Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - June 8, 2026

Monday, June 8th, 2026. At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone to stand so we can pledge allegiance to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'd ask that you all remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our soldiers past and present, especially those that are in harm's way in the Middle East.

Thank you.

All right. So, um I have to announce that our next 40B meeting will be heard on June 11th at 6:00 p.m. here in town hall. here at town hall in room 304. And the Sherbrook Farms hearing is tenatively scheduled for June 29th uh at 2026 uh at 6:00 also at town hall.

This matter, actually this hearing this evening is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media.

At this time, I'm going to move on to the public hearings portion of tonight's hearing.

And the first matter we have is variant ZAV26-4.

The petitioner in this case is Victor Silva. The subject property is located at 133 Alpha Street, alo also known as map 121, lot 19. The property is located in a single residence A zoning district.

And this matter was legally advertised on May 21st and May 29th of 2026.

I make a motion that we wave the reading of the brother's list.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it. The petitioner in this case is Victor Silver and he's seeking a variance to build two additions to an existing structure. One 12T x 23 ft single stall garage addition with two bedrooms above and second extend the existing sun room at the rear of the house. Proposed additions increasing impervious lock coverage from 52% to 56.8%.

A variance is required based on section 375-7.4F increased lot coverage and the property is located at 133 Alpha Street in the single residence a district and identified on assessor's map 150 lot 26.

All right. So we have a letter. Let's start with a letter from the building inspector.

Building inspector addressed a letter back in March to on March 27th specifically to Victor Silva. says, "I have reviewed your application and at this time your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. Applicant proposing to build two additions to an existing structure. One 12T x 23 ft singlestall garage addition with two bedrooms above. Second, extend the

existing sun room at the rear of the house. Proposed additions increasing imperous lock coverage from 52% to 56.8%. The variance is required based on chapter 375 zoning bylaw article 7 375-7.4.

4F to increase the lot coverage. Your application is being denied under the following section of the Diamond zoning bylaw, which I've already read, and it says that the property is located in a single residence a district. That's a letter from our town zoning enforcement officer/building inspector. We also have comments from town agencies.

I think that I saw them just earlier this morning. See, I don't see it here.

That's a legal ad. Let me see if I got it here.

This is Yeah, I got it here. Here we are.

DPW.

And what we have in essence is just DPW compliance. It's compliance with the DPWW regulations. It's their standard requirements that they impose as restrictions or conditions prior to uh the issuance of a building permit that these things be addressed. And if they're not addressed prior to that, there won't be a CO granted until such time as they are. All right. So, we've have that.

Thank you. about planning, Mr. Chair.

Right.

No, I got nothing from planning. I got nothing from the board of health. I've got nothing from conservation commission. So, I think it's safe for us to presume that those are not necessarily concerns that are being addressed.

Even though there's two additional bedrooms being put on the property, I don't see anything here. But I I would presume it's probably town water and town. Yeah.

All right. So, at this time, I'm going to call upon the applicant or their representative to come forward and state their case.

My name is Victor Silva, property owner of 133 Alpha Street, and I'm Louis Bolino, the contractor on the job.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. All right.

So, um, can you give us a little bit of background as to what's driving you to do this and what the situation is?

The reason we're doing this is we need to add in additional bathroom and extend the bedroom um due to my daughter. I'm going to say it. It's uh my daughter's special needs and we need facility for her and that's the reasoning for expanding this. And while we're doing this, we've always wanted to do the sun room and it's the perfect time to just do it all if we if we're able to do it.

Okay.

All right.

Can I add to that?

Absolutely. Come on up.

So, it's not considered a two additional bedrooms. So, we're actually doing was we're actually deleting one of the bedrooms, existing bedrooms, and we're turning that into a bathroom for the daughter. And above the garage, which is the addition, that's going to be the new bedroom, just like the other bedroom, which is their bedroom. We're going to extend that and make that a sitting

area. And the other bedroom above the garage, the addition is going to be their new bedroom. So, we're not actually adding. We're just extending.

Extending and just changing some.

You're not adding one additional bedroom.

No.

No. Okay. So, you're just relocating.

Fair enough.

Um I don't know whether or not that's something that But it is town water and town sewer there. Correct.

Yes.

Okay. Good.

All right, gentlemen. Any questions of the petitioner?

I don't have any questions of petitioner on the plan. I don't see the second edition here. Says proposed to ride.

It's a little notch on the back there where the staircase is.

I think I think that's where it is.

Where the staircase is.

Now you're you from what I understand also just to clear there's no setback relief that you're seeking for here.

No, it's just lot coverage. So you meet all the requirements for the setbacks for your rear yard, sideyard, front yard and all of that. Correct.

Correct. We already we already had gone through conservation and they have approved everything that we've pushed forward to them.

Is this is there wetland concerns nearby on this pro nearby to the property?

There there was but the garage is set back where that it's already been established and has already been set back. So it's not even a it wasn't a concern to him. It was just one of those things that we had to go through.

So what' you fire from? An RDA?

I believe that's what it was, right?

request for determination of applicability. Yes.

And they felt it wasn't applicable.

Correct.

Okay.

In essence, um any questions?

No, I just u the question whether they already with the lot coverage that he's already over the the required lot coverage. So, this is an existing non-conforming and he applied for a variance. just I mean we can approve the variance or but we need we need just to be I don't know why it's a variance either.

I think it should be a special permit, but that's I put that on the but that's something we have to discuss with the building inspector because they're only following instructions and in his letter he said you need a variance clearly but right but I don't know what his interpretation is that we're not we're not necessarily following but I agree with you. I think a special I mean we can probably still approve it

as a special permit but even applied for variance. We don't want to re readvertise, but if you feel comfortable. I mean, I'm fine with Yeah. If he gets a variance that that's inclusive, you just have to be a little more creative with the Well, I'm waiting for you to come up with those words. The first criteria I'm not able to find, but we'll we'll see.

All right. So, this is a public meeting.

Um, so people have the opportunity to be heard. Any of Butters or anybody in town, quite frankly, anybody who who lives in town has the ability to come forward and comment. So, I don't see many people here and I can relay that to the viewers at home. So, at this time, I'm going to call upon anyone in the audience who would like to come forward and speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition.

There not appearing to be anyone in the audience who wants to speak either in opposition or in favor of this petition.

I guess I uh we could should move over to some of the suggested findings that I put together for us to review.

Oh, okay. I thought you didn't.

Yeah, I'm missing a criteria.

Okay, I got it.

So, we'll be I'll be leaning on you.

I will. I got it.

All right. So, these are the proposed findings, gentlemen. Obviously, this is just uh something for us to work from.

Um I'm open to any suggestions or any interpretation interpretation from any of you, including our uh alternate members as well. Well, all new alternate member. Actually, I probably should have introduced you, which I will do at the opening of the next meeting. All right.

So, the subject property is located at 133 Alpha Street and is known on the town of Dartmouth Assesses Map as plat 150 lot 26 and is in the single residence a district. The property has been owned by Victor Silva since December 2006 and is improved by a pre-existing two-story single family home. The petitioner/owner seeks to construct two additions to the existing structure. One addition being 12 by 23

foot two-story single stall garage with two bedrooms above and a second addition to extend the existing sun room at the rear of the house. The proposed additions will increase the impervious lot coverage from 52 to 56.8%.

Petitioner seeks relief from article 375-7.4F increased lot coverage and the board finds that the petitioners have demonstrated that they satisfy the statutory requirements of Mass General Law chapter 48 section 10 variances. Uh maybe just before that add that the new addition uh will be in compliance with the required setback and height and the zoning district.

The two new additions will meet the will be in compliance will be in compliance with required setbacks required setbacks in the required setback and height requirements.

No, in the single residence a district required setbacks and height requirements should stay the same height in the single RA district.

All right. So now this is the tough part is finding reasoning as to because this is our this is our job as a zoning board. There's a four-part test that's statutory by Massachusetts law and it says the only reason we can grant you this is if we find that you satisfied and it says there are circumstances related to soils, shape and topography that especially affect the subject property that do not generally affect

the zoning district in which the structure or land is located. So what can you tell me about the soil there?

The what's in the immediate proximity?

Am I to understand that there's a wetland?

There's a wetlands where to the immediate.

Is it the west?

Where's the north on this?

On the west? Yes.

I don't see the I don't see the north market here on this.

Oh, there it is. Right here. Yes.

Clearly to the west. There it is.

All right. So, which one? He's here.

There are that's right there watering wetlands water could be but yes so I just put there bordering wetlands to the west of the property right to the proximity of the wetness to the property line which yeah which and existing structures on sites too which yeah Which push limit to the existing?

How about to the location of the dwelling of existing structures on the property.

The petitioner is confined to the is confined to the areas a limited to the areas where he's proposed limited to the proposed location of the additions of the expansion or of the expansive.

Oh, this is it's a corner alpha and Allen. So, so which one is additions?

This one here going to be that one right there.

Right. So, where's that garage? It's not showing a shape.

Yeah. See that box?

Yeah.

This right here. this box.

Yeah, that's a good one.

This is an existing garage. That's That's a garage. This is existing garage.

And this is that he's Yeah. proposed garage here, right?

So, just to add to that, right? So, the addition I didn't even hear what he said but No, no, no. So, the addition is not specifically to add the garage. It's just ends up being on that side of the house and there's really no point of having a basement on that side of the house. So, we just gonna use that space to have uh the other garage, another garage right next to this garage that's already there.

I think we Is there a garage in the rear of the property and in the southwest corner?

Okay.

How do you access that garage though?

Uh on Allen on Alpha Street.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I see the drive alpha.

Do you have a curb cut there now already?

Yeah.

Yeah, that garage. Yes.

Yes.

You going to you going to access the uh the proposed garage from Allen Street?

No.

No.

No.

From Alpha Street on the cut that's already there.

The new garage.

Correct.

How do you access that? You go around the building between the shed and the No, because it's in the front. The new garage would be in the front.

