October 7, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript
October 7, 2026 - Planning Board
Good evening. This is the Wayland Planning Board. It's October 7th, 2026 at 6.40 p.m. Is that right? It's 6.38 p.m. I'll call the meeting to order. Bill Sterling.
Yes, here. Robin Borgestedt, here. Jesse Newberry, here. Annette Lewis, here. Ira Montague is not planning on attending. He had another engagement. So we have a quorum.
The agenda this evening is call to order, public comment. Then the continued public hearing on 2604, the Town Center Project, amendment to the Master Special Permit.
Then at approximately 7.15, the continued public hearing on the DPW's MWRA Aqueduct Project.
And then at 8.15, approximately, PB2605, public hearing on 8 Park Ridge Road, the Planning Board is being asked to review a Zoning Board of Appeals decision from May 8, 2026,
that denied an application for a special permit and determined whether new plans are significantly different to warrant consent to reapply for a permit.
Generally, you can only, if you're denied, you can't come back and you have to wait two years.
Then updates from the Town Planner, board comments and concerns, and adjourn. So? I already promoted the two applicants for... Okay. I promoted at least one. If AJ wants to jump on, you can just raise his hand. If not... Okay.
All right. So I think where we last, to kind of quickly summarize what happened last meeting, you asked the applicant to provide an updated narrative, which I provided to the board, and an updated site plan that had at least a date on it, or a date to show what's been changed. Correct me if anything else. Is there anything else, Jesse, that besides that and the draft decision, was there anything else that you modified or changed? No, you got it right, Robert. Sorry, Jesse B. Newberry and Bear Camp. Classic. So I think where we're at now is to review the material that is sufficient, what they submitted, and then overall go for the decision. And then the board can also approve and then delegate the planning board chair to work with the staff on that. But I hope it at least gave you some of the bigger... Hope you guys looked at it and gives you at least the major things that you're looking at, any kind of conditions that would be super prevalent in this case. Can I ask, before we proceed with this, if there are any public comments on anything not on the agenda, can you just raise your hand so that I know you're here, and then after we're done with this item, I'll go back to public comment.
No answer raised. Okay, great.
So how do you want to proceed, Robert? I would, I think, be helpful for the app and just to quickly go through any of the changes that you made. I believe I highlighted, I think there was a few changes to the application or the narrative, and then I believe that there was a small change to the date to providing what was modified. It says September 25, 2026 on the site plan, adding decking and seating. But I don't know if there's any other changes that we should be aware of. That was it, and we had it stamped as well, as you can see. And that's where we got back with the instructions you all gave us from our design consultant. I know, Bill, you'd mentioned kind of annotating and showing the spot on the plan where the change is. This is what we got back from our design consultants when I gave them the instructions. So this is what we sent along, unaltered, unmodified. And then within the narrative, Madam Chair had some comments around the changing of language from uses to amenities to kind of align it with, this is in relation to the skating rink, to align it with the narrative we had for some of the other active uses. So those are really the only updates we made. You know, the red lines, I'd sent a red line to Robert just to try to make your review easier based on, you know, our appearance at two meetings ago. So what you were seeing with red lines were actually duplicative of what we provided at our last hearing. I just wanted to ask a few questions, if I may, before we go past. We had asked at one point, I think, how you're dealing with toileting for those open spaces. And I don't know that we heard anything back. Yeah, so I can take them in turn. But we are talking to all the operators about providing adequate facilities. Sorry, let me just close my door. I got two little kids around the house here.
Pardon the interruption. Some of you probably know the routine or did at one point. So we're talking to operators, for example, the skating rink, about providing adequate facilities and trying to think through what are the most tasteful, least disruptive, and aligned with kind of the character of the site, as well as starting to understand how we can provide bathrooms, you know, common bathrooms within the building. So that is ongoing, you know, our understanding is that working with you all and this amendment to the master special permit, we are getting the right, we will have the ability to execute on these uses, they'll be part of the master special permit, we anticipate there'll still be some work to do once we identify partners with the town. And, you know, we view this as being one of those issues to ensure that we're in line with town regulations as related to not just public safety, which we've talked about a lot, but frankly, bathrooms, you know, the health department will have requirements for certain events, which we've dealt with for hand washing. So we'll be subject to all of that in anything that we do in the public realm. So, Robert didn't have a condition about that, but I'm suggesting, and I'm telling the board and asking, I'd like to put in a condition that there have to be arrangements for toilet facilities. Is that okay with people? There is, in fact, no change in the amount of impervious surface that was originally approved in the master special permit. That's my understanding, that's my understanding, because you would have had buildings that had impervious surface, and this is still open space. So, you're, okay. The site plan lot notations are problematic, and I just realized it today as I was looking at them really closely. When you assign the lot numbers and plot numbers, is that what was approved in the master special permit? Because it doesn't match our map and parcel numbers from the assessors and what we announced.
That is an excellent question. I think we were working off of the prior site plan, or our consultants were, that was in the master special permit from 2008 as an exhibit. That's what I was, I couldn't tell, and because there was another site plan that wasn't in the master special permit, but was more understandable, that was filed at the registry later. So, I think that after tonight, we all need to just go back and look at the notation to make sure that the plans and the decision match, because we're going back and forth between the two of them, I think. Then, the existing lighting plan, you've said that everything will remain the same, but that was never the, on Alyssa Avenue, that lighting was never approved. So, I'm not sure how you want to deal with it. It either really needs to come down, or you need to ask for permission to have it. Yeah, this has come up and understood the ask.
We think it adds scale and actually some character. It was installed before we purchased the site. We've heard from a lot of members in the community that they quite like it. But, I think what you're suggesting is, if that is the case, we should ask this board to approve those string lights. You know, our take on that is, they're easy to take down, they're temporary in nature, but if there was some way to ask for the specific approval to keep the string lights as currently exist on site, that would be wonderful. Okay, because normally that kind of lighting is not allowed in town at all, only on Christmas, or only on holidays. So, are you asking us to? Yes. Okay. How does the board... What I want to make sure, Madam Chair, we do hear is that this is not a threshold issue for us, just to be clear. We're just drafting off what we've heard in the community. If this has the potential of delaying this current decision, my preference would be not to come back here and revise it for this one singular specific ask. I know we're going to be back in front of you all at some point. And I mentioned this to Bill last time, as we start thinking about moving into wayfinding within the site, and some of the other elements, which we could include this in. But I would ask for the board's opinion on this as part of this hearing, just knowing that time is really of the essence for us, because we want to get going making some of these improvements. What if we, Madam Chair, what if we put in a condition that the applicant needs to come back, but it doesn't have... I'm trying to figure if it has to come back for a fall amendment, or can it come back, the board can review it at a public meeting and put the ornament on the applicant at a later date? It's just balancing, not like putting too much on the applicant to leave it, but also like, no, we're not going to approve it. You need to take it down. However, you can come back. Let me ask something. Is this something that the building department would have had to approve? I would think so. Or fire. Fire is the one that does not like it at all. Oh. It beats it. And they've told me that, but I, I don't think I have any for you to get it down. It was before my time. So it's been up there for five years. Yeah, it hasn't been temporary. It's been up there at least for five years before my time. And I've been here for four years. Would the fire department find it less objectionable if it ran parallel to the street? Because right now it zigzags across the street, so they can't maybe move under it. They're all about safety. I think anything that kind of like gets in your way of the ladder is not, they don't like. So we, just if I, if I, if I may, when we met with fire and I believe Robert, you were in this meeting, they actually already tweaked the lights at some point prior to ownership when I think Sarkis was the town planner. This is, if my memory is serving me right, where they already took down a section of the lights that were adjacent to the building on the corner of Alyssa and Andrew to the west where there's a residential unit above through follow me because the fire department said it would be an obstruction to our ladder to have this one row of string lights and that was already taken down. So there's just been, what seems like a bunch of casual mitigation to some of this prior to our ownership, but we're happy to, um, do what the board deems appropriate here.
