside the footprint of the building, [Speaker 2] (20:32 - 20:33) has to have the ten foot clearance. [Speaker 2] (20:34 - 20:41) All of these things are gonna be part of the decision. But the because the town has applied for the grant money, [Speaker 2] (20:41 - 20:45) the town will be the one taking on, the town will be the one getting bids. [Speaker 2] (20:46 - 21:00) to actually do the work. So it makes things complicated unfortunately because obviously this culvert is only moving for this project. If this project wasn't happening this culvert would not be moving, the town wouldn't have decided to take this on on their own. It's simply for this project to make this building. [Speaker 2] (21:01 - 21:11) the size it is and the location it is, but um it's added a layer of complication because of that. But um, but that being said, like you said, you can't build a building without moving it. So [Speaker 1] (21:12 - 21:12) Right. [Speaker 2] (21:12 - 21:18) and it will be, and I think we can we've talked I've talked to Paul a little bit, and I think we can talk more on how the wording of that condition [Speaker 1] (21:18 - 21:18) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 2] (21:18 - 21:25) um is included so that um it's clear and um [Speaker 1] (21:25 - 21:30) And I will say just on the back end as well, as that design is advanced, [Speaker 1] (21:30 - 21:42) and if there's any substantive change from what is sort of depicted on the plans, we'd have to come back to the board for a determination of any change, so so it's it's it's daylighted in terms of whatever is being proposed as the final design. [Speaker 2] (21:44 - 21:44) Alright. [Speaker 2] (21:45 - 21:52) Is there anything else on the culvert that you would like to know before that you still feel like you need information on, are we sort of okay? [Speaker 3] (21:53 - 22:09) No, no I think them that I need to go back to your original question about what's open after our last round of comments. I would say the the bulk the bulk of our comments were on the culvert, and that's what we've been discussing mostly the last times we met. Um and then I think the only big other open issue is the water main. [Speaker 2] (22:10 - 22:10) Right. [Speaker 3] (22:10 - 22:11) Right. Um [Speaker 2] (22:11 - 22:20) Yeah. I mean w sorry, one thing just to clarify, the profile would be developed as part of the engineering design documents that would be bid upon. It wouldn't be when it's [Speaker 3] (22:20 - 22:21) getting constructed. [Speaker 4] (22:21 - 22:22) Sure, yeah. [Speaker 3] (22:22 - 22:23) Just to clarify that. [Speaker 2] (22:23 - 22:23) Right. [Speaker 3] (22:23 - 22:23) But [Speaker 2] (22:23 - 22:27) Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So that would be part of the design process [Speaker 4] (22:27 - 22:27) The bit [Speaker 2] (22:27 - 22:28) that [Speaker 4] (22:28 - 22:28) there. [Speaker 2] (22:28 - 22:34) would not involve you this is information that could be discerned without excavation is what you're saying. [Speaker 3] (22:35 - 22:35) Right. It's [Speaker 2] (22:35 - 22:35) It's [Speaker 3] (22:35 - 22:36) part of the design. [Speaker 2] (22:36 - 22:37) It's part of the design. [Speaker 3] (22:37 - 22:37) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (22:37 - 22:38) It's not part of the construction. [Speaker 3] (22:38 - 22:40) Yeah, I mean you might need to get more field information, [Speaker 3] (22:40 - 22:44) but um you so that might require some more test fits, but you would be [Speaker 2] (22:46 - 22:48) designing it. I mean sure the s the slope [Speaker 3] (22:48 - 22:48) Oh yeah. [Speaker 2] (22:48 - 22:59) would I don't know, but I you know it I maybe they have enough information now, but it would be just to clarify from before it's um it's that's the design. Well, Martie, I think we need to get going, I'm sorry. [Speaker 3] (22:59 - 22:59) It's open. [Speaker 2] (22:59 - 22:59) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (22:59 - 22:59) Oh. [Speaker 2] (22:59 - 23:03) Sorry. Um [Speaker 2] (23:06 - 23:10) So okay, so so the um so that's good clarification that [Speaker 3] (23:10 - 23:10) Yeah, and then [Speaker 2] (23:10 - 23:30) this I mean there's been I think there's I think there's that we uh definitely have a little bit of a disagreement as to how much could have been done now and how much um should be done later. I think there might be a little bit of a disagreement there um but what we have is what we have at this point and we're going to try to do our best with the information that's been provided to us to make to move forward and um [Speaker 2] (23:30 - 23:39) trust that because this culvert does have to move, it has to be engineered, it has to be bid on um by um for the town to spend the money to move it, [Speaker 2] (23:39 - 23:45) that we are um that there is a lot of more checks coming down the line um [Speaker 2] (23:46 - 23:50) that the fact that we don't have all the information information we wish we had at this point, [Speaker 2] (23:50 - 23:52) we will be gathering it as we go. [Speaker 2] (23:54 - 24:06) And I just also wanna can you just talk a little bit about the um about the flow um the sewer flow study because that was other another thing that came up last meeting that I just wanna make sure that we talk publicly about as far as what everything was. [Speaker 2] (24:07 - 24:08) Yeah. Um [Speaker 3] (24:08 - 24:08) Sure. [Speaker 2] (24:08 - 24:15) we we looked at the um recorded sewer flow results and it looks like they're um [Speaker 2] (24:16 - 24:36) Was it like an inch or three inches high in the sewer at peak flow, the highest? Um so pretty low flow, so there is there wasn't a storm event, a significant storm event in the time, I think there was like what was it like a uh less than an inch or something, but um but even looking at the area that's flowing to the sewer in Pine Street, [Speaker 2] (24:36 - 24:42) uh it's not like there's a lot you know there I didn't count up the lots, but it's not [Speaker 2] (24:43 - 24:54) a huge amount. It's just two different pipes flowing into it. Um the sewer has been lined, which really increases the capacity. I don't know what this what caused