In the front. So you Yeah. So you access that new front from Allen. That's what the question, right?

No, it would be from Alpha.

So the front of the house is on Alpha Street. Obviously, that's where the address is.

How is he going to ask?

So the garage is in there's a garage in the front of the house, a part of the main building.

So you got two curb cuts on Alpha.

Yes. Okay. So that's what's And that's why I asked about the curb cuts.

Okay.

That's grandfather. I don't think they do that anymore.

I don't know.

Yeah, it is. Oh, there are border. So the our response or our means of satisfacting satisfying that particular prong is that there are bordering wetlands to the west of the property which in relation to the location of the existing structures on the property. The petitioner is confined to the proposed locations of the expansive additions. Fair enough.

Sounds good.

Two, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. Our response would be the addition of the single stall garage with two additional bedrooms and extending this existing sun room will improve the usefulness of the property um and and accommodate special needs a child a special needs with their ability to occupy the dwelling.

Okay.

And three, desire relief may be granted without detriment to the public good.

Granting the variance and the proposed construction and improvements to the dwelling will not impose a detriment to the public good.

And four, the variance would not nullify or substantially deriggate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. We wrote the proposed construction and the character of the improvements are in keeping with pleasing aesthetics and will not derate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw.

All right, gentlemen. So, at this point in time, if there are any questions that we have of the petitioner for any further information, now would be the time that we could ask them. Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

No questions, Mr. Chair.

Straightforward.

I have none.

All right. So I make a motion that we close the portion of the public hearing on varian zav 26-4.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it. If there are any comments, gentlemen, we can discuss if there's anything any concerns, but I think it's pretty straightforward. If there are, I'll entertain a motion.

Uh yeah, I didn't see a number there. AV I move that we grant the variance for uh ZAV-26-4 with the findings and conditions with the adopted conditions that we just read into the record the findings.

Second.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it.

Congratulations.

Yeah. Congrats. Good luck.

Good luck.

I think you got a halfway decent builder.

Thanks for the compliment.

Thank you so much. Is that a compliment?

That's a call. You know, he knows it's a compliment.

All right.

So, I don't think Excuse me.

Right.

I can't hear.

I'm sorry. I don't think Oh, um, so we're going to we're going to take a brief recess because I don't think we can go forward because of the fact that this is announced at the next matter that we have. Oh, but we can we can go over the other uh administrative portion of tonight's meeting. Let's do that now.

Who wasn't?

I don't think it matters.

Let's get them out.

What? I mean, that to me.

Well, you don't want to look at him.

I looked at him.

Huh?

I looked at him already.

Oh, yeah. Good.

All righty.

One, two, three.

Here you go.

What's this?

Administrative.

We're going to go We're going to go through the administrative portion of tonight's out of order. Thank you. I'm going to move on to uh review and approval of administrative minutes of March 23rd, 2026, which we have in front of us as the first page. Okay.

I have no comments on these gentlemen.

I've looked at them.

Uh I have no comments, Mr. Chair.

Attorney Farriia.

I have none.

All right. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve the administrative minutes of uh March 23, 2026 meeting.

Second.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it.

Next is review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-1 minutes for 970 Tucker Road which are continued from February 1st 20, excuse me, from February 12th, 2026.

So, we're approving the March 23rd, 2026 meetings uh for that case. Correct? Yeah.

Yep. I don't have any It's an extensive uh did you go through it?

I did.

Okay.

So uh cuz we closed the public hearing on that, right? On that night.

Um I'm not sure if it was No, I wasn't think No, we didn't close the public hearing that one. There'll be some others. We didn't close a public hearing on that.

This is ZSP. Oh, there's more.

Um, you have that in order. How many?

25 here. That's this one right here.

That's one. Yeah, I got it. Okay. Okay.

Which one are you talking about? Tucker.

It's It's Tucker Road. It's March 20. It says comprehensive permit.

Have it. Yeah, he has it. Yeah. I have no comments, Mr. Chair.

Farah, I have no comments.

All right. So, um, I'll entertain a motion.

Um, I make a motion that we approve the minutes for uh, comprehensive permit ZCMP25-1 for March 23rd, 2026.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I I I the eyes have it. Next is review and approval administrative minutes of April 6 2026.

I have no comments, gentlemen.

Um, I have no comments, Mr. Chair.

I don't have any comments. comments.

I'll entertain a motion.

Motion that we approve the um administrative meeting of April 6, 2026.

I'll second that.

All in favor?

I the eyes have it. Moving on to review and approval of special permit ZCP 26-2 minutes for 43 Lucy Little Road.

I have no comments on this one, Mr.

Chair. I don't have that. I don't think it should be the Oh, yeah. Yeah, I got it now. Yeah, I don't have any comments, Mr. Rodri.

No comments.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for special permit ZP26-2 for April 6, 2026 for 43 Lucy Liller Road.

Second that.

All in favor?

I the eyes have it. Next is review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3 minutes for Haway Road which were continued from March 2nd, 2026.

Let me just quick take a peek at those are doublesided. Did you go through that? Sorry about that.

These are doublesided. Did you go through the other ones? I don't know if I went through these.

When I printed them out, they weren't doublesided, but that doesn't mean anything.

No, I did it. I did that, too.

He certainly seemed to address the concerns of the neighbors very very well. Paraphrasing from what they were saying.

I feel comfortable.

I have no comments, Mr. Chair.

Attorney Faria. I have none.

Mr. Rogers, no comments.

All right, gentlemen.

Yeah. I make a motion that we approve um minutes for comprehensive permit um Z CMP25-3 for April 6, 2026.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

The eyes have it. That appears to be all that we have that was on the agenda for this evening. Um, at this point in time, gentlemen, we are not ready to move forward because it's not 6:00 with the second matter, which is the uh the uh special the comprehensive permit 40B for uh O Westport Roads. So, I just suggest we take a quick recess.

Okay, gentlemen.

Sounds good.

All right, the zoning board will be a quick recess. Board is back in session this evening. It's Thursday, June 8th.

We're now moving on from the Oh, excuse me. It does say it says Thursday, but it's Monday, June 8th. I apologize. It's Monday, June 8th, 2026.

Um, it's okay, Michelle. And, um, we are mo we've actually opened up our meeting.

This is a continuation of a meeting that started at 5:00. Our practice, our past practice, recent past practice given that we've had these 40B projects, is that we'll handle the local matters at 5:00.

um things such as uh variances and special permits. And we're we're uh we've scheduled most and almost all of these 40VS at six o'clock. And tonight we have another comprehensive permit that's been continued. But before I go there, um I'd like to introduce to everyone here in the audience and to our viewers at home and I'd like to extend a warm a warm welcome to a new member that we have of

the board. We have a new alternate member, Mr. Shawn Rodri, um, who has decided that he wanted to take this on.

He's been sworn in. He was sworn in on the 21st of May. Um, I think I've previously indicated to others, even myself, but obviously I didn't undergo it. There's if you want this job, you probably need a psychiatric examination, but um, obviously none of us have have decided to do that and we're here. But we're here for for good reasons. And I believe in our conversations that we've had that you certainly share the

interest that the members of our board have, which is the love of this town and to ensure that we protect the type of the type of living that we are able to experience as town residents. I thank you on behalf of all the members of the board and look forward to working with you.

All right.

Um, now moving on.

We're now moving on to comprehensive permit ZCMP25-2.

This matter was continued from April 30th of 2026. The petitioner is Robert Lincoln. The owner of the premises is Sherbrook Farms LLC. The subject property is located at 498 O Westport Road. And in this particular case, they're looking for a comprehensive permit to basically construct 156 units.

39 of them are going to be affordable units. I know I've read this into the record at least three or four times.

there's no reason for me to go through it line by line. So, in the interest of saving time, I'm sort of paraphrased.

Um, so for the viewers at home and people here in the audience, a lot goes on um that and it's got nothing to do with the decision-making process, but a lot goes on between the town agencies, peerreview experts or consultants that we engage, the experts that the petitioners engage. when there are concerns that are raised by our consultants, they need to be addressed by the petitioner and then they sort of

put their heads together and come up with a solution to the problem uh that they're going to propose to us as to whether or not we feel it's adequate to uh address the local concern because that's the balancing test, the local concern versus the need for affordable housing. So, I may not be a breast of exactly what's been transpiring uh between these experts. So, at some point, I think I'm it would be now I'm

going to ask someone to come forward and explain to us where we're at since the last time um the petition was before us.

Is that going to be you, Susan?

You're the board member. Do you have a question?

No, but I think you said Yeah. landscape right here. Um so well and um the applicant is here as well but there was a an updated set of plans, an updated landscape plan, an updated waiverss list that came in about two weeks ago. Um and then on a parallel track I was coordinating to um with the prayer reviewers as was Mr. Barber and Mr.

GIOSA to try to get in their recommended conditions that the board would consider if um the board votes to approve the project. Um and try to kind of put those together in a draft. Um so that a draft was provided on um Friday morning. Um and it includes gen the general conditions that you know the board has um included in other 40bs and then it also has recommended conditions of Mark Gabriel from NICH who

was a civil engineer um the traffic engineer from NICH. There was a few comments from the fire district 3 chief which in some cases overlapped with kind of the water comments that came in from Stamp Tech and DPW.

Then there were additional comments or conditions that came in from Stantech and the DPW director. Um as well as the planning director also looked at the plans in relation to the site plan review criteria which would typically apply. um if not waved by uh the board and those have all been incorporated into what is a colorful decision that you have in front of you. I was just trying to track for everyone's uh benefit

um kind of the source of the comments.

Um al along with that I included a memo that I actually um addressed to the applicant and board has a copy of it which is just a two-page memo of some questions that I had in trying to pull together kind of the draft of things I just would might be helpful to have clarification on. Um there was um and then there were the second page is primarily questions that arose from Mr. Giosa's

review of the most recent plans. Um, and he looked at the waiver list and said, "I'm not sure the the plans don't comply with this provision. They haven't asked for a waiver on it, so we should ask for clarification."