Thoughts? So board members? I personally don't mind the lights, but I could see if we required that they have approval from the fire department. Um, the other thing that this makes me think about is there's no provision for lighting at the skating area. And so if we're doing this, then I would also throw in some provision, some restriction that there can be lighting at the skating area seasonally, but it has to meet the following requirements or something so that we're dealing with that all at once. Isn't it the same thing at the fields though, too? Um, fields you're not going to be using at night unless you have like real floodlights. So I wouldn't imagine they're getting used at night, but the skating rink in the wintertime, it's dark so early that it might be used, you know, when it's a little bit dark out, but could we say something like, um, as the development proceeds, um, they should be, um, applying to the appropriate, uh, departments for approval of lighting. Um, and we have the, we'll have a condition that no light goes into the sky and all that stuff. Our standard would that be very comfortable with that. It's fine with me. Yeah, I'm good there. Okay. Let me write down. So I don't forget what, um, it may be hard to meet the dark sky requirement. So it's because they're not shielded. Those lights, they make ones that have little, little, you mean the ones on a list. I'm sure they comply with that.
Yeah. Our intention is to do, um, so, so one of the things I'll, I'll wait until the chair is done writing to not distract.
Um, so the ice skating rink, Robin's a great point. Um, we thought we could execute this winter and move really quickly. We are not going to be able to do that. There are a lot of moving pieces that touch things like lighting and public safety. Um, there's a lot of work we have to do. So we, in working with, um, the Eliza J. Norton Foundation have decided, and we've been regular contact with them, that we are going to wait to do this for a year, which will give us time to work with the town on all of this sort of stuff. Um, and we anticipate having to do it. So this is, this is very much consistent with what our expectations were going to be on, on things like this. Um, okay. Um, so, uh, for the rest of you, have you read through the decision? Yeah. Yeah. Um, I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I think it needs to be, um, more condensed. I think that there are sections that we can leave out because they're already in the master special permit, uh, like the construction conditions and the, um, going back to look, uh, construction conditions and most of the construction conditions, uh, and the general conditions. They seem to be repeats of what's already in the master special permit, Robert. Okay. Um, the first general condition, um, is fine because we do want it recorded so that there's a record of it. Um, and then in the construction and stop me at any point in time when you want to jump in, uh, for the construction condition. I'm just going to put on the screen just so that Jesse, you can see. Okay. Sorry. And then I'm going to go back. I didn't have to write a copy to the app because there was nothing in the decision. I thought that was, um, okay. I'm going to show. So. Okay. So the we're on page eight, the first, uh, paragraph talks about getting, uh, this thing, uh, filed at the registry of deeds, which makes sense. Um, and then the rest of them under general conditions, I believe are already covered in the master special permit. So I don't really think we need to repeat them again because at one other place we say everything in the master special permit that isn't changed stays. Um, and then with the construction conditions, the limit, uh, at five, four, two limits of hours of work, um, parking of construction vehicles, all of that is already covered again in the master special permit. So I don't really think that we need to say it again. Um, about 5.4.1. I was just going to ask you about that. I don't, I'm not sure when that would even really come into play with the kinds of things that they're doing. Why would they need to meet with the DPW and the conservation commission, for example? The only thing I could think of, and there's maybe, maybe it'd be, maybe it'd be me and the police and fire is when they install the ballers. Potentially that's the only, I also, I, I think fires on it. I also can take it out. It's not, it's not, it's not a big deal. That's okay. We can do, I think that it would be fine to do fire and, um, and planning. The building department as well. Let me, let me fly down and we can, we can work on that hopefully offline to, to a little more, to make it more, uh, um, define what exactly construction activity we're talking about.
It could also be, it could be, the work could be started out on the field and we just want, you know, fire and police is just to be there a week before and just, Hey, this is a plan. Here are the pictures. We're going to install it next Friday. Boom. And just so everybody is aware. Or because once it doesn't stop, people are going to be asking questions, but we should probably be aware of the town, at least public safety should be aware of that. It's being installed. Jeff, do you need a week or do you need something shorter? Somebody there while you're doing it for the bollards?
Um, don't know the answer to that. Um, I'm just reading this for the first time you're saying, so we could also just say prior to construction activity. Um, yeah, I think that, I mean, again, this is stuff we knew we were going to have to do anyways. Um, in my anticipation is that we would, we would actually do it at least one week prior. Right. Um, you know, this is, this is work that we're going to be, um, starting and executing on the scope. And I think we'll, we'll understand our lead times and construction schedule and we can plan accordingly. Okay. So is you want to leave the weekend or do you just want to say prior to construction? I think you just say prior to construction. Prior to construction is great. Okay. Yeah. Um, just knowing if you can't get everybody all at once and if you end day, like, yeah. Right. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Um, then going back to, um, page one, um, the, the center, the header needs to be centered with the logo over to the left.
Um, I started sorting through under location, the, uh, map and lot numbers and what is in each of those just so we could start understand, so we could understand what was what, because we have to somewhere in here talk about, for example, we don't, well, I'm asking this of the board in the decision as written, it doesn't say a skating rink goes here, a dog park goes there. It just says, these are the kinds of things that can go in. Um, and if we're going to do it that way, then it would be helpful. I think if we said, these are the specific areas, um, within the specific assessor's lots, that we're dealing with as unbuilt areas. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure what unbuilt areas means. The unbuilt areas are areas that were already approved to have, um, commercial development on them. The sizes of the commercial development is already approved. But no, I know what it is, but why are you using that term? Um, because I'm trying to, I'm trying to describe the area. It could be future development, right? Pardon me? They're still approved, so they could be future development.