previous [Speaker 2] (24:54 - 25:11) problems and if it was in this back neighbourhood behind Pine Street, but as far as the um sewer metering, it seems like there's capacity in the sewer for the for the new flows, especially tying in after the manhole instead of um [Speaker 2] (25:12 - 25:15) before like was originally shown um so [Speaker 3] (25:15 - 25:15) Okay, so we [Speaker 2] (25:15 - 25:15) we move [Speaker 3] (25:15 - 25:16) moved the the [Speaker 2] (25:16 - 25:16) tile [Speaker 3] (25:16 - 25:16) tie-in [Speaker 2] (25:16 - 25:16) of it [Speaker 3] (25:16 - 25:16) for [Speaker 2] (25:16 - 25:17) instead [Speaker 3] (25:17 - 25:17) the [Speaker 2] (25:17 - 25:17) of [Speaker 3] (25:17 - 25:20) sewer to be lower than to be after the manhole. [Speaker 2] (25:21 - 25:35) Yeah 'cause originally it was shown tying into like a really flat sewer um that flows back to Erie Street, but it that was corrected in the second that, you know, in response to a comment. Um so as far as the m sub [Speaker 2] (25:36 - 25:40) sewer metering goes, it shows that there's capacity, not [Speaker 3] (25:40 - 25:40) that Yeah. [Speaker 2] (25:40 - 25:45) location. And we're continuing to monitor that mon monitor that flow hoping that we get some sort of [Speaker 5] (25:45 - 25:45) rain Yeah, [Speaker 2] (25:45 - 25:45) event. [Speaker 5] (25:45 - 25:46) we've [Speaker 2] (25:46 - 25:46) I [Speaker 5] (25:46 - 25:46) got [Speaker 2] (25:46 - 25:46) mean [Speaker 5] (25:46 - 25:56) the uh both the flow monitors still in and the rain gauge still in at the D_P_W_ So, as soon as we get a uh sufficient rain event, we'll share the results of that. [Speaker 2] (25:57 - 25:57) Okay, thank you. [Speaker 2] (26:00 - 26:02) Alright, and then the other was the um water main, [Speaker 3] (26:02 - 26:03) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 2] (26:03 - 26:03) right. [Speaker 2] (26:04 - 26:04) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (26:06 - 26:12) Originally the plan showed a 12 inch which was just an error on the plan. [Speaker 2] (26:12 - 26:22) So it's actually a six inch water main in Pine Street at this location and I don't feel comfortable. [Speaker 2] (26:23 - 26:37) You know it's an old six inch, um typically new mains are all minimum eight inch. Um I don't feel comfortable saying that that's okay, for even though the fire flow availability is there. So that's just my comment. [Speaker 2] (26:38 - 26:50) So that's something that we can condition to replace that. I know that Hancock had some thoughts as to and we have not reviewed we reviewed that's that sort of secondary. So [Speaker 5] (26:50 - 27:00) Yeah, we have a potential alternative connection to New Ocean, but Gino needs to review that with the town records to check into what the condition of that main is in New Ocean. [Speaker 2] (27:02 - 27:26) Okay, so I guess we'll kind of wait on that to see what Gino and and our peer review think of that other that alternate, but if there's if if we can't come up with an alternate, that's a um condition as far as upgrading that to be um either upgrading that to be the eight inch or having money aside to upgrade it when um Gino does the upgrade for that area. [Speaker 2] (27:27 - 27:28) Kind of works. [Speaker 5] (27:28 - 27:36) Is that something that's unique to this project that's causing the need for the upgrade to the 8-inch, or is it a town-wide issue? [Speaker 5] (27:36 - 27:38) It seems to be a town-wide issue. [Speaker 5] (27:39 - 27:45) I mean, I think that in terms of obviously we have flow capacity, we've done the hydro flow testing, [Speaker 5] (27:45 - 27:48) you know, I guess. [Speaker 5] (27:49 - 28:01) hat doesn't isn't commenting on the condition of the pipe. I've heard that there haven't been that many issues, but then I've also heard that there have been issues from uh peer reviews. So um [Speaker 2] (28:02 - 28:06) I think the b I think the idea the the peer review thought is that um [Speaker 2] (28:07 - 28:13) that you wouldn't put a f forty plus unit building on a six inch for fire reasons, [Speaker 6] (28:13 - 28:14) Right, but [Speaker 2] (28:14 - 28:14) because [Speaker 6] (28:14 - 28:18) there there's case law I mean you could we could ask Paul about it about that type of condition. [Speaker 5] (28:18 - 28:26) If we're permitted, I know there's case law from other projects I'm familiar with when we had it with the last 40B. [Speaker 5] (28:28 - 28:34) Paul, can I ask you about that, about this upgrade of the water pipe off-site? [Speaker 5] (28:34 - 28:39) If that's something we can properly, we have jurisdiction to condition here. [Speaker 7] (28:42 - 28:44) If he, can you... [Speaker 5] (28:44 - 28:44) Oh. [Speaker 7] (28:45 - 28:49) Give me a little bit of a better background as to what the type of condition would be. [Speaker 7] (28:49 - 28:52) What would be the nature of the condition? [Speaker 2] (28:52 - 28:56) Well, the request would be that the main in Pine Street, [Speaker 2] (28:56 - 28:57) the six inch main, [Speaker 2] (28:57 - 29:02) be replaced with an eight inch to increase the flow capacity to the new building. [Speaker 5] (29:02 - 29:05) Well, the contention seems to be that it's a six inch pipe, [Speaker 5] (29:05 - 29:09) but I personally, I don't really see. [Speaker 5] (29:09 - 29:11) How that's an issue if we know we have flow, [Speaker 5] (29:11 - 29:20) I mean obviously it'd be great if the town had upgraded water pipes everywhere in the town to eight-inch, but this is what's existing here. [Speaker 5] (29:21 - 29:23) Unless there's some sort of [Speaker 5] (29:24 - 29:30) condition of this pipe that's outstanding other than what Gino has said, I don't [Speaker 5] (29:31 - 29:37) I don't see why there's a reason we can't tie a six-inch pipe into another six-inch pipe if we know we have the flow capacity. [Speaker 1] (29:38 - 29:49) If I may add to that, I think Member Koroniski was was hitting it right on the head. Uh the question is uh if this is a uh a uh line that has deferred maintenance. [Speaker 1] (29:50 - 30:18) As opposed to something being unique to this project, is this project causing the problem with the with the waterline or is it just a matter of