And so, um, you know, I think there's there's a a few topics that I think it's worth kind of reviewing with the board, but it I don't know if it's up to you, Mr. chair, if you would like to start with um the applicants team and ask them if um if they want to give an update, if they have any responses to Yeah, I would like that questions and that kind of thing. We can then

get to the conditions and waiverss.

Certainly. Yeah, we can have them come forward and bring us up to speed on their end as to what their understanding and interpretation is.

All right. Um, how do you pronounce how do you pronounce your last name?

Um, Ditro.

Okay.

So, very nice.

Yeah, Dmit Truck. Yeah. Uh, so, uh, so Dami Ditrich. um Conco engineers and scientists um for First Street Bridgewater, Massachusetts. We here on behalf of Sherburg Farms LLC for the project at 498 Old West Road, Dartmouth.

Um so yeah, uh similar to um what uh council has just picking me up uh has just indicated um we had received comments from Nich and the DPW um day of the meeting uh last meeting on um April 30th. Um, we ended up submitting uh supplemental documents in response. Um, mostly a cover letter, not an actual formal response to comments. A lot of them were minor technical details and little things, nothing that we were

strictly opposing that I didn't outline in the cover letter that we had supplied. Um, and then the comments from niche and um, their traffic and their civil were more recommendation conditions. Um, so there there is in that memo a discussion about having a formal comment response letter. Um, but I don't know if that's necessarily where we want to go. We can supply um something. Um, so we rece um we supplied

those additional documents on May 28th.

Um, as stated, we also additionally received the Stantech water and sewer letter. Um, was around June I don't have the exact date that we received it. um error was dated. Um and then we received the proposed draft conditions on Friday.

Um so, you know, having just received those on Friday um and reviewing those documents, it does appear we will need to ask for some additional RA requests um to from um what was outlined in that memo. Um I don't necessarily have a formal presentation to go through of the plans. Um I kind of was uh prepared to kind of just talk through those memorandum comments and um just kind of

what we agree with and just kind of go through those focus and not the details of the plans. Um there hasn't been significant change to the plans um from what was with the last submission um to kind of note and see if we can just at least get the plans up.

So uh Mr. Mr. Chair, just for clarification, the reason and for your clarification as well, the reason that requested number six about some sort of response letter, it was is just again in the when I spoke to Mark Gabriel. Um and I had asked him you know did which of your kind of conditions did the kind did the replies plans address and not and he said he didn't want to take the time

like the number of you know I don't know an hour or two or whatever amount of time it would take him and then kind of have additional peer review fees um to go through all that. So that's why he had said it might be easier if you know Mr. Demetri just kind of said this is what we did or what we didn't do what I did for in order to avoid all that and

it and it may be m point and it might be fine on the applicant's end um is just include all of his conditions and if they're already met they're already met because there was a there was an interest in not having Mr. Gabriel just run up more time if it wasn't necessary.

So that's why it was like, well, maybe if he tells us what they did and didn't do, that would cut down the amount of peerreview time. So that's that was just the thought process with that. So all right. Um, so pulled up the letter um that we had received from town council on Friday. So I'll I you know, they're quick and easy enough to go through them. Um, you know, it's it's

not a significant number. So, I'll I'll just run through them real quick. Uh, so confirming that the and we can create a formal response to this uh if needed or whatever. Um, you know, confirm the pay and created under Mass General Law 4181X.

That's not a big issue.

Yeah. Yeah. To consolidate into three existing lots. Yep. We'll do that. Um, total approximate area of disturbance or of disturbance on the 81 acres. So it's 8.9 acres if you know the entire limit of area of disturbance you know there's 1.65 65 acres of building seven, you know, the different things.

Break all that down.

Yeah, we'll break that down in our sense.

Well, so the only thing is if if he's going to submit another letter, then you can't close the hearing tonight. So that's the this is our so so I think we you know with Rick um you know and he can come up and respond to this as well. We're we're comfortable if we need to you know ext grant an extension uh to you know wrap things up. Again, additional waivers

have come, you know, based off of the comments and we understand, you know, we we want to make sure that it's wrapped up and clean and and and don't have an issue um you know, continuing as necessary. So, Okay. All right. Well, then thank you for that. Just so that we can it ends up being a better decision if we can get all the pieces together.

I was just trying to do it in a way that if we could wrap it up, we could. I didn't want to presume that that there would be an extension. So, Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. No, exactly. understood that you know again some final comments came out on Friday and exactly want to make it clean and easy um so everyone's comfortable and happy with the decision that's made um so um I guess you know these first you know number three phase um it it is anticipated to be a singlephase okay um mix of units by bedroom number so that that is on sheet seven okay

um you know we we have a breakdown of that I don't need I'm not going to go into it um the outdoor amenities ities planned on site. There's none shown on my plans. They are shown on the landscaping plans that were um shown.

It's just it's a fire pit area and a patio area on either side of the basement.

Well, I wasn't sure exactly what outdoor amenities were. You know, maybe a picnic area or something, but I wasn't really sure. So, where is I'm looking at the plan obviously? I'd like to think it's somewhere in the back, right?

Uh no. So, around the landscaping plan I can present. I believe Oh, it's between the bu the main building.

Yeah. Around the amenities uh building there. I don't really see it. It looks like everything that's around to me looks like a tree.

No, it's a fire pit.

Fire pit. I see fire pit.

Well, let me put my glasses.

We just wanted like a pool in front of building too of any kind like those kinds.

Okay.

It's a You can see on the sheet.

Oh, they're looking for something small.

Yes, I see it there. Okay.

Yeah. Ju just a small amenities area around around that building. Just a, you know, outdoor picnic and and area. Um, so and let me get back to the letter. Um, so the uh comment letters, the conditions, the associated with niche, we'll I'll review through them and I I can present an additional letter um just responding to what things changed. Um, I believe it was mostly associated with

the crosswalks at the entrance, um, and how those are interconnected, um, and some details there with some signage and and that around that area. Um, and and again, I don't there was nothing extensively changed. Um, and and more of that comment was that we agree with their amended their condition, you know, the majority of the conditions associated with the civil um, DBT uh, DPW comments

letter. I believe I outlined in our response letter the any of the concerns or issues that or the things that we were um you know in detail with the um DPW letter in the cover word there which was the irrigation yeah irrigation wells and yeah um I don't have so just I'll just clarify for the board so in the letter dated May 26 from Kico which was part of your package I believe

that Michelle sent to you. Um this is a cover letter that Deian sent with the plans.

Yep. That's on the second page.

Um there's kind of there's a Sorry, I was reading the other thing. I I got lost here. Where where we at?

That's okay. Now we're on the KIO letter of May 26. It should be in your pile.

There it is. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. On uh page two, there's a summary a kind of a summary response to the letter from the DPW director that was presented at the last meeting. And one one of the issues was about um irrigation potential irrigation impacts on the water demand. and they are proposing to do an on-site well for that.

Well, um there is a there is a draft condition which states that they would have to comply with the board of health well regulations to do that. But then there's also kind of a generic condition that you know for whatever reason you decide not to do the well whatever then the additional demand information would need to be provided. So it's kind of an eitheror type of condition. um they'll

either do the well or if there's additional demand then that information would need to go to the water department for review.

I like the well option.

Okay. Sorry.

All right. Nope. Let's pull it up for you here. Um so and um and again I'll go back to that. You know the the other part of it was that there was additional comments on sizing materials all of that aren't going to be provided in this plan set. you know with details design of the architecture and that th those will be all vetted but um no concerns from our for meeting those requirements. Um so

then the waiver list to my responses here uh the the seven is just about that there was a change to our waiver list for clarification we just we're good yeah confirm that that that is acceptable by us. Um so then eight um the additional zoning um bylaw review um by the planning director. Um so the table on sheet 8 uh seven CAD error um where um the numbers got um just moved accidentally

and and again we can respond to this letter formally. Um but just in this down corner here, this parking setback table, um the 40 is supposed to be in that top uh row or the second to top row 30 and 15 for the requirements. Uh we have 17 and then it's actually that minimum setback from property line for the 20.4 was actually to the rear property line that is going to no longer

exist. So we won't need a waiver from that because we're going that the lots are going to be consolidated. Um, and then the 9.7 is the actual the the distance that we'll need a waiver uh for the parking to the building there. Um, but but all all of the other parking setbacks will be are met by our proposed design. All right, let's get back to the list. Um, so sidewalks proposed, this is where we're

going to need um some additional waiverss. Um, we're again we're proposing a se sidewalk along uh the site to the east. We don't there's no existing sidewalk to the to the west of the site. So, we're going to request a waiver from that um uh part of the bylaw. Um additionally, the second the setback adjacent to the public way for the entrance um for that. So, the existing sidewalk is against the street.

So, we're just going to conform to the existing status there and again request a waiver from that bylaw. Um landscaping waivers. Um, this is where we're going to go into a little more detail.

So, so can I just make a suggestion because I think there's the existing waiverss you've requested, then there's these landscaping questions and one of the board members did have landscaping questions at the last hearing. So, I think maybe can we skip over the landscaping and then talk about landscaping al together at the end if that's okay with you? Taking them all out of order?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. No, I mean the only other the only remaining item that I had unless I deleted something accident was the lighting. Yeah.

Um which um again photometric plan uh updated plans will be modified to um meet that requirement.

Okay.

Um so it jumping to landscaping we can I can pull up the landscaping sheet or the proposed design there and um just happy to answer any questions.

All right. So, I sorry to jump around for the board. Um, but if if you look at the the waiver list that was provided um in your packet um there's a there's a number of items. U most of them are the land and and Mr. Gio is here too and knows his bylaw better than anyone. Um but um there was there there's a number of items that either had to do with the

landscaping requirements of site plan review or a couple of other provisions that have to do with landscaping or trees. So, and I one second.

Well, I when I look at this plan, I just I thought we had discussed the last time and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm getting confused with another project, but to the east of the project, I don't see any real trees along that border uh along the property line. Um to me, I almost find where the they have the trees on the west side. That's nice, but I think that they would they'd be more effective

if they're actually on the east side of the law.