I'm, I'm just trying to clarify. As yet, what we're, what this thing talks about essentially is as yet unbuilt areas, because the applicant doesn't want to lose the right to. I just have a, I'm agreeing with your comment, and I just want to add that this was not noted on the site plan. They, they identified the skating rink and the dog park. They had two other areas circled, but they did not identify what they were, and I think they need to be labeled. So I'm agreeing with you. Okay, so do you, do you want everything labeled, or do you want them to have the flexibility to just do these uses on any of those parcels? I think we need to label it as, you know, what the developer intends for those to be. Yeah, like right now, the dog park is labeled, and. That's it. That's it. So the other ones, I suppose, could be, even if they have multiple potential uses, like sports field and, you know, whatever else, and then the skating and whatever else, it could be noted on there, just like dog park is. I think in truth, and in practice, given our experience with public realm activation and place making projects of a similar nature, you know, Bill, what you're explaining is by design so that we can have some flexibility for some of these things as the specific needs of our community and operating partners come forward, always, of course, subject to having to go back to the town for all the things we've been speaking about. We did label the dog park because that is a kind of awkward piece of real estate that has some existing trees. It's not at the right grade. And that's where we are going to put it. But, you know, we're going to learn a lot as we get out there and start talking to operating partners and community partners. And my concern is if we are too prescriptive with exactly where some of that goes, that limits our ability to be creative with folks. I understand the ask, but that's kind of our perspective and how we're thinking about these uses, which, you know, I do want to be forthcoming. You know, some of this work to activate the public realm is very fluid and is very partner dependent. And even, you know, being out there over the weekend at the Wayland Fest, like it actually validated my sense and my team's sense that there's just so much we could do to bring the community to this place and we'd be a little bit hesitant to say exactly what we're going to do on these unbuilt parcels. I think that's fine and I agree with that. I think that, but they should be labeled and otherwise it's like, why are you circling it? You have to say these are future development undetermined or something like that. I mean, I just, just so that whoever sees that document understands what that circle is for. You could just label them underutilized space like it is in here. Yeah. Well, it's actually more than that though. Those are, those are approved for development in the master plan so that they actually are approved development sites to be developed or something like that. Yeah. They're currently unbuilt, approved and unbuilt. Yeah. That's why I think they should be labeled. Yeah, I think where we may have tried to do this was in the narrative, just detailing that we are not changing the underlying zoning of the site. And we were, we were hesitant to start labeling pieces of the unbuilt sites for anything, but what their intended use is. We just want to do stuff in the interim. So we'll follow the board's lead on this. But we did spend a lot of time thinking through the right language for the actual narrative because we don't want something to go on the public record. That's, you know, and I think Madam Chair, this was your intent by calling them unbuilt that suggests that the underlying zoning is changed in any way whatsoever. And I don't know how you do that on a plan versus the narrative, but we're happy to do it if the board so pleases. But right now the plan has no, there's no key that says that that particular type of dashed line is unbuilt space. And so if just, if somewhere on here is a key that says something that has that dotted line around it or dashed line around it is the unbuilt space that is discussed in this decision. That's all. Yeah. Would that help in that? The last thing I'll say, and then you, you all can do what makes the most sense is we were also just trying to follow the pattern. And I know no one's super happy with it of the prior site plan used as an exhibit to the master special permit. But, and the way in which it was referenced as that exhibit, because we do detail in the actual narrative, but, but totally heard and happy to do what the board deems most appropriate. Okay, moving on in the beginning part where we just say, normally, we just give a summary of what's going on in the decision. I think it would be better to revise it and just talk about the three things that are being approved. I think, I'm assuming they're being approved. The closing of a portion of Alyssa Avenue to traffic, traffic, traffic, pardon me, and the kind of uses replacing the gateway signage at route 20 and 27 entrances to the site and providing the opportunity to use as yet unbuilt portions of the site for tenant and community programming while retaining the development potential of the 2008 approved master special permit plan.
Sounds good to me. Okay. I think that sort of captures it. And then that will tell people, okay, this is what's happening. And then we can start moving through the procedural history. In the procedural, I guess this is a question, 100 Alyssa Avenue, which is lot 502F is cited here. What's happening there? That is behind the wastewater treatment plant.
I don't know if that came from you, Jesse, or if Robert figured that one out. I don't think that came from us. Okay. Robert, I don't know. I mean, it's all the properties they own, right? Included all the properties that they all joined together. They're not doing, okay. They're not doing anything. I don't think they're doing anything. We can note that this 100 Alyssa Avenue is owned by the Apkin, by N.P. The Master Special Permit applies to much more than what they own. Okay. So, okay. So, that answers that. And we'll figure that out. Yeah. When we're done, again, if it's okay with people, I'd like to try and go back with Robert and reorganize this a little bit. Yeah. And then we can decide how you want to get it, you know, whether you want to review it afterward or whatever. We'll talk about that. The, okay.
With some of the plans, I just want to, again, work with Robert to make sure that we say, for example, that Exhibit C is in something that was submitted. We can't tell that. So, that's not a big deal. With the Phase 2 Site Plan Review, Robert, your second bullet, this Planning Board is required to review building design and elevations. There really aren't buildings. Yeah. That was no for kill. Okay. I was being, trying to be very detailed on this. Okay. And then, on the next page, the second bullet at the top, you talk about screening and buffering. Isn't it really just landscaping that we're doing here? Yeah. Okay. And then, oh, we're not touching open space. What they're doing is not open space. The only open space is the Town Greens.
Okay. And the subject property, this is under General Findings, actually is 59 acres. That's what the whole Master Special Permit went to. And so, the 20.14 is what these guys own.
Yes. I think we have to figure out if we want to do this at all and talk about the total acreage.
Or that we could say something like their application affects 20.14, but it really doesn't affect F, so we would have to take that one out.
We also, I think, need to say something that we're approving the reduction in parking. The federal floodplain and federal floodplain protection. And then, watershed protection. We only have two districts. I'm not sure which one has to drop out, but you can check that, Robert. Mm-hmm. Okay. And the property is not really, well, we have to be careful how we do this. The Master Special Permit applies, again, to 59 acres, and so that's not bounded by River Trail Place. River Trail Place is a part of this, so we just have to finesse that a little bit. But the, I'm hoping that this makes sense in 414, in order to revise the previous approved plans for the retail and office portion of the Wayland Town Center mixed-use project, the board has determined that a major amendment to the 08 Master Special Permit is required.
I think, Jesse, that that is the section that you're dealing with, retail and office. Yes. Okay.
The, okay, then for specific findings, I think somewhere we have to say something like, um, it's an opportunity to use as yet unbuilt portions of the retail and commercial portions of the site for tenant and community programming while retaining the development potential of the 2008 approved Master Special Permit Plan.
And just some of the language, um, for example, on the next page, page four, the one, two, three, the fourth bullet consideration of existing streets. I just think we need to clarify what we're saying, um, subject to, to conditions imposed herein, the entrance to the site. It's not, it, it, we're talking about here, we're talking about, um, the Alyssa Avenue area only with the bollards. So we just have to be clear about that.
And for the inconsiderate next bullet underneath in consideration of existing streets, the second bullet under that bullet, um, can we talk about, um, with Alyssa Avenue that what they're trying to, what they're doing is creating a corridor for connection to the rail trail. Or pedestrian connection. Yeah. Thank you. To the rail trail and the rest of the, the interior of the site. Yeah.
Okay. Um, parking and loading standards. There are 24 parking spaces that we're going to be losing, not just 16. Um, but I think we have to say something like, um, that was what was for the full build out and there are currently as yet unbuilt areas so that there is leeway to lose those spaces. I just think we have to give a, a logical reason why it's okay.