general long term capital maintenance or improvements that need to be undertaken. So I guess the case law the case law is differentiates as to what what the applicants obligation is. I don't want to speak for uh Paul but I'll let him speak to that issue. It's a again it's a question of whether w we're obligated to replace that entire line or [Speaker 1] (30:18 - 30:27) or or provide sort of the sh our share of the cost uh to upgrade that line based on the amount of flow that we're adding to it [Speaker 2] (30:27 - 30:27) Yeah, connection [Speaker 1] (30:27 - 30:28) among all the [Speaker 2] (30:28 - 30:28) fees [Speaker 1] (30:28 - 30:28) uh [Speaker 2] (30:28 - 30:33) for the townhouse, I and I fees as well for the sewer. Oh right, I and I, yeah. [Speaker 3] (30:33 - 30:34) Yeah, [Speaker 2] (30:34 - 30:35) Do you follow along, Paul? [Speaker 4] (30:37 - 30:40) I'll probably agree with attorney Smolak that [Speaker 4] (30:40 - 30:48) The board is limited in imposing a condition to requiring the applicant to fund its fair share of any upgrade. [Speaker 4] (30:48 - 30:58) It can't require the applicants to fund the full upgrade for something that is not solely needed for the benefit of their project. [Speaker 5] (31:00 - 31:08) Well, I guess it it depends on how that's how that's viewed. If um the risk of kind of fire safety for this particular building is great enough that [Speaker 2] (31:08 - 31:10) I just I don't see if that that there's a risk there. [Speaker 4] (31:10 - 31:22) Well, that that's the analysis that's going to need to be taken is really to what extent is what's being requested necessary for this project and to what extent it's really addressing a greater need. [Speaker 4] (31:24 - 31:24) And to confirm, [Speaker 4] (31:25 - 31:29) the flow tests that were conducted show that you don't need any fire pumps or anything like [Speaker 2] (31:29 - 31:29) Right, [Speaker 4] (31:29 - 31:30) that, that you have [Speaker 2] (31:30 - 31:30) you [Speaker 4] (31:30 - 31:30) the [Speaker 2] (31:30 - 31:30) have [Speaker 4] (31:30 - 31:30) pressure. [Speaker 2] (31:30 - 31:32) plenty of water pressure and flow. [Speaker 2] (31:33 - 31:42) So I think the entire contention is just that it's a six inch tying into a six inch and we're not comfortable with that, but I don't know why. [Speaker 5] (31:43 - 31:59) With Vicki Messoni with VM Consulting, the town's peer reviewer, there is a history of breaks there, and Geno's actually seen the inside of the main and the condition of the inside of the main, it's severely tuberculated and choked down. So the old building there was taking something like 250, [Speaker 5] (32:00 - 32:00) maybe, [Speaker 5] (32:00 - 32:02) gallons of water per day. [Speaker 5] (32:02 - 32:05) This new building is taking something like [Speaker 5] (32:06 - 32:08) four thousand five hundred gallons [Speaker 4] (32:08 - 32:08) Yeah [Speaker 5] (32:08 - 32:17) per day. So a prolonged extended use on a name like that could be what it's gonna take to compromise it. And then Genome owns it. [Speaker 5] (32:18 - 32:23) So we're trying to protect the town's best interests going forward from the impacts of this building. [Speaker 5] (32:23 - 32:25) That's where we're coming from. [Speaker 2] (32:25 - 32:29) And I think in, I would say that Gino already owns it, right? [Speaker 2] (32:29 - 32:31) It's an existing town line. [Speaker 2] (32:31 - 32:35) If we're just going to say that because we're using the water line, [Speaker 2] (32:35 - 32:37) eventually it's going to wear down faster. [Speaker 2] (32:38 - 32:39) I mean, you could say that about anything. [Speaker 2] (32:40 - 32:41) You could say that about the roadway. [Speaker 2] (32:42 - 32:55) about the sidewalks, I mean, we're using it, so it's going to inc increase the wear to some degree, but it's not going to compromise the entire pipe just because we're tying our project into it s all of a sudden. [Speaker 2] (32:56 - 32:58) If the flow is there, the flow is there. [Speaker 2] (32:58 - 33:06) And the condition of the pipe, I mean I think that Gino needs to um needs to chime in on that. [Speaker 2] (33:07 - 33:09) uh a little more clearly. [Speaker 5] (33:09 - 33:22) Yeah. And I will say our our common only asks for the upgrade to Erie Street. So it's really just the block that the that the building's gonna be on. So their buil their building will be the primary user, that section I mean, and then the the handful Yeah, it's not [Speaker 2] (33:22 - 33:23) of a house [Speaker 5] (33:23 - 33:23) to upgrade [Speaker 2] (33:23 - 33:23) of this. [Speaker 5] (33:23 - 33:33) the whole neighbourhood. It's literally just to get from Erie to New Ocean. No Ocean I mean from No Ocean to um the project. So however many houses are on the other side, it's not that many. [Speaker 5] (33:33 - 33:34) Yeah, it's it's very [Speaker 5] (33:34 - 33:35) small portion [Speaker 2] (33:35 - 33:36) It's a substantial amount of work. [Speaker 5] (33:36 - 33:37) to upgrade. [Speaker 6] (33:37 - 33:37) Hmm. [Speaker 2] (33:37 - 33:40) To upgrade the water line of the street, close down the street, [Speaker 2] (33:41 - 33:44) cat or cut and temporarily cap [Speaker 5] (33:44 - 33:44) Well [Speaker 2] (33:44 - 33:44) all [Speaker 5] (33:44 - 33:44) that's why [Speaker 2] (33:44 - 33:44) the [Speaker 5] (33:44 - 34:00) there's also the option that when when we've talked about when Geno is doing this project and we talked about this in a meeting with you putting money aside for for the the portion of the project that falls under. [Speaker 5] (34:01 - 34:19) um under the responsibility of this development and the town taking on the responsibility of the remainder of the upgrade so that any of the would be done during wouldn't be necessarily um developers responsibility to um [Speaker 5] (34:21 - 34:22) you know, time and plan that repair, [Speaker 5] (34:23 - 34:28) there would be a repair that the town was doing on a larger scale of the neighbourhood, but there'd be funds set aside [Speaker 2] (34:28 - 34:28) What [Speaker 5] (34:28 - 34:28) to [Speaker 2] (34:28 - 34:35) what what what is the if you done the calculation for what the tie-in costs are for the I&E that we have [Speaker 