So this and this is where there's like a um and I apologize u Mr. for chair for jumping in. It also kind of dovves tail a little bit with some of the proposed conditions because the this plan if I'm not incorrect reading it wrong is showing anything that's new and not showing existing correct and then and then there's existing on some of the sheet plans such as you know

sheet seven I guess is probably is it no that's not the best one sheet That's the best sheet would you say?

Four.

Sheet four. Right.

So, you know, kind of one of the proposed conditions is that the landscaping plan is showing everything that's there that's staying and anything new that's getting added on top of it because it's kind of hard to and so, Mr. chair on sheet four of the big plan of the plan set you have you can see what's there and then you look at the landscape plan you know obviously a lot of those trees are being removed

for the development but it's hard to see what's staying but sheet four shows that there was eight trees there but a couple of them are dead and and there was concern about what what was going to be remaining for that a butter Is that the question? Yeah.

Yeah. Um southeast corner. I think that's what we talked about.

Yes. There's stuff there now. Um but I only see the grading. I think we talked about this because the the grading changed over there, right? Is like a 10 foot difference in grades if I'm remember correctly or Yeah. So I can Oh, thank you.

I guess there's I guess there was a mention I think it's refreshing my recollection now that there was a stone wall there as well, right? So there was an area that delineated along Yeah, I think there was a discussion about that too.

You're keeping the trees over there. I Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. The plan the plan is to to keep those trees. I will definitely continue and coordinate with our landscaper um to incorporate the existing trees into his proposed design. um you know uh some things get lost in translation.

Um Mr. Mr. Gios is here but I'll I'll kind of make some comments that he gave to me but then he can jump up if I'm missing something. Um because one of the other questions on the landscape plan, sorry to have you keep jumping back and forth is it's showing the existing tree I assume. What's the existing tree line?

Is that that squiggly line kind of but it's going through the basin. So clearly that's not going to be the tree line after the basin is. So there's just a lot of just connecting like you said kind of make sure that there's coordination between the civil site plan and the landscape plan so that all of the information is reflected on the final final. Yeah. and and so everyone can see exactly what's what's there, what's

staying, what's going, and what's being added.

Right. That's the Yeah. Um Yeah.

Okay. Um so, okay. So just so I understand correctly when I look at sheet four from Kico, I'm looking at it and there's obviously the layout of the existing let's say trees that are on the property now and am I to in essence if I could superimpose one plan over the other um basically look at it and say in addition to those trees there going to be some new plantings and those new plantings

are what's on L1?

Yeah, that that that is um desire what what the intent is. Um you know, we will try and maintain existing trees um over we'll take president over the proposed trees. Um you know, we'd rather the the larger uh you know, remaining shrubbery to to to Absolutely. Um, so I'll coordinate with the the landscaper um more thoroughly um and make sure that the revised plans for the final constru you know sets moving

forward uh incorporate those appropriately.

Okay.

Okay. So, um, if if you look at the the existing waiver list, um, and this is again, I'm sorry, we're going to have to go a little bit back and forth between the existing waiver list and the the memo.

Um, so number number five, um, is just a general development standard of the zoning bylaw, section 8.4.

Um, and it requires that the parking areas be screened from streets and abudding with a minimum five- foot hedge. And so what they are proposing is rather than put in a 5-ft evergreen hedge to screen them by the existing trees and the new trees as shown and new vegetation that's shown. So, whatever, you know, whatever is being retained plus whatever new is being proposed on this new L1 would be in place of a

five- foot hedgeh.

Mhm.

So, that's the first waiver that's being requested related to greenery.

That's good.

Does the board have any board have any questions or concerns? And one of the things I'm looking at is what is the elevation of the center of the roadway in relation to let's say the highest point in the parking area here? Because to me, if this thing is lower than what the street is, I don't see the need for that type of screening. What are they going to screen it from themselves?

Because in essence, you're not going to see it.

with the parking lot below the I think most of this parking all almost all the parking areas is going to be several feet lower than the the sidewalk or the roadway.

Correct.

What when I say several I'm guessing.

How many can you tell me?

So at this point in the wall um I'm highlighting the top of the wall is 113.25 and the bottom of the wall is 1035.

Yeah. 10 feet.

So 10 feet. Yeah. Exactly. At that location, right? So, it comes up as we go um in this direction. Uh goes, you know, that's kind of the low point along it and that's why we add the top wall, bottom wall there. So, that that's the highest kind of extent to the generally.

I'm not going to, you know, um I'd have to look in detail.

So, the question is headlights will not be shining onto the road.

No, they're going to be 10t lower than Is that right? Am I Yeah, in in that location. Yes. Um you know and again as as we come over to you know this side you know it's instead of the retaining wall it's sloped down. Um but again you can see we have elevations of 111 um all the way down to you know 104 105. I guess the the the ste least

drop would be here. We're at 104. Um and this looks like a 109.

So 5t.

I don't have a problem with that.

So it's still more than the 5t hedge.

Okay. So is the board comfortables with that? Okay.

So that's okay. All right.

All right. On on number 12 of the waiver list. Um this and and um this may have been a question that you had asked.

Yeah. About the the landscape. So is there anything can you explain what if anything is different with respect to the parking lot like the landscape islands or the parking lot islands or landscaping in the parking lot to address the board's questions from the last meeting.

So this is number 12 correct? Yeah.

Yeah. Um, so I don't I think the changes is that the the additional again I'm I'm not the landscaper so I didn't go through all of the details of the of the changes um associated you know that request is obviously these islands centrally here. You know the width that we have there is 7 1/2 ft rather than the 12 ft. um reasons is you know compact design uh layout right so trying

to keep it from you know crossing in this direction and then also chasing ourselves going in this direction just kind of the the way that the plans worked out um as as the layout uh developed uh where we wanted more space there um you know in other landscaped areas you know that that's probably the most significant area um and then there other islands throughout um you know just requesting a waiver to to allow the

plans as such. Um so I guess that's I think that would probably be 13 as well because 13 is requires a tree for one sec. What do you think about that from I think between building three and building four you have that strip in the middle right the seven and 1/2 ft which is and I think he added few more trees.

Yes. There's definitely more trees, you know, it's been Yeah.

Yeah. U only like between building two and and building one, I think, in in stuff. There's nothing there. It's all basically sidewalk against the uh Right.

The only thing I consider when I look at this is, you know, the tradeoff. We we have more obviously we like plantings, right? They're always good.

We're always trying to enforce. But here, these people that are 1.7 1.75 parking spaces per unit, we start, you know, not allowing that, then the number starts to come down. And I know one of the big concerns the neighbors had was whether or not there's going to be sufficient parking for their for not only the occupants, but also any guests.

And that was for people on Alden A, that was for people on Lucy Little Road, all of that. So, you know, as much as I like the plantings, I don't No, I just I don't really want to impact the the parking numbers that they have.

I I understand and I'm just sharing my thoughts.

No, I know. I I think at the last meeting I just was more like um the the open space and I I know it's all probably in the back is all open but uh it's undeveloped, right? But I mean you you're talking about what how many 130 156 units? 152 152 I don't see like like a recreational area you have like a court in the middle but I mean is that court I mean square

footage probably like I don't know a couple thousand square feet with the five pit I mean you can probably sit 10 people there 20 people you know so that was my concern you know if there's like some open space for recreational where it doesn't have to be part of, you know, the unless we want those people to be just in the apartments the whole time and don't get out, you know, like, you

know, it doesn't have to be probably like an open large landscape in the middle, but at least like an area for recreational. It could be in the back of the building somewhere designated doesn't you know picnic table something like that so people can get out maybe if they want to grill or do something you know I guess yeah so I you know this is our preferred look this is the design

that we would like to go with um towards the rear of the property and it's a little difficult to see on this plan let's see if I can get to it better um you start to see we start to impact into wetland buffer zones right um and we're trying to minimize that um we will be going in front of the conservation commission. Um we, you know, we do touch in front of this 100

foot, um you know, and just again avoid cutting down trees as necessary, avoid impacts. Um again, condense the development apartments um from, you know, um and and Rick may be able to speak to this more. Um we have provided open space resident like recreation areas on other developments and they typically don't get used as much as um you would think. They you know, people do spend most of their time in their

apartments. Um the indoor amenities do get used more. Um I think the gyms, the those types of spaces are are more prevalently used. Um but that's just our experience. Um you know with the past I can't remember the the architectural do they have balconies. Do they all have balconies? Um Rick is nodding his yes head. Yes.

They do.

Okay.

That's good.

Yeah. I'm just not necessarily asking for to provide 10,000 square feet of open space in the middle or in the front. I mean, if there's another 90 acres that not another uh 70 acres in the back that you're not using, I mean, maybe like uh certainly it's not designated open recreational area, you know, that's all. You don't have to just say potential f you know recreational area to be used and put benches. I you

don't need a permit from you know you're not paving or you're not uh you know I see I see what you're saying and that's a great question. So what are the intentions of the developer for the remaining portion of the land? I think we touched upon this just briefly at the last time.

So, so we have an OSRD, zoning bylaw, sort of I don't want to say use the word scheme, but program um where we allow greater density where the homes will be if there's a designation for an open space area that's held in basically in perpetuity and then it's managed by the property owners.

So, and I'm here to is it Mr. Lincoln?

Yeah, Rick Lincoln certainly applicant.

Um, so there are a couple of areas I think that we could uh do some whether they're tables or just hangout areas or whatever.

People bring dogs down and we can still stay out of the buffet the 100 foot. Yeah, that's I mean designated.

Right. There is a big area over to the left west beyond our detention pond.

Um, but I've been I've been trying to stay out of that area, but it's all outside the buffer.

Could be used at some future date for anything. Uh, do you see it? I guess in that area.

Yeah, right there.