Uh, and in lighting design, again, we'll talk about the night sky in our standard language. Um, and the open space thing, I think doesn't belong there because this isn't open space. It's already, it's already gone. Okay. Um, and then in the decisioning conditions, um, all of these people, all of these boards and departments did not comment, uh, on the decision. Only the, um, board of health did. I think it was the board of, no, not the board of health, whoever it was. There was only one that commented. So I think we can say that, um, the other boards were given an opportunity to comment because when you look at the, the page of, of who submitted, what it's only one department that submitted something. Uh, and then, um, for the amendment to the master special permit, um, the sections that need to be amended again, I think we can just state the facts and again, say the three areas that we're amending, uh, and, uh, many of the things that are on page five under the recreation area seem to me more like conditions rather than decision. The decisions are, you can do this, you can do that. You can do this. And these are the conditions that you have to do to comply with those. So I would move those to conditions, um, coming back to the other customary amenities, uh, language that you have here, Robert. Um, I don't, it's a little vague. And I thought that the last time we talked about, um, a way of referring to it, but not calling it customary. How about other necessary accessory improvements or other necessary? I mean, that could be serving food at a place where you shouldn't be serving food. It could be building a little building for people to change in.
I think for something like that, we would want to know that that's what's being done.
I'm saying these things and I'm hoping that you guys are thinking and feeding back what you think. Yeah, no, they're fine. But this level of detail shouldn't be done in live, you know, meeting. I think that kind of thing, we can just, you and Robert can work it out and ask us to approve it later. Okay. Yeah.
Um, well, but that's, that's not, we're going to approve it and, you know, allow Annette to make some changes. Right. So this is the time to kind of talk about whether we'll approve some of these ideas or not. Right. And what we can do is, uh, Robert and I can revise it. He can send it out to you. You could send any comment. As long as we have an understanding of what we're approving, um, you can send comments back to him. He can make the final changes and you can either deal with it at our next meeting, or you can authorize me now to sign it. Um, and it's, it's certainly up to you how you want to proceed.
And again, some of these other things as we go on are like findings of fact. And I mean, there's going to be the decision, which is essentially simple findings of fact that precede the decision and then conditions that follow the decision. And I think, again, with that, we can just really simplify this and make it a much shorter document. It'll be easier for everybody to follow.
Are there other things in here that you people saw that I missed? No, it's just a lot of redundancy. Um, a little below where you are right now, Robert is another parking section that has that 16 figure instead of the 24. Right. I think it was originally 2016 when we did the, uh, and that's why it must not have changed it. It's been working on us for weeks. Yeah. No, I just thought I'd point it out. It's so bad, the four. It says 20. There you go. But I, you know, I think that, that stuff you just mark up and you, you fix it, you know, to do this live on the show is a waste of time, public time. Well, normally I, I generally ask Robert if I can get it in advance before it goes to the board so that I can do these things and save time, but I didn't get it in advance. So, sorry. So we'll review it again when you fix it. That's great. Is that what you'd like to do at the next? That's what I propose. Yeah. Right. Do you want to, you, you, I, I clearly it's fine to review it. Do you want to review it, get your comments back to Robert and then allow me to sign it? Or do you want to review it, get comments back to Robert and then, um, take the vote at the next meeting?
I think a vote at the next meeting would be soon enough. I don't, I'm just one vote though. So I don't know what everyone else thinks. How do the rest of you feel? I'm fine with everybody sending in their changes and letting Annette sign it because there aren't going to be any substance, substantive changes. These are just words. Yeah. Yeah. Dramatical changes, organizational changes. Yeah. Jesse. Jesse Newberry, you're muted. I was talking that whole time, agreeing with you, Robin. Um, thank you. Yeah, no. So this is, you know, it's, it's just clean up in here. Right. So, um, and consistency. So, um, I'm, I'm fine with voting with, um, the provision that Annette's going to clean this up with Robert. That's fine. There's nothing, there's nothing big that's going to change here in this. No, I don't think so. And again, what we, what we'll be approving is closing a portion of Alyssa Avenue to traffic, uh, and using it for the kinds of things they've been talking about, replacing the gateway signage at route 20 and 27 entrance to the site. And we've talked about that in the sizing, um, and providing the opportunity to use the, as yet unbuilt portions of the site, uh, and, uh, while retaining the, uh, right for potential development. Yeah. Okay. So if that is what we've got, um, I would ask, um, we can either close the hearing and vote, or we can vote and close the hearing. Why don't we, is it okay? How about if we are ready to close the hearing? Yeah. Um, can I have a motion to close the, uh, public hearing on, uh, PB 2604 application of Graffito SP, uh, for amendment to the 2008, uh, master special permit? So moved. Second. Okay. Uh, Bill Sterling. Hi. Robin. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. So it's a four zero vote. Um, and then, um, I'd like, um, a motion, uh, for, um, Robert and I to, uh, revise the draft to simplify it and clarify some points in line with what we spoke with this evening. Uh, and then, uh, uh, and then me to sign it and issue it again. Do you want to see the changes before I sign it?
I think you don't want to say, okay, that's fine. Fine. I mean, we, we've talked through everything here. All right. I think right now. It's all right. Pretty well. Fine. So I will work on it over, um, the next week. I'll try and get it in faster, but I won't be around for a few days. Um, so, um, again, uh, a motion to, uh, authorize me to, um, to the chair to, uh, work with the town planner and finalize the decision. And then the plan, the chair to sign it on behalf of the board. So moved. Seconded. All in favor. Bill Sterling. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. I hope we're in good shape. Um, are you Jesse, uh, bear can what we will get back to you with is we'll try. Um, I'll try also and look at the site plan, uh, and see if I can sort through sort of some of, because there are a million different site plans as we have talked about in the past.
And, um, so we might need to just revise it finally, but we can approve this. Um, and subject to the final thing coming in. Um, yeah, and we'll work with you expeditiously on that when, uh, when needed and, and thank you all. It's been really, uh, a great first matter. Um, your guidance has been helpful. Your questions are great. I think they've made this first. Bit of the project better. Uh, we'll be back in front of you soon, but really appreciate the collaboration. And, you know, as you can tell by our enthusiasm, we're just excited to get going here. Um, and continue our work so much appreciated. Thank you. And people are pretty excited about what you're doing out there. So that's good. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Thanks, Jesse.
Okay. Uh, now it is 730 and we're a little late. Uh, this is PB 2603, Continued Public Hearing on, uh, the MWRA Holtman Aqueduct Corridor. Um, uh, the, uh, the, uh, uh, treatment plant at Happy Hollow and the, uh, Castle Road pump station, uh, to bring MWA water to Wayland. So I just want to see.
Be sure. I think Tom's here and Matt O'Dowd's here for the client photo. Yeah. Okay. And I also, I just changed Greg Roy's name to Dales and Roy just so he, it's not confusing. He's, um, also going to change the peer reviewers just so it's not confusing because this client photo, there's a lot on the applicant team. So I'm just going to leave it as peer reviewer just so that everybody knows.
Okay. Um, so, um. Can I comment on that as the peer review, um, I, is something that we can discuss offline or some, there are some things in there that I need to be cleaned up. A typo and an error in their judgment that I think needs to be, is that something we can just do later?