2] (34:35 - 34:38) It's all I've got. I don't have that on top of my head. [Speaker 1] (34:39 - 34:42) But there may be a work around also if we're [Speaker 5] (34:42 - 35:04) Yeah, and there also may be a work around that hasn't been reviewed yet. So I think both these things should be are s I think all these options are on the table, the the developer actually doing the upgrade, the funds being set aside for the town to do the upgrade, um when they do them, and the possibility of the tying in further down and not actually touching that six inch pipe at all. Um those are three options that are on the table right now that we need to kind of work out. [Speaker 5] (35:04 - 35:04) workout. [Speaker 5] (35:11 - 35:14) Is there anything else from you? Thank you so much. [Speaker 7] (35:14 - 35:14) I think so. [Speaker 5] (35:15 - 35:24) Um all right, next I wanted to go through um a portion of the draft decision so that [Speaker 5] (35:29 - 35:30) Um [Speaker 5] (35:32 - 35:43) So Paul if you don't mind going through it with us um you know what we don't have the waivers right now if you could go through the waivers um and um [Speaker 5] (35:44 - 35:46) uh Christy if you can put those up for us. [Speaker 5] (35:51 - 35:56) You can kind of go do the waivers first and then do the conditions is that good Paul or would you rather do the opposite? [Speaker 4] (35:57 - 35:59) But either way, it's fine with me. [Speaker 5] (35:59 - 36:00) All right. [Speaker 4] (36:05 - 36:06) them just one by one? [Speaker 5] (36:07 - 36:19) Well, I guess anything that there were a couple that I had some had had some questions on that I had asked you earlier that we might want to just discuss in front of everybody so that everybody's clear and then. [Speaker 5] (36:24 - 36:28) Anything else that you think should be clear to both residents and the board? [Speaker 2] (36:29 - 36:38) Not to interrupt, but just so the board is aware, I do have copies of the stuff that we had submitted, so if anybody wants a copy, um, [Speaker 2] (36:38 - 36:39) I can give that to them. [Speaker 5] (36:39 - 36:43) Okay, thank you so much. Of the um app [Speaker 2] (36:43 - 36:46) Just the plans and the reports and everything [Speaker 5] (36:46 - 36:46) Oh, [Speaker 2] (36:46 - 36:47) that was okay. submitted with this last submittal. [Speaker 5] (36:47 - 36:48) Okay, great, thank you. [Speaker 5] (36:52 - 36:53) So yeah, we didn't So talk about [Speaker 4] (36:57 - 36:58) Just let me know when you're ready for [Speaker 5] (36:58 - 36:58) Sorry, [Speaker 4] (36:58 - 36:58) me. [Speaker 5] (36:58 - 36:58) yeah. [Speaker 5] (37:09 - 37:10) Yeah, I'm ready for you. [Speaker 5] (37:10 - 37:11) Thank you. [Speaker 4] (37:12 - 37:13) Thank you. [Speaker 4] (37:13 - 37:19) So there are basically two different types of waivers that an applicant will request. [Speaker 4] (37:19 - 37:23) The first is what I call procedural waivers. [Speaker 4] (37:24 - 37:30) And those are waivers that request relief from other permitting requirements in the town. [Speaker 4] (37:31 - 37:43) And those are technically not waivers that need to be granted or requested because a comprehensive permit is a master permit that subsumes all other local permitting processes in the town. [Speaker 4] (37:43 - 37:45) So for instance, [Speaker 4] (37:45 - 37:48) looking at this particular waiver list, [Speaker 4] (37:48 - 37:49) if you want to just scroll down. [Speaker 4] (37:50 - 37:53) to the first group of waiver requests and [Speaker 4] (37:55 - 38:17) here sections two and three about excavation of a public street away trend safety and this is says it's what's required is written permission from the director of public works and again a comprehensive permit is all local permits necessary so that written permission is not necessary [Speaker 4] (38:17 - 38:30) So generally what my recommendation to a board in that circumstance is to deny the waiver request as unnecessary because it's a comprehensive permit that subsumes all of the local permitting processes. [Speaker 4] (38:31 - 38:43) Then we could also add in the fact that any of the safety requirements of whatever particular entity would generally oversee this must be met and you can have [Speaker 4] (38:44 - 38:50) administrative sign off by those groups as part of your post permit process so [Speaker 5] (38:50 - 38:51) Okay. And sorry, [Speaker 4] (38:51 - 38:52) while you wouldn't necessarily [Speaker 5] (38:56 - 39:02) just one quick question. Would that be, would that sign off process or that, that sort of [Speaker 5] (39:05 - 39:16) Just reminder, I mean it's it's the reminder that yes all the safety things have to be followed would that be under the waiver list or that be then put back into the conditions list or into the original special permit? [Speaker 4] (39:17 - 39:21) It generally I would take care of it in the waiver list. [Speaker 4] (39:22 - 39:23) That being said, [Speaker 4] (39:23 - 39:27) if there is any particular provision that you are concerned, [Speaker 4] (39:27 - 39:29) you know, you want to make an emphasis about, [Speaker 4] (39:30 - 39:33) you can absolutely refer it back and include a specific condition. [Speaker 5] (39:35 - 39:44) Alright, so so sections so the first two are things that you would say were would be denied because they're unnecessary because they're already part of the comprehensive special. [Speaker 2] (39:47 - 39:49) In the same for Section 4, [Speaker 2] (39:49 - 39:49) again, [Speaker 1] (39:49 - 39:49) Okay. [Speaker 2] (39:49 - 39:54) select board approval for obstruction of a public street or sidewalk, [Speaker 2] (39:54 - 39:58) that's a local permit that's granted as part of this process. [Speaker 1] (39:58 - 39:58) Okay. [Speaker 1] (39:59 - 39:59) And [Speaker 2] (39:59 - 40:00) But then again, [Speaker 2] (40:00 - 40:08) you can have administrative review and assurance that they're complying with any safety requirements. [Speaker 2] (40:11 - 40:24) So again, you can have the director of public works review the final plans and provide feedback and instructions as it relates to the blocking of public streets and sidewalks. If [Speaker 1] (40:25 - 40:26) Okay. [Speaker 1] (40:28 - 40:28) That makes