But when you say could be used, are you planning on using it for something or not right now, but it would be an easy modification. It's something, you know, minor modification. If you don't have any direct plans for any of it, but if just if it needed some space to accommodate something, you could do so.

Oh, yeah. Yep. You know, like mulched grounds. I mean, so you're not getting into storm water issues and stuff like that, but it would be easy to and it's a bunch of saplings and kind of old gravel area. So there's there's no earth movement really required.

There's and there are no immediate butters there either other than the people across the street, right?

You got a pond in between, right? Yeah.

So maybe um well, what about the rest of the wetland area? What what are the what's the concern with that? Is there going to be any area anything done with that in the back? There are existing uh roads, you know, dirt roads probably from the old operation. They go way back. I've walked back there before with my partner and it looks great, but you know, you really can't design anything

back there with buffers buffer uh requirements and things like that. So, I'm just thinking out loud with walking trails or something like that, right?

Which actually would be really nice.

I know.

I mean, you leave it at its natural state, you know, just to remain and could be used by the residents. You don't need the permit from conservation to walk there or anything, you know. So, okay. So is for that area that you showed on the on one of these plans where is that off the is it I'm assuming it's into the next parcel west there.

Yeah, our plans kind of focus on the developed area just for clarity. Um and try I've been trying to get a plan. So you know here's that property line, right? These are the rough GIS uh locations of these ponds. So you know the detention pond is roughly in this area. So this could be and then additionally walking p you know existing walking paths would you know we're not removing them.

How how far does the so is the sidewalk going to the east or to the west?

Sidewalk is going to the west.

Okay. So would there be a way if if that were to be say maybe a future kind of open space community whatever whatever you call it I don't know is would there be a way to get there?

We can look into resolving that. I I don't have I don't necessarily so why don't I just make a note and what I'll do is I'll try to craft some language. Yeah. I'll run it by t um Tanya and we'll see come up with something that's kind of might address what the board is suggesting that you guys could consider and come up with some middle language that both sides are happy with. Does that sound like

Susan? I didn't quite hear exactly what the topic was on that. So, so the question is if they're going to consider the potential of some additional open open space for the community to use, for their community to use, then Well, that's not that's not what I heard from them. I I heard that they I thought that's what they said they would I thought I heard that that area could be expanded in future use if they needed

to.

No, he's talking about the this the uh the the west side of Right.

Yeah. That's where the that's where that parcel is.

Maybe I misunderstood you, Mr. Lincoln.

No, I didn't communicate that. Well, so I did say future use, but we would certainly be amendable to if you wanted to open up the discussion with Yeah. to put something in the decision to I I thought what's the north of that detention pond? Uh is that this right here? So that would be if I go to my existing condition sheet.

If you look at sheet four, you can see where the wetland buffer zones are. And I think that's what their concern is.

Those blue lines are the banks of and the edge of the bank and the wetland lines. Are those But I can say so if the town were interested, I would engage our landscape architect and I would be certainly open to doing that.

On sheet seven, you can see them as well. you can see where their improvements end and where the buffer zones start.

So, I think I thought you were indicating an area to the west of the basin.

That's I I think we're we're open to adding recreational areas is the is the general sentiment. Um we don't have anything currently proposed. So there could be a potential condition that on the final plans they could propose some additional recreation area.

Yeah.

I mean work on I'll work on the language with their attorney.

Yeah. Doesn't have to be delight. I mean something more like an open se like benches or something so people can go there. I don't want we would not want to create any issues with the permitting with with conservation or whatever. no paved walkways or anything, you know, dirt road, whatever it's there in its natural state.

I can see the concern, right? If there's two people per per apartment, that's 300 people in a very small area there. So, if they want to have somewhere to go.

Yeah, that that's what I'm thinking, you know, because you're kind of confined to to the middle and you know, I don't know.

It's just I'm always concerned about the additional development that's going to go along the front of the property. Then you got the abuters across the way who are now going to see something that's going to be changed. But the topography there is low as well, is it not? That topography on that area, is it low?

It does drop.

I don't know how much beyond that retention point if you're going to go into that area there.

Yeah. I don't know. I don't necessarily have You don't have that charted out because it wasn't an area you're going to develop initially.

Yeah.

Yeah. But it doesn't expand like the the sheet doesn't show that.

Well, I guess we we've got a general understanding that if they want if they can utilize that area for that purpose, they could utilize that area for that purpose.

Yeah.

All right.

Okay. So, um All right. We were on number 12, which had to do with landscape islands. It sounds like though that with this other conversation, you're comfortable with the landscape with offset for that open space.

I'm fine with 12. The number 13 is somewhat related to number 12 because it talks about how many trees per parking spaces, but I think it's the same general kind of analysis, right? Um, so you know this number 13 is 10 spaces.

Can you I'm sorry. Can you a waiver?

Can you just clarify exactly what this is? So the requirement is a a tree or shrub for every 10 parking spaces. So what is the actual waiver request is one for every 24.

That's what you're saying asking.

So it it requires a tree or shrub island. So like island. Yeah.

Yeah. One of these little landscaped islands like you can see here. Y every um 10 spaces. And again to consolidate parking and and get to parking requirements within reason. Um, we basically, you know, we have like this strip, which I believe is our longest.

Let's see if I can get a little click.

So, so you're asking for one for every 24 trees as opposed to one to every 10 trees. Is that what you're asking?

Every 10 one to every 24 spaces. So, yes, we're going to have a 24 space run, right, is this longest run here. And we're asking for a waiver to allow that rather than adding in an additional two landscaped islands. Um, and that's just an example. There are other locations, you know, throughout the parking, right?

We start to reduce our parking numbers as we we we try to meet that bylaw. Um, that's the most extensive one that we would.

So, Mr. Chair, that's the same trade-off you were talking about. They could add them, but you'd lose parking spaces.

Yeah. What do you think, Ali?

Uh, I'm not sure. I mean, we're talking two, four parking spaces total.

I mean, what are you losing? Six parking spaces. So, your number is 1.7 1.69 or that's what I'm getting at. I mean, I don't know. Uh, I like the 1.7. I'll be honest with you.

Remember, when this first started off, there were people here. There were a lot of people.

No, no, I know. Plus, that's another question.

That's one of the things that they were very vocal about.

I know. So, I don't really I don't really want to impact that. But if you don't think it's going to be that big of of an issue, um I'm listening.

No, I'm just thinking like you go see 24 parking spaces in the row with no green space in between. I don't know. This is uh it's but again, it's 10 ft lower than the road or whatever. So, you I want to reiterate that, but that's exactly what I'm You drive by it, you're going to see rooftops. you're a resident and you park there or you're driving around or whatever, you know, you go to

a mall, you see more trees. But, uh, again I I'm not when you circle, you can't find a park.

You're talking four, five parking spaces. Is re does this really going to make a huge difference on this, you know or that's fine. I mean I don't know at the DPW directors I mean the uh the planners the directors here Mr. Gio get his opinion come on up Mr. Gio if you'd be so kind this is more you got significant amount of experience in this tell us what you think what your first initial

thoughts were when you see these waivers good evening for the record Daniel Giosa planning director uh Mr. Chair, if I could, could I just make one clarification on the parking facility before we get into landscaping?

So, as part of the parking facility setbacks, part of the parking facility are the access aisles. So, that's where you would need the relief from the front and side setbacks.

Okay.

So, that's what you'd be looking at.

Okay. So, then that would be um additional waiver. Yeah. So you would consider say this a front roadway even though it's a road that is right in the definition in the definition in our bylaws access aisles are included as part of the parking facility.

So that's what that comment was for regards to the sideyard um side property line setback and road setback.

What is the set what is the usual setback from that?

It's 40 from the street and 30 from the property. What will it be here?

The dimensions aren't shown, so I'm not sure, but it's just scale-wise. It's it's less than that.

It's an additional one that they're going to have to request.

Correct. It's it's part of the request they made, but they only made it for set back to the buildings.

And and it's in the memo that that they got on Friday, so they can just refer back.

Just clarification for what you'd be looking for.

There's a reason why I'm sensitive on the parking spaces. number one. And that's because we're as a board, we have a burden or we have we're charged with the responsibility of taking the local concerns and trying to minimize the impact that those concerns, you know, what they what they feel is going to be an issue.

Um, not only that, it's also, you know, the fact that we're getting 17 here. Uh, I'm going to be seeking that in other developments as well. A good number of parking and we have other projects that we're still considering. Right. And other projects they told us that more you don't need the 1.7 they they're comfortable with what 1.4 from their experience. So I I understand I'm just I'm just saying

if you have a building that it's 200 ft long and you know 240 that's what 10 what's the 10 by 10 by 20. So 24 parking that's 240 ft, right? Plus you got the sidewalk on either side. So you're 250 ft with nothing. That's my concern. I mean adding another island, you're losing one parking space to add another island with the tree. Is that a big impact?

It has impact. Excuse me. It has impact for a couple of the waiver requests. The percentage of the parking facility that's supposed to be landscape. That's a waiver they're asking for. There's another for shade factor. So that would impact the percentage of the parking lots that shaded. So it incorporates a few of the waiver requests by taking out those islands.

If this was coming for site plan review, these aren't things we would grant waivers for. It's just more checking that these requirements are made. So it's different like for the last 40b there were waivers that were granted for construction that we do allow for different types of construction for different roadways. These are more just checking the boxes. These aren't things that normally

get waved by the planning board.

But we're looking at the thing in a totality, right, of what it's all of its impact, balancing balancing the interest of the people, too. Um, you know, I don't think the people across the way are going to be too concerned about an additional planting. They're more concerned about a car parking out front overnight because they had three or four guests and they only have a one-bedroom unit.

That's it. just it still echoes with me that's all and I and I'm not batt I'm not battling with my friend okay I'm not I'm not battling with him I just the landscaping requirements are mostly for beautifification of the facilities um there are some heat factors for the shade and other things that are contributed for environmental purposes but the majority of it is for shade factor for breaking up long stretches of

imperous area um they they're asking for waiverss on the width normally It's a 12t island. If it's reduced, for example, if it's reduced to 10, then you're basically losing the one space as um Mr. Chuba mentioned.