Depends what they are. It depends how significant they are.
So why don't we let the peer reviewer go over his comments. And if you have comments while, after he's gone over them, Bill, or. We can do it offline. We'll do it. I can send a letter to you if you want. Well, it has to be in the record though. Yeah, uh, the letter will be in the record.
But, uh, Greg, can you, do you mind just going through the highlights of, of the peer review letter? We don't need like every little detail, but just give us like the highlights of the things that are, um, outstanding or questions. Yeah, I have just a few items. That's great to start. We can get to your questions too, Bill, after. If that's okay. I'm happy to yield if, if Bill wants to, I'm at the pleasure of the board here. So whatever you'd like to.
I think it would be cool if you, if you did your overview. Sure. Uh, thanks everybody. Greg Roy with Dills and Roy. Um, and I, I'm the, was, uh, conducted the peer review for the project. And, um, I, uh, we'll give you an overview. Um, I'll just, uh, if, if there's anyone that you want me to, um, discuss in particular, or if there's any cleanup, feel free to let me know. I, uh, I guess I'll apologize in advance, uh, for, for that. If there was, if there was something that needs to be cleaned up in there. Um, but I'm just going to do the ones that I think are, uh, are significant. But if I skip over any, uh, please just stop me and I can, I can talk about any of them. Um, and I'll say that, um, the plan set that was submitted, uh, was, was fairly comprehensive. My peer review really focused on the civil, uh, portions of the plan review. So you can see that in the, in the opening, um, statement of the letter. Um, so I didn't, I didn't necessarily go through all the architectural plans and all those, those type of things. So just, just for clarity. Um, numbers one, two, uh, and, and three, uh, really just tended to be informative to the board, uh, relative to, uh, where the parcels lie in the various zoning districts, overlay districts. Um, number three, uh, was relative to, uh, some, some earth, the earth work provisions or earth movement provisions, rather in your, uh, in your zoning bylaw. Um, um, it, it, you know, it's, it's, uh, um, project being, you know, conducted by the town. So I think that you're afforded exemptions under that section. So just pointing those things out for information purposes. Um, number four relates to offsite parking. We didn't have any significant concerns, uh, with the parking. It doesn't appear that the facilities are, uh, a really high traffic generators. Um, the applicant did provide some, uh, information relative to that in their, in their project narrative. Uh, so again, we just pointed out the, um, uh, what the plans were showing, uh, for parking on the plans. And we didn't have any significant issues with that. It doesn't, um, it doesn't show up, I think, as a, uh, as a listed use in your parking table. So I think that ultimately your board has to make a determination as to the adequacy. Uh, but in our opinion, uh, I don't, we don't see any, any issues relative to the parking proposed. Um, in that section, you're citing the wrong section, I believe. I think it's 506, uh, 110 and 50681, uh, 50631 deals with mixed use projects.
This is on number four. Yes, it was. Sorry. Okay. Number six. Sorry. That's parking facilities. Sorry. Oh, I see. Yeah. Sorry. I was on number four. I apologize. I should be more specific. No, that's my fault. Um, uh, lighting again, there didn't appear to be any, any, uh, major exterior lighting proposed. Uh, that very well may be the case for these types of facilities. I just, I just wanted to make sure that that was, that the applicant commented to make sure that was the case. Um, there, there is lighting and they did show it, I believe on some of the plans and probably the architectural plans. Uh, okay. Well, um, apologize for that. I, I didn't see any on the, uh, on the, on the civil plans. And I, again, I was focused, I was really focused on those, uh, on those sheets. Um, so perhaps that's a, uh, a clarification there. Uh, and I apologize for that. Um, on six, um, the, um, the, particularly on the castle roads, the, the, um, happy hollow sites, fairly remote, you know, fairly, fairly isolated. Um, I think from the, uh, surrounding, uh, residential, uh, uses, uh, quite, quite a distance, but on the castle road side, of course, the sites pretty close proximity to abutting sites. They are proposing a chain link fence, uh, in there, which I, I think, um, I think your bylaw, um, you know, doesn't necessarily stipulate the method for screening. It just says that screening has to, has to, um, has to be provided in those types of situations. Uh, so there wasn't any natural plantings there. I'm not certain that your bylaw requires it, but I'm just pointing it out. There wasn't really any, uh, the applicant, I think, even reported in their narrative that they're not proposing any, um, any proposed plantings on the facilities, but there is some screening proposed, um, on the, particularly on the castle road site.
Seven again is informative, uh, for the board. Before you move on, can you explain, um, why you thought particularly on the Northern property line, um, that it would need screening from parking. Um, because these regulations that you're citing deal with parking and the parking is on the old Connecticut pass side. Um, well, they've got, sorry, I'm pulling the plan up here.
So, um, I guess it depends on how you translate the plan, but they, they have the, um, I mean, if the board's determination is that the, you know, that there's no parking adjacent, they are showing the gravel parking area on the, um, old Connecticut path side of the, of the property. Um, but I guess I was just looking at it, um, the, you know, they have the driveway access that comes in, which certainly could be utilized for parking. I would imagine. Um, so I reckon that this is a, um, a, a judgment call by the, by the, uh, by the board. But, you know, I just wanted to point out that they, they aren't proposing any naturalized screening, but there is a fence that's adjacent to the entire facility on the northerly side.