sense. [Speaker 3] (40:29 - 40:30) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 2] (40:31 - 40:33) And if you want to scroll down, [Speaker 2] (40:33 - 40:35) same thing. [Speaker 2] (40:38 - 40:42) That's a permit that would be part of the comprehensive permit. [Speaker 2] (40:44 - 40:47) So we did talk about the historic district. [Speaker 2] (40:49 - 40:52) We have a request earlier today and the question is whether that is necessary. [Speaker 2] (40:53 - 41:02) I don't know if we've gotten a response yet in terms of whether this constitutes a historic building and whether the demolition delay would be applicable. [Speaker 4] (41:05 - 41:05) Madam [Speaker 1] (41:05 - 41:05) I [Speaker 4] (41:05 - 41:06) Chair, if I may [Speaker 1] (41:06 - 41:06) Mm-hmm. [Speaker 4] (41:06 - 41:29) respond to that. Um we we the only information that we have is from the assessments card and that assessments card suggests the building was constructed in ninety three. So it wouldn't be si uh one criterion is that the building must be at least seventy five years old. So it probably isn't required. We just wanna double check to see if that information from the assessments office is accurate. [Speaker 1] (41:29 - 41:30) Is correct, yeah. Alright, thanks. [Speaker 1] (41:32 - 41:42) So in most it most likely does not need to be there, although um that is something that if it if it was residual and hung on, it wouldn't doesn't really affect anything. Um [Speaker 2] (41:44 - 41:52) But and again that would be a procedural waiver which would actually issue the demolition delay determination as part of this decision. [Speaker 1] (41:53 - 41:53) Okay. [Speaker 2] (42:00 - 42:03) Get Earth Removal requires a permit from the Select Board. [Speaker 2] (42:04 - 42:08) The citizens that permit would be granted by the Board of Appeals, [Speaker 2] (42:08 - 42:10) so this is a procedural waiver again. [Speaker 2] (42:21 - 42:22) Stormwater management. [Speaker 2] (42:24 - 42:27) I don't see a specific [Speaker 2] (42:27 - 42:40) Um, so if the stormwater permit that they're looking for relief from looks like it's again a procedural waiver from the requirement to obtain separate approval. [Speaker 2] (42:41 - 42:43) In terms of the stormwater, I don't know if [Speaker 4] (42:43 - 42:43) Yeah. [Speaker 2] (42:43 - 42:45) you agree with that or not. [Speaker 4] (42:46 - 42:46) Well, [Speaker 4] (42:46 - 42:50) what I would suggest is that we take a closer look at that. [Speaker 4] (42:51 - 42:54) What I will say is that just as an overall point, [Speaker 4] (42:55 - 43:01) Um when when this board was reviewing the Elm Place project, um I drafted those waivers. [Speaker 4] (43:02 - 43:18) And um and what's being suggested is modified uh it's it's a matter of s I guess matter of style as to how s how you approach it. But uh all these waivers that uh were just identified in a few going forward were were granted as [Speaker 4] (43:18 - 43:42) very substantially similar to to what we had proposed. That's why we styled these waivers in this because we felt that the board would feel that that would be consistent with its prior decision. But um in terms of uh attorney Haverty's approach, we could we could work work on that and um it appears that the storm water management by-law does follow the DEP storm water standards. [Speaker 4] (43:42 - 43:54) and uh and some standards under the uh federal U_S_C_P_A_ NPDES construction permit, so we'll just have to reconfirm on that to see whether it's actually uh something that we need to waive. [Speaker 1] (43:55 - 43:59) Okay, 'cause the um the D_E_P_ stormwater management standards can't be waived. [Speaker 1] (44:00 - 44:00) Oh the bio [Speaker 4] (44:00 - 44:00) Correct. [Speaker 1] (44:00 - 44:01) I mean so [Speaker 4] (44:01 - 44:06) We're going to have to comply with those, with the wetlands order of conditions through the commission or otherwise. [Speaker 4] (44:07 - 44:07) And [Speaker 1] (44:07 - 44:12) So it's just if our standards are somehow different from that from theirs and you just want to confirm that okay that makes sense. [Speaker 4] (44:12 - 44:21) And actually the federal standards wouldn't be applicable here except to the limited extent that was mentioned in terms of total phosphorus. [Speaker 5] (44:22 - 44:22) Yeah. [Speaker 4] (44:22 - 44:24) And that will just have to... [Speaker 4] (44:25 - 44:33) have that discussion and get back to you on that otherwise we're less than an acre in size in terms of disturbance so that federal permit would otherwise be required [Speaker 2] (44:37 - 44:49) Next waiver is the same thing tree bylaw this board is acting as the tree warden and require industry of approval by the tree warden post permit as part of the process [Speaker 1] (44:51 - 44:54) We've talked extensively about the tree situation in these meetings. [Speaker 4] (44:54 - 44:56) And the town owns all the trees on the property, [Speaker 4] (44:57 - 44:57) so [Speaker 1] (44:57 - 44:58) Yeah, they're all town-owned trees. [Speaker 2] (45:04 - 45:07) So the next waiver looks like it is a substantive waiver. [Speaker 2] (45:07 - 45:14) So this is the type of waiver that is actually requesting specific relief from specific provisions of your bylaws. [Speaker 2] (45:15 - 45:18) So in this instance, it's a use. [Speaker 2] (45:19 - 45:24) Waiver that would absolutely be necessary in order for the project to proceed. [Speaker 2] (45:25 - 45:31) So this is the type of waiver that would generally be granted if the board is granting an approval with conditions. [Speaker 2] (45:33 - 45:37) Same for the next one as well on the use requirements. [Speaker 2] (45:46 - 45:47) Next one is [Speaker 2] (45:47 - 45:48) accessory uses. [Speaker 2] (45:50 - 45:58) And again, this is a substantive provision to allow the applicants to construct the project as proposed on the plans. [Speaker 2] (45:59 - 46:04) They've identified the specific waivers that they're looking for so this seems appropriate. [Speaker 2] (46:13 - 46:20) Table of dimensional requirements, so they've provided what the requirements are in the list of whether waivers are necessary or not. [Speaker 2] (46:20 - 46:23) So no waiver of minimum