So, like you said, it is a balancing act.

It is, but and the way they laid it out, you know, from visual impact, when you drive by, it's not like the buildings are the long way. They run the they run deep. So, when you drive by, you only got a building that's x number of feet wide and much longer. So, it doesn't have that same type of visual impact when you're driving by. At least in my opinion, am I wrong in this?

Was it doesn't really matter. I just It's just how I perceive it going to look like when when I I drive by that road on, you know, at least once or twice a month.

At least once or twice a month and still a very nice roadway.

All right. Anyway, abs, come on up, sir.

I did have one quick question for you.

um with that waiver bylaw and this may have been where some of the confusion is um for the setbacks for the road and the access here. So this emergency fire access lane, right? Is that considered an access path?

Basically anything that vehicles can go on is considered part of the parking facility.

So where do I call that cut off for the entrance because obviously the entrance to the facility it's more for the sideyard set back. So obviously the entrance coming in is isn't going to be zero from the property. But is are we saying I would say from the from the straight part that's that's where you'd be or from this access area.

The closest is probably somewhere in the front. Actually on the other side I think it gets closer.

Okay. I just want to make for clarification for when we request the waiver. I want to make sure I pull it from the right spot.

Kind of has a catchoff to say any paved area is accessible to motor vehicles. So it has a all Dan 100%. Yeah. Um okay. And then Yeah. Rick just before you do that, Mr. Lincoln.

Gentlemen, if there's any time you ever want to ask a question, just interrupt me. I'm sorry. I'm looking that way and I'm not even thinking. So, Sean, if you got a question, ask. Um, you just any input's always going to be good. All right. You too, Attorney Farah.

Um, and after you're done, I'm we're going to take a quick little break.

We're going to go um we'll go off out of session. Okay.

Uh, one of my thoughts on the parking, I didn't realize that 100% of our parking was 10 by 20. That's a question I I just I mean I don't know why. Normally I'm doing 9 by8 or you do a few 10 x 20s but you could even drop down and do some small car areas. So we could definitely expand trees and you know I'm all for trees. I don't think you need 100% 10 by 20.

I agree. And I think Donouth we used to have a compact. Don't they allow 20 certain percentage of uh There is a provision in there still right now. I don't know how long it'll be. you remember it used to be like you can go for compact certain percentage I think it was like I don't 20% 15% something like that so definitely you can do that and the reason so you don't

lose your I think 10 by 20 is excessive I I do this all the time 9 by 18 is more like the standard but we like the 10 by 20 end but uh definitely you can go 9 by 18 sure and on the long runs where you have a 300 ft of pavement I think if you do the few parking spaces with nine and then do like a 10 8 foot island with the tree

and there's only few places you know I'm again you know I'm not being like parking if if I agree with that I mean wonderful that would be great I mean add maybe another four parking four trees with with with islands on the long run and reduce it to 9 by 18 okay good Or it could be 9 by 20, but you don't have to go 9 by 18. It's just the width that you're concerned, not the

depth. So it' be just nine.

Okay.

Yeah.

Wonderful.

All right. Uh we're going to take a little recess.

Sounds good.

Board's back in session.

So just to recap where we were, I believe the applicants going to see based on the conversation with the board members how reconfigure the parking lot a bit. that may affect like what waivers they need. So I I don't think that we have to spend too much time on the landscaping waivers because the other thing is this just to provide them direction. Are we okay with them if they came back to us something with 19

by 18 I mean 9 by 18 or 9 by 20? Would you be I'm okay with it. Are you okay?

I'm okay with that. Yes.

And then maybe the end result is they don't need waivers. One and two maybe the end result is even more parking at the end. No, but they also can have the small car parking spaces as well.

Give them more spaces.

I saw our Do we have that actually? Do we actually have that? Can you come forward please?

25% 25%.

He actually said that.

Yes.

I must not be listening well tonight.

No, he said I No, you No, hold on. No, hold on. No, he said that, but I don't know if he was certain about. He didn't know if it still existed. That's what I want to clarify. So, I did hear correctly. I just need a clarification. Again, Daniel Giova, uh, planning director. Yes, there is 25% that can be allotted for compact car spaces.

What's the mention for compact cars?

You remember what I just told you?

But if I may, I want to say 8 by 16.

8 by6, I believe that's correct.

And we're okay with some mix of that as well.

Yes, I'm okay with that. Yes.

I think you you don't want to change your layout. I understand. So, your building staying the same. I think the easiest way to do if you go 9 by 20 and go with the width. So this way you don't have to change your your aisles. But again, if you're willing to look into an area where you can do compact cars and you can get more by going to 9 by 20, you're

going to get more parking and provide the few landscape islands. I think that would be ideal. But if you think you want to go to 8 by 16 and provide more parking, then your your your layout is changing. Now your limits might change, your storm water might we don't want to get into that. We you know that right?

So I don't think about any of that stuff but anyway we're trying to help engineer I think we're going to reconfigure and try as many as many landscaped islands as we can based on using 9 by 20s and then probably maybe if if it can get us an extra island maybe an 8 by 20 in some certain special locations. Um, sound planner also mentioned making sure our end aisles are 10 by 20s and aisles,

you know, to to to allow for parking.

So, we'll reconfigure our landscaping.

There'll be some extra landscaping aisles.

We're not going to update our storm water. We're only adding um pvious area from to the current plan. So, so, so none of that should, you know, it's only going to be an improvement. Exactly.

Um, from what we've proposed.

It's only striping.

Yeah. So, just striping changes to add in islands as we can. And you might gain fewer parking spaces too. I think you know you might we'll we'll stick with the same ratio.

Okay.

We'll make sure that we have the same exact parking ratio that was previously proposed.

Okay.

All right.

Why can't they all be like this?

What?

Why can't they all be like this? Those issues.

Okay. So, I'm I'm going to just mention a couple of other plant related things that don't have to do with landscape islands and all that. Um, and let me just see which one it is. Um, okay.

Number is it and I'm looking at Mr. Gio.

Is number 16. The one you were saying is the ones along the building. No. What's the one along the buildings that you said you were comfortable with?

Number one was that or is that one of the ones they didn't ask for a waiver for but need?

I'm sorry.

Daniel Giosa, planning director. That would be for um 24.4D5.

Okay. So, this is one that's not on your list, but it's on the memo. Okay. Mr.

Chair, if I may, I'm going to recommend the engineer and the planning director just coordinate on those things and then the final list of the waivers so that he knows exactly what waiverss he needs and he gets it right from the source. Is that okay?

Absolutely.

Okay. Um the the one other one it was a it was a from the uh storm water management regulations and and again it's about what number is this?

This is number 19. It's on the last stack of the last page.

Okay.

Um but it was a request to it well it's a requirement to locate all of the trees on the site. I would say this probably well I don't know my interpretation would be on the disturbed area that's going to be 10 in or greater that they're asking for a waiver for I don't know Mr. Barber would like to speak to that request location with breast height.

Good evening. Tim Barber director of public works.

So my interpretation of that for this was was showing along the property lines more so any any trees that are in excess of 10 in diameter. I think on the east side where there are a butters was I think I think on along the frontage most of the trees were shown but but along the along the uh eastern property line was was a concern and you're talking about the existing trees existing trees. So basically what's

existing over 10 in diameter what's going to remain and what are they going to replace?

So I think that overlaps if I'm correct with some of the earlier conversation of just having a little bit more clarification about what's there, what's staying, what's going and what's and then what's it's being supplemented, right? Does that all fit in?

So to that waiver will remain. The request is just to add additional trees along this area that I'm highlighting.

Yeah. any existing trees that are over that 10 inch that that would that are 10 inch over 10 inch area.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We will look into seeing if we can do that. Um well, you don't I mean and I don't know, Mr. Barber, if if it's just a condition that you added on your final plan set.

Okay.

And then you don't have to do do all that in the next month. I don't know if that's reasonable. Whatever is Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

They don't show any trees there now, right? Well, is there there are people in the audience. Is there anyone in the audience here that lives to the east of this prop property?

Yeah, my my mother's property.

Okay, hold on. Hold on. If you could come up and want to know if you first I just want to know if you have any concerns, but you need the you need to come up. You need to identify yourself, please. It's just the usual procedure.

Yes. I'm Carolyn Barlo.

Okay. And you your your property is immediately abuing my mother's property where I grew up.

Okay. 454 and the property kind of comes around and we own a little bit on the sand pit there and sold quite a bit of land to the s there extensive planting of trees there now.

Yes, there are and they create a pretty good buffer there as they stand.

Um so if you go back and put that blue triangle back up uh yes that's all grown in. Okay.

But on this the the right hand side, it's a big drop.

So I'm not quite sure what you're going to, you know, so so you've got a good good 100 ft, let's say, of of overgrown stuff that's that's been filled in. But the cliff up high is still overlooks all of that. You see what I mean? So when you're standing on that right hand side on her property and looking towards the sand pit, I'm about equal with the top of that crane, you know, the top of the

sand piles.

Mhm.

So you're still going to see everything.

It's not blocking anything because the the elevation there, it goes straight down again like the other property where it's all been pulled out.

But there are a lot of trees that are there right now.

There's definitely a lot of overgrowth.

Okay.

Yes. So it definitely is a buffer from that point of view, but not from my point of view standing on the cliff, but from the people in the apartments and the parking lots and the roadways.

Does that answer the question?

It does, ma'am. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you very much for being here.

You're welcome.

All right. So, we're going to we're going to mark off any tree over 10 inches right?

Yeah.

That area for If we'll condition it.

Yeah. Condition. Yeah. Final plans.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Um do you do you have the like the elevations about that? So, there was a question um and again we might have to bring Mr.

Giosa back up, but this is on waiver number four.

There was a question about the height measurement that he had when we were speaking um earlier today because and then maybe you can explain explain the waiver and then or and explain kind of what the measurement on the height.