Bill, if we hit anything that you want to ask, John. Well, you know, this, this is the one, the Happy Hollow. Are you referring to the Happy Hollow or are you talking about the Castle Road site? This is on the Castle Road site. Okay, well, yeah, what's interesting is that we've spoken with, uh, DPW and they've already agreed to put landscape. They actually showed, uh, design review board some proposed landscaping for screening. Oh, okay. That is not, what you're saying is actually not true anymore. Oh, okay. Well, I, I didn't see that on the plant, so I apologize. No, you haven't seen the latest plant. Oh, okay. Can the applicant go through that too? Yeah, that, that may be, may be resolved then. I, I, and again, I wasn't trying to, um, I think that portion of the bylaw, I think it doesn't necessarily stipulate that it has to be landscaping, but it, it has some, um, it, it just calls for screening. I think is the, is the language in there. If my, I'm not reading it verbatim, but that's my recollection. I apologize if I didn't have the latest and greatest plan there, but I, uh, I was using the submitted application materials. So. Well, I understand that. I think it's appropriate. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, again, seven is just informative. Um, I, I, it appears that this, this project fits into a quote utility facility. And, uh, uh, that is a, a use, um, that's listed in the table of uses as requiring a site plan. So of course we're here for that purpose. So this is, again, just, just informative for the board, um, applicant, the application, uh, eight, um, eight is important. Yeah. So I'll read it application requirements. The applicant has provided a project narrative along with supporting information, which addresses the requirements of this section. They have requested waivers, um, including a waiver from the preparation of a traffic study. Uh, and again, I just, I didn't have it. We didn't have any, I didn't have any specific concerns with the waivers they've requested, but it is pointing them out to the board that they, they did indeed request some. Um, and you'll have to make, uh, you know, as part of your review, you'd have to make a formal finding. Yeah, I think that that's the word waiver, I think is probably not, doesn't apply anymore because the DPW has agreed to do a study, not for traffic volume, but about the safety and the visibility of the entrance from, uh, castle road onto old Connecticut path. Uh, so, so, so I, I wouldn't use the word waiver at all because they actually have agreed to do analysis and calculated what the safe, safe intersection wouldn't, would require. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's fine. When we're done with this, um, then the DPW will, um, respond and tell us what they've done since the last meeting. I think, um, it would be better if we didn't intersperse what you now know because you were at the DRP. And again, it was just written in their narrative, but the waivers are requested. So I wasn't trying, you know, if perhaps the, it's appropriate for them to just retract that waiver request and that, that's fine. Yeah. So, um, again, nine, just in form of the, the structures to me appear to meet, uh, zoning setbacks, uh, as, as stipulated in your dimensional, uh, table, uh, which is also, um, sort of eight and nine, uh, nine and 10, uh, together. Um, 11, same thing. It's another, uh, carry over, uh, just take, it's, it's your section of table, uh, of permitted uses in the, in the district. It appears to be an allowed use, um, same thing in the aquifer protection district, um, which is number 12, um, 13, I, I guess, um, relates to earth removal. This is one that I'll, uh, I'll stop on. Um, I'll just read this one. The happy hollow site includes a relatively deep cut. It looked to me about 10 feet in the, uh, at the worst point, um, in the infiltrate in portion. Of the infiltration lagoon, uh, for the, uh, for the construction of the lagoon areas, the applicant should provide documentation as to the depth of the groundwater in this area to ensure earth removal, uh, within four feet of the water table is not proposed. Uh, we know that borings have been conducted on both sites. However, these do not provide as accurate of a groundwater assessment as traditional deep observation holes. Um, and I'll talk about the deep observation holes later in the letter relative to support of the, uh, um, stormwater system as well. Um, so, um, this portion of the regulation has some stipulations in terms of the depth of the cut. Uh, you can't, uh, you can't go within four feet of the water table. And I guess I was just a little concerned that, um, the, the soil boring information that was, um, provided on the plan might not give us quite enough information to assess, uh, the actual location of the, uh, or depth of the, of the water table to assess that. So, um, we would recommend that deep observation hole be done there, um, at least down to those, to those, uh, proposed cut depths so that you can really determine, uh, where that estimated, you know, the seasonal, uh, water table is, uh, in that, in those locations.
Um, number 14, uh, and I said this in a few different, uh, spots, but this is probably one of the ones that I was looking for a little bit more information on. And, and, and perhaps this is one that, uh, that the applicant has responded to, uh, previously, but, um, I'll also read this one, uh, again, I'm on number 14. The happy hall of facility includes the proposed lagoon system for the discharge of backwash. The applicant, uh, should provide additional documentation regarding the operation of this system to ensure compliance with the act for protection district requirements. We do note that the applicant lists a BRP W6, a WS06 application, which is an underground injection permit as one of the listed permits that they submitted, uh, of many, several that, that, that this project requires. Um, this permit is reviewed and issued by DP. The applicant should confirm that this UIC permit includes the proposed lagoon system. So I guess my intention of this comment is, and I have it, I say a little bit different, a little bit different, stated a little bit differently later. Um, I'm just interested to hear what the applicants, uh, what, how that system will work and how it, and how it's, um, designed to work and how it will protect. It's, it looks to me like there's a, there's two lagoons, one that's lined where the backwash is discharged to, and it's an overflow into the infiltration system. And I was just a little concerned that particularly in the aquifer protection district, but really anywhere that, um, that there might be possibility of, um, you know, contaminated water, backwash water, if you will, that will now then be infiltrating into the, uh, you know, into the ground. And that infiltration portion of the, of the lagoon system. So, um, but I did, I did want to point out that they did list the UIC injection, uh, UIC injection permit. Uh, so perhaps, um, perhaps this has already been anticipated. Um, so just looking for a little bit of additional information on that from the applicant and the design team. Um, uh, uh, for, um, there is a portion of the Happy Hall of Sight that, that is in the floodplain area. Um, and they do, they are proposing some work down there relative to some, some trenching down by where the wellheads are, I think, utility work and things. Uh, so it, it looked to me like, like a, a CBA special permit could be, uh, required. I wasn't sure if there had been one filed, but I just wanted to point that out. Greg, I think that, um, if you read the floodplain bylaw, it only deals with removal of structures. Okay. So I don't think it, they're not going to be removing any structures in that area. Yeah, I, I agree. It looked, it looked to me like it was limited to, uh, utility trenching and things. Uh, let's see. Um, the next section is, um, relative to review of the, of the plans and things, uh, pursuant to your site plan, uh, review, uh, review and approval regulations. Um, number 16, I think was the one that I keyed in on here. So perhaps this is a joint review with you and the Conservation Commission. So this might be more appropriate to the Conservation Commission, but it is in your site plan regulations. Um, the, um, the, the, the plan showed the riverfront area and the buffer zones, but it didn't seem like it really clearly identified the associated, uh, river, the bank and the, uh, and the buffer zone, excuse me, in the, uh, boarding vegetative wetland. Um, so, um, and, and that's a requirement of that section of the regulations. So, um, our recommendation is just to add those, that those resource areas really should be delineated and, and, uh, and added to the plan so that you can be sure that the buffer zones and associated riverfront areas are, uh, correctly depicted on the plan. There is work proposed in them. So I think it might be a little different story if, um, you were, um, well outside of the areas, you know, perhaps the approximate of those areas would be sufficient, but it seemed to us that, that it warrants, um, field delineation of those, uh, resource areas. Um, um, let's see, uh, number 18, again, uh, just to, if the applicant may need, may, may not be asking for this waiver anymore. So, uh, at the time when I was reviewing it, uh, the, the waiver was requested. So, um, if they, if they pulled that and they're going to provide traffic, uh, study information, then they may not require that waiver anymore. Uh, the next section relates to stormwater. Um, uh, in as much as the project will disturb, uh, more than 10,000 square feet of land, it, it appears to fit into the major care category. So I, I reviewed those, uh, requirements. So that was number 19, um, number 20 is really just to clean up the, uh, the stormwater calculations did include a Massachusetts stormwater checklist. Just should be stamped and signed by the professional engineer, uh, just a cleanup item. Um, uh, fee, fee payment waivers. So I would assume that the town would find those appropriate since it's a town sponsored project, but they did ask for a waiver to those. Um, number 22, uh, 21 is the, uh, the other waiver one. I think, uh, I think there's a typo in there. It's a, it shouldn't be a waiver form, but probably waiver from, and we're probably going to change that anyway. Uh, because we're not asking. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. That's one of those ones that kills you because it doesn't, uh, uh, uh, number 22, uh, the happy hollow site has a small amount of treat of clearing. It looked to us. Um, and, uh, the, the, the, the portion to this requires, uh, you to show individual trees over six inches in, in, uh, DBH and diameter. Um, it's a pretty small amount of clearing. It may be the case that they're located, the canopy on the plan and there's no actual, uh, trees that are going to be coming down, but, um, you just, you know, for clarity, uh, should, uh, probably show the, the individual, if there's any trees there or note that if, if there aren't any on the plan. Right. And we should, we should share that with the conservation commission. This is sent to the conservation commission as well, Bill. Yeah. Yeah, they, yeah, yeah, I, I think we jointly sent it over, but yes.