lot area, [Speaker 2] (46:23 - 46:28) no waiver of minimum frontage, waiver of maximum building height, [Speaker 2] (46:29 - 46:32) no waiver of minimum open space, [Speaker 2] (46:32 - 46:34) no minimum of front yard. [Speaker 2] (46:35 - 46:53) setback there's no side yard setback requirements and rear from 20 feet to 17.7 feet for the rear yard and a waiver of maximum building coverage from 30 percent to 37 percent and again all these waivers would be necessary for them to be able to move forward as proposed so [Speaker 1] (46:53 - 46:53) Yep. [Speaker 2] (47:00 - 47:01) manager if you want to continue [Speaker 2] (47:03 - 47:06) like this or if there's specific ones that you want to touch on? [Speaker 1] (47:07 - 47:25) Well, there's a couple specific ones. Um the the one I mean, I do think it's helpful to sort of have everybody know what's being waived and and um have the public know what's being waived as well. Um the the lighting requirement we talked about um and that was something that we we believe [Speaker 1] (47:26 - 47:50) is unnecessary in the sense that they're not actually in violation of our our lighting um bylaw, but if there uh there there was maybe some debate that that there might be a couple lights that are going on to the public way, but not on to any houses, I just want that to be very specifically um laid out in our final decision what what relief is being asked for and what relief is not not needed. [Speaker 4] (47:51 - 47:51) Ma Madam Chair. [Speaker 2] (47:51 - 47:55) Alright, so there's that so that particular waiver request can be carried back significantly. [Speaker 1] (47:56 - 47:56) Yes. [Speaker 4] (47:58 - 47:58) Um [Speaker 1] (47:58 - 47:58) And [Speaker 4] (47:58 - 48:09) yeah, I just I just wanted to mention just something quickly in terms of building height. The um the z the zoning by-law measures building height by whether it's a flat roof or whether it's a uh [Speaker 4] (48:11 - 48:22) bit sort of a peaked roof and so what we want to do is is get confirmation with the building commissioner as to how building height would be measured in this particular circumstance so we'll get back after [Speaker 1] (48:22 - 48:23) Okay, that's [Speaker 4] (48:23 - 48:23) we [Speaker 1] (48:23 - 48:23) what I [Speaker 4] (48:23 - 48:23) have [Speaker 1] (48:23 - 48:23) was [Speaker 4] (48:23 - 48:23) that [Speaker 1] (48:23 - 48:23) asking. [Speaker 4] (48:23 - 48:25) discussion so we wanted to clarify that [Speaker 2] (48:25 - 48:25) Yeah, [Speaker 4] (48:25 - 48:26) in the so you're not surprised [Speaker 1] (48:26 - 48:27) Thank you. [Speaker 2] (48:27 - 48:39) that's a good idea because I have seen that come up in previous projects where there was a specific waiver requested and then there was a different interpretation of how height was measured and they had to come back. [Speaker 2] (48:39 - 48:40) back so [Speaker 1] (48:40 - 48:43) So can we bracket the height for now this is bracketed. [Speaker 4] (48:43 - 48:43) Yes. [Speaker 1] (48:44 - 48:44) Okay. [Speaker 1] (48:46 - 48:47) All right. [Speaker 4] (48:47 - 48:47) Thank you. [Speaker 1] (48:47 - 48:49) We have the waivers for parking. [Speaker 1] (48:49 - 48:51) Those are all things we need. Those are substantive. [Speaker 1] (48:53 - 48:59) The lighting, like you said, you'll make that so that it's only mentioning the specific relief that's needed. [Speaker 1] (49:05 - 49:07) Is there anything else that needs? [Speaker 2] (49:07 - 49:10) So the parking lot landscaping requirements, [Speaker 2] (49:10 - 49:11) that's a substantive waiver. [Speaker 2] (49:12 - 49:16) The parking setbacks is a substantive waiver. [Speaker 1] (49:24 - 49:39) And then we just had we also had some questions about the um flood plain and wetland protection overlay district um because the project was raised out of the flood plain um so we just want to make sure that there's no relief needed for that um [Speaker 2] (49:40 - 49:50) Well one comment I I'd make about that, we had a a waiver with respect to the wetlands protection overlay and the flood plain overlay. Um we couldn't find the the wetlands overlay [Speaker 2] (49:51 - 50:03) District refers to a nineteen seventy six map that we haven't been able to find and so that's why it's waived if we find that map and and it indicates that w it is inapplicable b then we withdraw it or [Speaker 1] (50:03 - 50:03) Okay. [Speaker 2] (50:03 - 50:10) or the board could deny it and correct in terms of the flood plain overlay, we'll look at those performance standards to see if there's anything in there that [Speaker 3] (50:10 - 50:15) Yeah, we will we are before the commission, uh who also review those standards. So [Speaker 1] (50:16 - 50:16) Okay. [Speaker 3] (50:16 - 50:17) we'll be reviewed. [Speaker 1] (50:23 - 50:28) Was there any other specific waiver anybody wanted to have questions on or anything? [Speaker 1] (50:34 - 50:38) And then as far as the rest of this draft um [Speaker 1] (50:40 - 50:49) um decision, there's a lot of conditions and I have not because we just got this today I haven't been able to go through it all and and see all the conditions. The one [Speaker 1] (50:50 - 50:57) I did want to go through, because when we had our very first meeting, we had some feedback and one of the, one [Speaker 1] (51:01 - 51:03) of the questions was [Speaker 1] (51:06 - 51:06) about, [Speaker 1] (51:06 - 51:07) here we go. [Speaker 1] (51:11 - 51:25) The concerns with noise from the rooftop mechanicals and the response was that roof well cross-sections, acoustic notes, and demonstration of mass DEP noise compliance will be provided and submitted for building commissioner approval as a condition of the building permit. [Speaker 1] (51:25 - 51:32) I just want to make sure that was something that was agreed to early on in the process, that that just didn't get lost along the way because we haven't talked about it in a while. [Speaker 1] (51:32 - 51:36) So I'm not sure if that is in there, but I just want to make sure that that is. [Speaker 1] (51:38 - 51:41) I know the pest plan is in there, I saw that. [Speaker 1] (51:47 - 51:50) Is there anything else um I mean we if you haven't [Speaker 1] (51:51 - 51:58) if