Yeah, I did not bring the architects.

All righty.

He's got a diagram up. So, yep. So um what we have shown here is the um breakout of the building height um you know a kind of a cut through cross-section um showing the building's elevation. So what we did was we actually took a measurement um from this grade location outside. So it's the finished floor elevation of the building um to the top of the building. I think this 42.4 for might be slightly

different because that's going to the that has this 8 inch like curb drop for the for the agreed uh from that. So what we did how we calculated this building height waiver um and this is again the from the zoning bylaw maximum height of the building is free singing shall be 35 ft height measured from the average finished grade at the foundation around the building or structure highest part

of the building to the highest part of the building or structure. So the buildings that we're proposing to reduce the amount of fill to so that we actually have a balanced site. We we're not pulling in or bringing anything out.

We actually step the building foundation um as we go towards the for the buildings that cross from the front of the property to the back of the property. They drop down about a foot and a half um at a certain section. So what we ended up doing was we took the highest finished floor elevation. So that the higher elevation from that we added in the building height which was that 41.67 here right? So that gives us

the top edge of each of the buildings.

Then each around the corner we took an elevation of the proposed finish grade around the buildings at each corner.

So those are the proposed elevations and then from there we got an average finish grade around the building per the bylaw.

So then from that we subtracted the peak roof elevation or subtracted that grade elevation from the peak roof elevation to get the the total height right to in accordance with the bylaw. I previously um we had you know just used the building height um with more depth in detail into into how the bylaw uh reads.

We came up with this calculation. the 45.36 is the tallest um average height of any of the four buildings. Um so that's where that waiver um and and the request from that comes from. So I think that explains the math behind that.

What do you think, Helen? Is that an appropriate approach?

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean still the buildings are lower basically than they setting lower than the road in in in a way but so okay m Mr. Giosa just was looking for that walk through and I think you he looks he's nodding.

You have any concern you have any concerns that you want to address with us Mr. Joseph?

I don't know whether or not the methodology is correct in taking corner elevations and whatnot, but that's why we have take take average grade.

Yeah, take average grade. Okay.

That's not an item that the planning department usually that's building comments. It's it's zoning enforcement, but in my past life experiences.

That's how we did it. So that's how you did it. Okay, good.

All right. So So number four is an okay.

I just want to see what we can cross off.

Yes, I know.

Okay, I think the last question on this existing one that was coming from your department heads was on um number 11, which is the width of your driveway. And the question that was conveyed through me is why is it why does it need to be 40 or why is it 40t wide? Is there some need for it to be 40 ft wide? And I guess if there's a concern with the width, I

would defer to the department heads about the concern.

The zoning bylaw provides that for a two-way entrance.

Yeah.

A minimum is 24 ft and the maximum is 30 and this is 40. And so the question was why it's 40.

Not my question.

Probably the the fire uh fire trucks.

to additional space for fire truck turning. Um and additionally, you know, kind of matching up with, you know, roadway and the entry locations with Lily.

That's fine.

Yeah.

You good?

Going back to the height of the building. I just saw the section if you can go back uh if you don't mind.

So, it's open in the middle. Is that because of the the uh mechanical? Is that you're going to hide the mechanical?

I believe correct. Yes.

But it's going to have a parapet to cover the parapit. So, what's your pitch on the parapit? That's what I'm trying to figure. Do you need all that space?

I mean, we're not trying to redesign your building, but but what's your pitch? I can't tell from the picture.

That's like a 10.

I mean, if if this is a concern on the height because you can probably reduce that by Oh, this is five. Ah, okay.

Five pitch. I mean, you can go to four.

Is that going to give What is that going to give you? Probably it's not much with probably another foot. Uh, all right. No, that's okay. I I I wasn't I wasn't I've just That's fine. Yeah. Yeah.

It's not like you had a eight or 10 pitch. So, okay.

Okay. So, that was the existing waiver list on the memo. the things the items that we didn't discuss were landscaping related, but I think we're going to put a pause on that while they all do their thing. Re redesign the parking, talk to Mr. Giosa.

Um, and where does that leave? I think that brings us to so condition.

Yeah. So, the condition document, we're not going to go through the entire draft obviously. Um, particularly since it sounds like you're not going to close this tonight, um, I um want to just do some flipping.

You'll the you know, as the board sees and I and I did when I sent it along to the applicant team, anything that's in black font are the more standard conditions. There's some that are a little some property, you know, specific, but um the ones that are in color, if you were able to print them in color, um are the ones that came in from the consultants, fire chief, uh your staff,

your department heads. Um so I had a second, you know, some of them has to do with landscaping. On page seven, there's kind of requests for more better better phototric plans. On page eight, um typical SWIP, etc. Um on on the parking, I mean the parking on the traffic. Um so this would be on bottom of page eight to page nine. This is where there's the discussion of the crosswalks.

um both the new crosswalks to bring it over to the others at the south side of Lucy Little and also to improve um the Lucy Little crossing. Um and I think part of that discussion is you know obviously when that gets designed or how it gets designed maybe coordinate with Mr. barber because you know the resident was here from that I don't know if she's here tonight but the resident who lives there and it's a

really tight property line for her. So that can just get worked out with DPW and so but that's those conditions are included but that radius because of her property line is so tight there the house is so close yeah the house is close to the property line um so I I think that you know I'm going to I'm going to skip sewer for a second um on the water I think we talked

about it already there was the discussion of um the well. So that's already been covered tonight unless irrigation purposes if the board has any other questions. So I think that le leaves us with the the sewer conversation and and there was a note on the bottom of page nine of your draft decision. And at this point I think that I do need to turn it over to um Mr. Barber if that's okay. Mr. chair.

It will be, but I actually we we've got another lady here who's actually impacted by this. So, I noticed we only have a couple people in the audience, but I want to give them an opportunity.

So, I am going to provide before we wrap up tonight an opportunity for public comment, but I'd like to if there's any concerns at this point in time. So, what we've discussed so far, and if you've been here, I'm sure you've been listening. what we've discussed so far.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak about any of the concerns that they may have about the uh issues about the project that we've discussed this evening there is feel free to come up just state your name um and I will grant before we wrap up tonight I'll grant uh an opportunity for anyone in the audience to speak again but having done that now we're going to call upon

uh before Mr. I just have it while we're at the traffic and I I remember at the previous uh hearings there was lot of uh talk and and and concerns about the parking and now again we come back to the parking and I think one time we said maybe we will include the condition of no parking on signs no parking signs no parking yeah that's not that's not on that's not

I'm not sure I don't I don't know that that that I don't think that It's something that um Mr. Bandini maybe included.

He's glued it out.

No, I think on we we were going to ban parking on Old River Road. I mean Westport Westport Road Lucy Little Road and I think there was a concern about Alden Avenue as well.

So um on our plan I have these um sporadically placed along the frontage that you can see here with this note referencing uh all proposed no parking any side locations on Old Westport Road Lucy shall be coordinated. Of course this guy okay that's get out of here.

Okay. Um uh confirmed with the town of Dartmouth DPR your Okay. So, so we didn't don't need to add it as a condition because it's already on the plans and they have to build in conformance with the plans. So, I think that works if I didn't go through all the plans.

I have enough of that.

All right, we're going to call upon Mr.

Barber now.

Good evening again. Tim Barber, director of public works.

So, we worked with Stantech on the peer review and off-site uh impact analysis for the sewer flows uh that were uh sent over from the engineering firm from the applicant and they couldn't complete the full analysis of the offsite because the they don't have their pump station, sewer pump designed. Yeah. To look at the impact.

So, currently they they're designing a a sewer pump station on site to discharge into an existing gravity sewer that flows down to on Lucy Little Road to a a smaller neighborhood uh pump station at on Junior Avenue. Then that pumps back up to the 6-in sewer force main. And that sewer force main also uh receives sewer flows pumping from the Sharon Avenue pump station as well as the the

Cedars Assisted Living uh private pump station which also takes on some some flows from residents that have connections along O Westport Road. And then that all pumps down to to Dwayne Avenue and then goes gravity to our north pump station that's along the Pasamanset River which pumps it to the wastewater treatment facility. So, it's it's imperative that we have that design to be able to complete the analysis to

see if if their pump is going to impact the junior pump station and if that pump station needs to be upgraded, what does that do to the pressure in the 6-in line and the capacity and how does that affect all of the other pump stations? So as a chain of of impacts that still would need to be uh analyzed. So I you know we were expecting to this to be the the closing

hearing. So, you know, I was recommending and I would recommend it further that, you know, additional funds be available from the applicant to complete the analysis once the pump station has been completely designed and all the utility design is completed and submitted for review.

and and then also for the any any upgrades that are required based on that review on and based on the flows from this development. So it's not um all solely upon the the residents that have already paid better assessments uh for the existing infrastructure and um and and are connected to the sewer already. Um, so you know any any of those upgrades if the town were to do them do do them would impact all of the

rateayers. So and as well as on on the lines of the on-site peer review. It's it's not completely complete because the pump station's not designed, but most of the most of the the pipe design and sizes and everything um meets compliant with would with typical design and and specification.

So, if I understand this correctly, there's going to be a pump station on site that collects all the fluent from the buildings and then there's going to be a forced main from there. Or is it going to be gravity?

Well, it's going to pump into a gravity line.

It's going to pump into a gravity line that's out in front of Old Westport Road.

It's about 75 ft, I believe. Is that what you had about design?

Yeah. The So, um, gravity system, right?

So, we have our sewer manholes that come down to this main sewer manhole. You know, same thing from the other direction, right? Collecting all the systems. Again, the the site's low.

We're lower than the road. Uh we got to get up here. Um is the proposed pump station location. And from there, um we're just, you know, um temporary the design is to that existing manhole. Um, you know, the idea is that, you know, we need we would like to get approval for the zoning, you know, for the site through this board and that, you know, to connect to sewer.

Um, we'll have to obviously make all of those final design. Um, but the the costs and all that associated with that future design and analysis, uh, we think can be conditioned.