Um, let's see, 23 is just, again, another rehash of, uh, of comments 16 above, um, relative to the resource areas. Um, so, uh, number 24, um, if, um, if there are trees over six inches that would be, would need to come down this, this section of your regulations report. Requires, uh, requires, uh, you to show replanting mitigation plantings. So, um, again, uh, we won't know exactly, uh, if this, uh, would come into play unless there's, uh, unless there's any that are proposed to be taken down. So just, uh, we'd need to take a look at that or a waiver requested, whatever the applicant chooses. Um, so again, on 25, this relates to the, uh, the soil testing, uh, that I said before, but from a slightly different angle. Um, I'll just read the soil borings have been performed at each site. However, deep observation holes, uh, whole soil testing to assess the groundwater in accordance with the Massachusetts stormwater policy guidance should be provided for each infiltration BMP depicted on the plan. So this would include the infiltration portion of the lagoon system on the happy hollow site, and then the infiltration underground infiltration area on the, uh, Castle road site. Um, so just a deep hole, uh, by a competent soil professional, I think is the, the, what's, uh, is the requirement of the Massachusetts stormwater policy, uh, to assess where the groundwater is and to assess soil textures. So that you can, uh, uh, uh, support the design calculations, um, 26, uh, the, the, the plans do include erosion control details. This section technically requires, uh, you know, a separate plan, uh, showing erosion control. They didn't have a separate erosion control plan per se. They do have, you know, quite a bit of the information shown throughout the civil set. Um, uh, uh, but there, um, there, there was some of the information that wasn't, that wasn't identified on the plan. So I think just, uh, again, uh, some, uh, additional notes, perhaps a detail or two, uh, just to, to make this, um, uh, just to document compliance with this, with the requirements of that section.
27 is a rehash of the soil testing, uh, comment that I just made. Um, 28, uh, requires that priority and estimated habitat areas be shown of endangered species. It does not appear to us based on the current Massachusetts GIS polygons that any of the work area is within the, um, mapped habitat areas, uh, estimated or priority, um, areas. But there are some shown on the site and the regulation requires that those be shown. So, um, you may just want to add it in a locus or something just so that we can document that the, uh, check document compliance with that section. And also just document that the work area is, is indeed outside of those areas. Um, well, you may want to actually fence them off so that they don't, they don't park trucks there or whatever. Yeah, I can't remember, Bill, exactly. I think they were quite remote. So I, I'm not sure that it's even, um, I can't remember exactly how close it was. I, I'm not, I don't think it was really that close to be quite honest with you, but there was a portion certainly on the property. So just, but, um, yeah, to your point, if they're on the plan and you can make a decision whether or not, yeah. Whether or not they have to be, uh, some protections in place. Um, 20, yeah, the content might have some feedback on that too. Uh, 29, 29 was just relative to some additional information relative to compliance for, uh, 90, the 90% TSS total suspended solid standard. Um, that, uh, uh, that it exists for, um, uh, for the, uh, for new construction projects, uh, in your stormwater regulations, as well as the 60% phosphorus. So I think, uh, I think that documentation on that shouldn't be that difficult. I just, um, I didn't see that it was, you know, the I's were dotted and T's crossed on that with the, uh, documents in the, in the, uh, stormwater report. Um, and I didn't see for 20, I didn't see, uh, a long-term pollution prevention plan included. Um, again, that's just a administrative cleanup, um, item, um, but as a requirement of your regs and also the Massachusetts stormwater management policy. Um, almost there. There's really only four, four more questions. Um, four more comments. 31, again, relates to the comment I had about the, just, just looking for some additional information from the applicant on how that lagoon system is going to operate. Um, and, um, um, how the groundwater, uh, particularly will be protected from infiltration, um, of, of that, uh, of that water. Um, 31, uh, excuse me, 32, uh, there was just a couple of, um, a couple of things with the way that the, uh, flow paths were modeled. Um, I didn't really have any significant concerns with the, with the stormwater calculations. They looked fairly reasonable to me, uh, uh, uh, uh, with the hydrocad, uh, results. Um, but it, it looked like, um, on a couple of the, uh, tributary watershed areas, um, that just a couple of TC, uh, time of concentration paths, uh, seem like they may need to be, uh, tweaked a little bit, uh, just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples between, with, uh, pre-developed versus post-developed analysis. Um, but not a significant, uh, not a significant thing. Uh, let's see. Um, and then just on the civil plans, um, there, it looked like, um, some additional information on pipe sizes and materials and things should be added. I didn't, there was some notes, uh, some calls where you could see some of the pipe sizes and inverts, but I didn't see, uh, some places you saw inverts, but no pipe sizes. And so just, just clarify that information, um, on the plans, uh, so that, uh, you know, contractors know, uh, what they're building. Um, and then just a general note about fire and emergency apparatus. It sounds like that may have tied in, uh, with the, uh, particularly on the Castle Road site with proximity to that intersection, uh, to the main road where the driveways coming in. But just to make sure that you folks solicit the, I'm sure you already have, but just make sure you solicit the input from your emergency services folk, uh, folks in town, fire and, uh, and police. Um, and that was it.
Thank you. Um, does anyone have specific questions for, uh, Greg, or should we move on to, um, the applicant to tell us what they've done since the last time? I think applicant first. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Who's speaking for the applicant?