like me you have not had a chance to go through all the conditions thoroughly, you may not know. But if there's any conditions that have come up that you wanna make sure to highlight. [Speaker 4] (51:59 - 52:00) I haven't been able to go through it yet. [Speaker 1] (52:01 - 52:01) Yeah, okay. [Speaker 2] (52:07 - 52:10) Madam Chair, I would mention just a couple quick things. [Speaker 2] (52:11 - 52:16) There are some placeholders for fire department comments and also VM consulting comments. [Speaker 2] (52:17 - 52:27) And we did get correspondence and actually I think Marcy did receive correspondence from the fire department indicating that they were satisfied with the swept path analysis and [Speaker 1] (52:27 - 52:27) Yep. [Speaker 2] (52:27 - 52:28) so on. [Speaker 2] (52:28 - 52:35) So you probably don't need that condition in there and to the extent that there is anything else for VM. [Speaker 2] (52:36 - 52:45) uh based on what we find in terms of particularly the water line then we'll we'll certainly work with the board and also with uh attorney to craft something. [Speaker 1] (52:45 - 52:47) Okay. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (52:50 - 52:54) So I think our work is to make sure all the conditions are accurate. [Speaker 1] (52:54 - 53:02) Like I said, the board needs to read through them and and um um we do have we have scheduled two more meetings instead of one to try to [Speaker 1] (53:03 - 53:11) Make sure that we have the time to make any changes um before we vote. Um [Speaker 3] (53:13 - 53:29) Yeah, I just think it was in in just in my brief review of the decision and comments. Uh in Paul Paul uh conditions in uh Paul's comments in the decision excellent well done on by both. [Speaker 5] (53:29 - 53:31) So I think it's moving in the right direction on that part. [Speaker 2] (53:38 - 53:55) Oh, I I did also want to just mention one thing also. We acknowledge receipt of uh there was a comment letter from December sixteen or actually December uh nineteenth that was from uh Alicia McCarthy that we'll plan to respond to in writing. [Speaker 2] (53:55 - 54:00) We're almost there and have that completed. We'll have that submitted to the board as well. [Speaker 1] (54:03 - 54:09) All right, so we're gonna um I'm gonna if no one from the board has any more questions or about the [Speaker 6] (54:09 - 54:11) Sorry, I didn't hear what he said. [Speaker 1] (54:13 - 54:20) Oh sorry, so he said that he is um crafting a response to that letter and it would be available tomorrow, did you say? Or [Speaker 1] (54:20 - 54:21) The late [Speaker 5] (54:21 - 54:21) I [Speaker 1] (54:21 - 54:22) of this week. I'm sorry, I didn't [Speaker 2] (54:22 - 54:22) Yeah, [Speaker 1] (54:22 - 54:23) late of this week. [Speaker 2] (54:23 - 54:24) probably by early next week or [Speaker 3] (54:24 - 54:25) so. Yeah, I would [Speaker 1] (54:25 - 54:25) Early [Speaker 3] (54:25 - 54:25) say [Speaker 1] (54:25 - 54:25) next week. [Speaker 3] (54:25 - 54:26) yeah. [Speaker 5] (54:26 - 54:26) So [Speaker 3] (54:26 - 54:26) So [Speaker 5] (54:26 - 54:28) Monday, Tuesday next week. [Speaker 1] (54:28 - 54:28) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (54:30 - 54:31) Alright, so I'm gonna um [Speaker 1] (54:32 - 54:39) open up to public comment to see if we have um anyone here who would like who has any questions or like to comment. [Speaker 1] (54:40 - 54:44) If you do, please raise your hand. If you're online and you'd like to comment, please use the raise your hand function. [Speaker 7] (54:58 - 55:09) Can you just clarify the comments about the water line? Because what I picked up was there was a flow test and the flow test says that the flow was sufficient going from six to six. [Speaker 7] (55:11 - 55:27) And I also heard that the, one of the issues is the fact that we've had so much deferred maintenance on the water lines over there that it is a town issue and not an issue on the actual new building. [Speaker 7] (55:28 - 55:42) And the other clarification I'm asking for is, is this within the zoning board's purvey to put a restriction if this is a deferred maintenance, if this is a town, [Speaker 7] (55:42 - 55:43) if this is a town issue. [Speaker 7] (55:44 - 55:46) Just like to get a little bit more clarification [Speaker 1] (55:46 - 55:46) Yeah, I think [Speaker 7] (55:46 - 55:46) on there. [Speaker 1] (55:46 - 56:05) that there is a little bit of debate as to how what percentages town what percentage is going to be exasperated exasperated by a new building. So there's definitely I think a little bit of disagreement between the our town engineers and the developer engineers so [Speaker 7] (56:05 - 56:10) My concern is that we're just staying within our legal... [Speaker 1] (56:10 - 56:11) Yeah. [Speaker 7] (56:11 - 56:12) By legal parameters. [Speaker 1] (56:12 - 56:12) Yeah. [Speaker 7] (56:12 - 56:13) That's going to Yeah. be my concern. [Speaker 1] (56:13 - 56:26) I mean there's also opportunities for many times developers will say yes this is something that the town needs to upgrade but it will benefit our building dramatically. If it is upgraded it'll make our building safer, [Speaker 1] (56:26 - 56:38) it'll make it, you know, fire prevention and protection much better in our building if this is upgraded so it's worth it for us to do this upgrade even if some of it will benefit the town at large and not just our building. [Speaker 1] (56:38 - 56:53) So developers have the option to do that as well. It's not just um it's it's an agreement. It's not necessarily yes we can't force and impose something, but an agreement can be made that benefits the project and the town. [Speaker 1] (56:54 - 56:55) Thank you. [Speaker 1] (56:57 - 57:00) Has anybody else have any questions or is there anyone online? [Speaker 1] (57:12 - 57:13) Would you want to say something else? [Speaker 4] (57:13 - 57:14) Okay, I wanna read this. [Speaker 1] (57:14 - 57:28) Okay, yeah. And um and um just to confirm we have two we have we're just to confirm for everyone here, we've um our February meeting we'll have a meeting on um the second? [Speaker 3] (57:28 - 57:28) Third. [Speaker 1] (57:28 - 57:32) S the third, thank you. A