So, I I think there's two What are you expecting? Are you expecting there to be issues with this?

I think there's two two parts of it. The first one is they're going to be doing design assume you know assuming if the board approved post approval that I think we are there's already conditions that are proposed that are built in that would have kind of all the necessary review type of fees that that that would have to be designed to the sewer construction standards and those would be subject to

review etc. So those conditions are already built in. I think it's the part improvements two of this that maybe you can speak to.

Well, the part two has to do probably with upgrades, right?

Improvements. Yes. I mean, what is what what would did we do with other project and with the 40B? What are that required to do? Mr.

Barber, let me ask you this. Without having the calculations, do you expect that there's going to be a requirement for upgrades to some of the forced pumping that we that the town owns? I I do expect upgrades in the pump stations, whether it's larger pumps uh in in the variable frequency drives and and other components in the pump stations. I'm not sure if we need to replace a pump station, but that isn't

um out of the question. You know, we're we're currently replacing a pump station for another 40B project um that was that was under capacity on Route 6. So, um, it it it can happen if if the flows exceed what the pump station is capable of in the wet well.

They they made a contribution towards some of that improvement.

Correct.

Fair enough. We we didn't ask them to pay for the whole thing.

No, fair enough.

Which one?

Well, we did, but they the preserve.

We did ask.

Oh, we asked. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but well we can ask for a lot of things but and normally in 40b are there like the traffic they say our contribution is a percentage or whatever something I don't know if there's a formula or what are their obligations under 40B this is what you know like because they'd be still paying for the connections right for the buildings and betterments and fees and all

there's a fee with all of that so there's ones there's ones that are more straightforward. So, for example, on the 40B you just approved, the water line, the diameter of the water line in the street was too narrow and there's no way it was going to be able to carry the water pressure that was needed for the homes and for the fire safety. So they're being required to upgrade that to a wider de diameter

because they just wouldn't be able to get the water in. In this case it's the flow coming out is going to impact something. Um and see that one was very much that was the more straightforward.

This one is that they don't have the information yet. So I mean it's it's one of those things where you know like so for example we've there's a lot we've talked a lot about the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant is a wastewater treatment plant. That's the town's wastewater treatment plant. No one's no one's being asked even the private devel you know the non40B

developers to pay to replace a waste water. That's not happening. But it's this there's this this interim where you can't get the the flow to the wastewater treatment plant if the pump doesn't work and is is there a contribution that's appropriate for to ask the developers whether they're 40B or private developers to contribute and then how do you we'll take a look at what we've done in

the past and obviously you know we we ask people to contribute their fair share right it'd be completely unfair to make them pay for the whole thing that just wouldn't you know we can ask but it just I don't think That would be fair.

Yeah. So, so basically the design will will be you know trigger uh you know and you don't know what that trigger. So we don't know what that is. So there's a lot of unknowns. So if it triggers upgrades at the junior pump station, what does that trigger down the line? So does it trigger uh force main capacity issues? Does it trigger uh other pressure issues with the other pump stations that are currently online? One

of them being a private pump station that's not maintained by the town.

Well, it seems like this is a recurring thing. We had this at the preserve. We also had it on the one off of Fon Corner Road. You weren't part of that. It wasn't a 40B. Um that was the 60 unit apartment building over there. They were trying to do things with tanks online. I mean on site with draining off peak hours. So they made a contribution which we ultimately I think was your

department and they reached an agreement that that was a fair shake fair share contribution to the additional burden to the system. So I think the same analysis would be granted here just like it's going to be on the next one if those issues arise too and anything after that.

So I again I mean if there's going to be a little more time I don't know you know whatever I can't obviously speak for Mr.

Lincoln if there's ability to just have a conversation or I can also talk to this council how to word something like that um for the preserve it was known that the contribution was worked out before you issued before you voted maybe that could happen here too yeah I don't know this is outside of my area of expertise so I it's it's something that the the you know board of public works

DPW director is asking the board to consider something in here. It's an unknown those sometimes hard to draft if this possible to have a conversation.

I I I think we should if we have the extra time we can work on it over the next few weeks.

Yeah. I I think it's like if they can if they if DPW can work it out with the applicant great. If they can't, isn't that one of the reasons for work sessions too?

Yeah. I I mean, it may be one of those things. And again, it's like I haven't I don't want to draft from in the middle of the meeting from the whole cloth here. But it may be something that, you know, we're going to have to it may and hopefully it can be mutually agreed upon language that's a little bit more I hate to use this word but squishy and yeah hopefully then they work it out at

the time and if they can't then the applicant's going to be back in front of the board. Right. So I don't even know what the dollar amount is. What's the problem? So we're just we're talking about something we don't even have the specifics on.

No. And I don't know that they can have the number. I mean that's I think the question that M the Barber is raising or the concern is there may not be a way to know maybe the impact will be very small it won't be that big maybe it huge like none of us know sitting in the room today and so maybe we can come up with a mutually agreeable language and then

when it comes to it they sit down and figure it out and if what DPW is asking for is something that the applicant doesn't think is reasonable they the applicant always has the ability to come back to the board um like you just did with the preserve a few weeks ago. So um on a different issue not related to um so I you know I I don't have an answer

for you tonight but I think I can you know I'll talk to the applicant's council and um you know if applicant wishes they can talk with Mr. Barber and be in the next few weeks. I I don't have an answer for you tonight.

Does the applicant have a formal position on that at this point or some suggestion that they'd like to make on that issue?

Yeah. Again, it is squishy.

It's formal term, but some of my uh thoughts would be to get with Mr. Barber and then even have a chat with Stantech. We know what the flows are going to be and just kind of chat through it a little bit. I mean, I can engage our our pump station designer and at least maybe we can get some quick math together and and chase it a little bit. We're not going to be able to solve

it. You know, we'll probably still need a narrative, you know, to kind of but I'm we'll do what it takes and I'm amendable to uh a share if that's the way it goes. You know, that's how it's been. I guess I've only been here for 12 years, but I the projects I've seen there's been some sharing in it.

But I think And we to be honest, the original numbers were inflated a little bit on on the previous projects. They went back and forth and they came back with something. That's what I'm saying. It's not fair. What if it's $5 million? Is he willing to pay $5 million? I don't think so. You know, if it's if I say $25,000, you tell me now, yes, I can sign.

Exactly. So, I think we need to get a good grip on what's going on before because you can't just leave it open to the board. But what if they don't agree?

Mr. Barber, quick question. What do you need to know in order to be able to figure out what may be needed to be done at some of these other pump stations?

So, bas basically the specifications uh if they have a a a typical pump design that they use uh that's going to pump into the system. So, so then Stantech can take it from there and look at you need to know the design of the pump not how much water is being put into the pump.

So, we know we have the estimated flows.

Yeah, that's what I figured based on, you know, title five numbers from number of bedrooms.

I think they can run some numbers based on the daily flow, but again, you know, I mean, that's not going to change.

Right.

Right. The daily flow is based on number of bedrooms. Correct. or I'm Yes. Um yeah, the number of veterans are correct. Yeah. Okay.

So that's not going to change. Mr.

Chair, uh question. So when you're running the that math, do they use title five or actual flows?

Typically we we use type title five which that's what which is double the actual I mean actual tends to be 50% but I the margin margin of error I think. So, okay, we'll take that into consideration when the time comes. Thank you.

All right. Um, I think we're done with Mr. uh Yeah, I um I believe that we have covered all of the um you know any anything that had that I had open questions about or your staff or consultants had any qu open questions about. I think we touched on all of those topics. Um, so you know, and it seemed like it was very I mean, obviously doing a little redesign. I didn't anticipate that, but

it sounds like it was a good productive conversation. So, we hold down a lot of the issues.

Yeah. I I mean, I think I think that, you know, and and if there is anything else more specific that you have on the draft conditions, you can have, you know, your attorney let me know. Um, but it sounds like it's really it's going to come down to how whatever they decide to do on the parking, then maybe it's it's probably more the waiver list that's going to shift. If you do have additional waiverss based on

whatever, if once you know what those are, if they're new ones, like we know you might be changing the landscaping ones, but if there's any new ones off of this memo or otherwise, then if we could know about those, like say you know, before the holiday, that would be great.

Um, and but other than that, I think I think it's it's probably in I'll just have to update, you know, some other stuff. But, um, there's not a lot more legal work I think that has to be done.

Okay.

To get this in shape.

Gentlemen, you have any questions?

No, I do not.

No, not Mr. Rosendi. Any questions?

Attorney Farah?

So, this is a public meeting. Um, I am going to again once again announce that if there's anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and ask any questions about the project or make any comments, if they want to address any concerns, feel free to come up to the podium.

All right.

Now, moving on to um moving this matter forward to another date.

I believe that we were looking at July 9th, which puts us close to about a month from now.

Wait, what's the Thursday? Is that that right?

The Thursday, it would be at 6 o'clock.

Yeah, that's the that's the 9th.

Michelle, do you have the continuation form?

Okay.

Let's pass it down to her.

Just need to confirm that that works with the applicant. July 9th, it's a Thursday.

We try to stay clear of the fourth.

Lawyers always carry black occasionally carry a broom.

So, um, obviously on the condition that they sign the extension, I'll entertain a motion that we continue this matter and we can mention specifically its case number to July 9th at 6 o'clock here at town hall.

So, an extension to July 9th. at six.

Uh I don't have You want to do that?

You want me to do it?

Yes.

I make a motion that we continue the 40B uh ZCMP 25-2 to July 9th, 2026 at 6:00.

Second.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it. All right, gentlemen. So, that concludes this matter. Um before we we entertain a motion to adjurnn, are there is there any other business um that you'd like to address here before the board?

Mr. Human?

No, I have nothing.

Mr. Schuba?

Uh no, nothing at this.

Attorney Far, anything else you'd like to address?

I have nothing.

All right, gentlemen. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

I make a motion that we adjourn. Second.

All in favor? I I The eyes have it.