meeting on the third and a meeting on the tenth. [Speaker 1] (57:32 - 57:41) Um and the hope is that, I mean if everything's worked out by the third we may not me need the meeting on the tenth, but most likely we'll have both those meetings. Um actually no, because you can't be here on the third. [Speaker 5] (57:41 - 57:41) I So can't [Speaker 1] (57:41 - 57:41) we're definitely [Speaker 5] (57:41 - 57:42) be here [Speaker 1] (57:42 - 57:42) gonna on be here [Speaker 5] (57:42 - 57:42) the third. [Speaker 1] (57:42 - 57:59) on the ten. Okay, so we'll definitely have have both those meetings. There is a there is a chance that that third meeting will change if the inn if all the um voting members can agree and that and the um, you know, petitioner can agree on another date. Um so uh just [Speaker 1] (57:59 - 58:05) Just check in with with uh town website to make sure, um if we, 'cause we'd like to have mark there if possible. [Speaker 4] (58:06 - 58:07) But the tenth is confirmed. [Speaker 1] (58:07 - 58:10) The tenth is confirmed. The tenth is, everyone can definitely be there on the tenth. [Speaker 2] (58:11 - 58:17) So that so that would mean that the second or subsequent hearing date would probably be sometime after the tenth as opposed [Speaker 1] (58:17 - 58:22) No no, if we if we change it from the third to the fourth or something like that to to accommodate but because [Speaker 5] (58:22 - 58:25) If Susan we're on the on the second [Speaker 5] (58:25 - 58:28) Could do it by teams. So [Speaker 1] (58:28 - 58:28) Okay. [Speaker 5] (58:28 - 58:30) four if it were on the um [Speaker 5] (58:31 - 58:33) the fourth I might be able to as well, just [Speaker 5] (58:34 - 58:36) the third is a travel day. [Speaker 1] (58:36 - 58:47) Okay. So we'll we'll do some emailing to figure that out because Susan's not here to and she definitely can do um the third. So if we move it that, you know, it'd be nice to have everybody. Um [Speaker 1] (58:51 - 58:51) that's that. [Speaker 1] (58:51 - 58:52) Any more questions? [Speaker 2] (58:53 - 58:54) Just, just uh [Speaker 5] (58:54 - 58:55) Madam Chair. [Speaker 2] (58:55 - 58:56) Yeah, well, [Speaker 1] (58:56 - 58:56) Oh. [Speaker 2] (58:56 - 58:58) I think Attorney Haverly will mention [Speaker 1] (58:58 - 58:58) Okay, [Speaker 2] (58:58 - 58:58) that. [Speaker 1] (58:58 - 58:59) yes. [Speaker 8] (59:00 - 59:09) You do have to continue to indeed certain so if you continue to the third that's the date of your next meeting you can't meet sooner and [Speaker 4] (59:09 - 59:09) Thank you. [Speaker 3] (59:09 - 59:10) Right. [Speaker 8] (59:10 - 59:26) if you don't have all of your members present you know you certainly can simply show up and continue to the 10th at that time or to you know to the fifth or the sixth or whatever but you can't meet sooner than the third if you're continuing it to [Speaker 8] (59:26 - 59:26) to the third. [Speaker 1] (59:26 - 59:33) Okay, thank you. That's helpful. So we will continue it to the third and then we will, if by chance we have to continue it beyond that, [Speaker 1] (59:34 - 59:34) we'll just proceed. [Speaker 2] (59:37 - 59:37) Yes. [Speaker 1] (59:37 - 59:41) s continue it to the to then a later date. But for now it's the third. [Speaker 3] (59:41 - 59:42) Oh. Okay, then [Speaker 1] (59:42 - 59:43) And no sooner. [Speaker 3] (59:45 - 59:50) And so if attorney Kuniski isn't here, then the question is, do we have the number of uh other [Speaker 1] (59:50 - 59:56) Yes, we do. We we do because we have um he's he can watch one v video. He can uh any [Speaker 2] (59:56 - 59:58) Can we have a form for the hearing? [Speaker 1] (59:58 - 1:00:01) We will because um [Speaker 3] (1:00:01 - 1:00:01) Susan? [Speaker 1] (1:00:01 - 1:00:02) because everyone else will be here. [Speaker 2] (1:00:02 - 1:00:03) Susan will be here. [Speaker 1] (1:00:03 - 1:00:05) Susan will be here. Yeah. Everyone but you will be here. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (1:00:05 - 1:00:05) Yep. [Speaker 1] (1:00:06 - 1:00:06) Yeah. [Speaker 3] (1:00:06 - 1:00:08) So then we would have the third and possibly the tenth. [Speaker 1] (1:00:08 - 1:00:09) Possibly the tenth. [Speaker 3] (1:00:09 - 1:00:09) Okay. [Speaker 1] (1:00:09 - 1:00:11) Yep. Alright. [Speaker 2] (1:00:11 - 1:00:12) So if you reached [Speaker 2] (1:00:14 - 1:00:16) I'm just thinking, are you able to if you decided to vote [Speaker 1] (1:00:16 - 1:00:26) We can't. So if you're not here and we reach a decision on the third, we'd still have to continue to the tenth for the final vote. Whereas if we are able to find a meeting between the third and the tenth [Speaker 1] (1:00:27 - 1:00:28) that works for [Speaker 2] (1:00:28 - 1:00:28) Oh, [Speaker 1] (1:00:28 - 1:00:28) both of [Speaker 2] (1:00:28 - 1:00:28) but I you was and wondering [Speaker 1] (1:00:28 - 1:00:29) Susan. [Speaker 2] (1:00:29 - 1:00:30) if you had four votes, [Speaker 2] (1:00:30 - 1:00:32) if I wasn't [Speaker 1] (1:00:32 - 1:00:32) Yeah, [Speaker 2] (1:00:32 - 1:00:33) here, [Speaker 1] (1:00:33 - 1:00:33) technically you could. [Speaker 2] (1:00:33 - 1:00:35) you technically you could if you decided to. [Speaker 1] (1:00:35 - 1:00:36) Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:00:38 - 1:00:40) But I think it would be preferable to have everybody. [Speaker 1] (1:00:42 - 1:00:45) Alright, so do we can get a motion a motion to continue? [Speaker 2] (1:00:46 - 1:00:49) I'll make a motion to continue to February third. [Speaker 4] (1:00:50 - 1:00:50) Second. [Speaker 1] (1:00:51 - 1:00:51) All in favour? [Speaker 2] (1:00:52 - 1:00:52) Aye. [Speaker 1] (1:00:52 - 1:00:53) Aye. [Speaker 1] (1:00:54 - 1:00:54) All right. [Speaker 1] (1:00:54 - 1:00:57) We're gonna have a motion to adjourn. [Speaker 2] (1:00:57 - 1:00:58) Motion to adjourn. [Speaker 3] (1:00:59 - 1:00:59) Second. [Speaker 1] (1:01:00 - 1:01:00) All in favor? [Speaker 2] (1:01:00 - 1:01:01) Bye. [Speaker 1] (1:01:01 - 1:01:01) Bye. [Speaker 2] (1:01:01 - 1:01:01) Thank you. [Speaker 1] (1:01:01 - 1:01:02) Thank you. [Speaker 3] (1:01:02 - 1:01:02) Thank you very much. [Speaker 2] (1:01:02 - 1:01:03) Thank you. [Speaker 5] (1:01:03 - 1:01:03) Thank you very much.