Um, do you want to start? Yeah, I can, uh, I can start off with some opening remarks. Um, good evening, everyone. Again, for those that don't know me, I am Tom Holder, the director of the department of public works. When we last met with the planning board, we heard, uh, many remarks and suggestions from the board membership. And we also heard concerns from residents of Castle Road. Uh, since our last meeting with the planning board, we met with the design review advisory board, where we received additional comments and suggestions. Um, the design team took what we learned from these meetings and made amendments to the original concept, uh, which we feel helped to address those suggestions and concerns. What we're presenting tonight, um, make accommodations for much of what we had heard from the two prior meetings. And we're, we're, we're, we're pleased to present that tonight. So with that, I'd like to hand that over to Kirsten Ryan, um, and her design team from Kleinfelder. Thanks, Tom. Can, can folks hear me and see my screen? Yep. Yes. Okay, great. Um, yeah, I have, uh, I'm Kirsten Ryan, project manager for Kleinfelder. Um, thank you all. Um, wasn't at the last hearing, but, uh, as Tom said, we've done a lot of work since then. We're sort of, um, you know, playing catch up in terms of getting things back out to Greg and you all. But I think hopefully you'll, you'll see that we've done a lot of work to try to make some improvements. Um, I have just want to introduce the team I have with here with me tonight. I have a senior project engineer, Jen Neckerman. I think she might not be a panelist yet. Um, project engineer, Matt O'Dowd. And then I have Travis Pryor. He's a civil engineer and landscape architect and Mike Hansen, our senior stormer and stormwater engineer. So those folks are here for, um, Q and A, but I do have a presentation. I wanted to go through to, you know, for, um, the board members and the public's benefit. Um, I wanted to break it down between Castle Road first and then Happy Hollow. I think, um, most of what you'll hear us cover regarding Castle Road will address, um, you know, the public concerns, um, and some of, um, the peer reviewers' concerns. And then we'll get into Happy Hollow. But, um, yeah, we, we thank everybody for their really, um, valuable comments and feedback. Um, really appreciate that. I want to talk to some residents and they've provided some written comments. I think that were very, very helpful. And I know the DPW takes those concerns seriously. So, um, let me get into it. Um, just really quick, I wanted to briefly touch upon, because I know this question came up last hearing. Why here? Why Castle Road for this pump station? How did we get here? Um, just to kind of remind or introduce people to the work that we did previously. So we did analyze several options in 2024 during conceptual design and, um, settled on the Castle Road location as the best, um, for minimizing both impact to neighbors and cost. Um, and also the differentiator also related to the MWRA's infrastructure and the need for our pipeline to cross the aqueduct. Um, the Castle Road site minimizes the amount of times we have to cross it. So that does minimize cost and complexity. So this is just a little bit of background and history of, of why this is the site that we've chosen for the design. Oh, and, uh, we did do some outreach back in spring 2025. Um, the DPW mailed a flyer, uh, that we prepared during the 30% design phase, um, explaining what was happening and providing the initial rendering that we had at that time. Um, just looking at Castle Road pump station existing conditions for reference here. Um, I won't dwell on this page, but I will note the guardrail and fencing that's there. Um, this is part of what the MWA needs so that vehicles can't, um, drive onto the Hultman, uh, through here. So we needed to consider that during our design. And this slide summarizes kind of, you know, for context, what we need to consider in this type of infrastructure, uh, the drinking water infrastructure that we're designing. Um, we really have been working very closely with the Massachusetts water resources authority, um, since the beginning for several years now, um, so that we understand, you know, their concerns, their constraints, and we are making sure to address them. Um, since the pipeline and the pump station are, are on their, uh, property, um, of course, we need to meet the drinking water guidelines and, and all those components, um, the requirements of backwashing lagoons at Happy Hollow is one example where those are key and primary. Um, the comments we received on capital, uh, Castle Road pump station just kind of summarized here. Fencing was a big issue, landscape screening, aesthetics, lighting, traffic, noise, and stormwater. So we will, um, touch upon each of those, each of those, as you just heard from Dillis and Roy, um, some of the things for Castle Road specifically were the fence screening, lighting, and, uh, stormwater question. Um, this is what we presented on September 9th. Um, you can see the original fence line in red and closed pretty much all of the infrastructure of the site, including the underground stormwater system here. Um, so that kind of really had a visual impact, um, close to Castle Road, um, that people commented on. So I'm going to show you a revised site plan of where we are now. Um, this plan also showed the subject system that we believe we'll be able to get a variance for. And, um, the generator was out here in this orientation. So we've made some changes, significant changes. Um, so this is a revised site plan that we have right now that, uh, you know, um, with, I know that Greg from Dillis and Roy haven't, hasn't seen this yet. So, um, we take, took the, the red is the fence line we're proposing now, and we've pulled that way back from what used to be close to the front of the site, pulled it back to enclose the building, primarily just the building and the generator. Um, the septic system has been taken out, the generator's been reoriented to kind of tuck behind here a little more closely. And so you won't see it from Castle Road. Um, we believe that we will be able to remove the fence line and guardrail that are up front here. Now that we have the fence line back here, we'll tie the new fence into the existing chain link that's here. We do need to still make sure that MD Bray can have vehicle access prevented from getting onto the Haltman. So that's why this fence line here kind of has a leg that comes out and ties into the existing guardrail. So this guardrail will remain, it'll have a new, um, crash end here and then be removed for the rest of the way across the front. Um, so what this does is it allows the DPW operators to pull in and pull right into the driveway, park here, open the gate, and then pull forward to access the pump station. Um, instead of pulling up, parking on Castle Road, getting out, opening the gate. And I know that was a concern that folks had. Um, pedestrians will still be able to, as they do now, um, hop over the, uh, or step over the guardrail, you know, and walk along the grass pathway of the Haltman. Um, we put, um, I'll show you a landscaping plan in a moment. We definitely put some landscape screening in there based on what we heard from the 9-9 hearing and also the DRAB meeting, the Design Review Advisory Board meeting. Um, I just want to caveat that we have been coordinating with MDRA, we've shown them this plan. We haven't been able to meet them yet, but we, we were pretty sure that we know what their key issues are, what they might have concerns about. And so, um, you know, there may need to be some slight tweaks in the future, but this is, we think they'll be pretty comfortable with this. And, um, I think the next slide will help you visualize this better. So, so this is a revised design, existing conditions down here for comparison. You could see that, um, and let me click forward to the, yeah, here's the initial design. So now it has a more open feel, the underground stormwater system is back here in this grass area behind some shrubs. Um, we changed the type of fencing, um, the color of the building based on Design Review Advisory Board suggestions. We have plantings, um, and I want to point out this, this existing pine tree right here. So these, these trees are, these are proposed, proposed, proposed, we can adjust these, um, this existing tree, we definitely realize is a, a site line hazard. And so the DPW has already tagged that and plans to remove it. Um, so that will be removed. This is, um, just a little bit more detail on that. Yeah, that, that tree, um, because the, you know, the, the planning board, they're involved with some of the tree hearings, specifically the ones that are on scenic roads. But this tree has been tagged and included in a tree hearing that we're holding on November 4th. Um, so, uh, that the intent, uh, will be to remove it based upon the results of that hearing.
Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Tom. Um, this is a view kind of facing west from the corner, um, showing that tree. This, you can, here you can see kind of where the fence connects towards the guardrail so that vehicle access will be prevented. We'll have a gate here that MWA will have access to so they can mow, um, down here, you know, bring a riding mower or a bush mower or wherever they do it. Um, yeah. So, again, I think the plantings can be moved around to some degree, um, modified, but this kind of gives you an example of, of what it might look like. Did the building design change as well as the color? The building is slightly different dimensions. Yes. Thank you. It gets longer and narrower. Um, this view is, just shows the rendered new plantings right up near the corner.
Um, just briefly on landscaping, you know, our landscape architect picked some native planting schemes, um, consultation with the design review advisory board, some evergreens, perennial grasses. Um, I won't go into too much detail here, people have, unless people have questions, but, again, we have a couple taller trees here, um, or small trees, I guess I would say, the cedars. Um, those, those could be moved. I could see how, if people have particular concerns about site on this corner, even though we did do a traffic analysis that showed it, it should have a clear enough sight line. I, I understand that there's a lot of concern from residents leaving this intersection. So, um, the one thing we can't do is plant deep-rooted things close to the aqueduct. So, anything along this fence line would need to be grasses or small shrubs. So, which is what we have shown here, really trying to balance it, you know, what we heard from D-Rab was screen the fence from, from the neighbors so they can't see things. But, on the other hand, um, I understand that some of the neighbors may not want too much shrubbery over here. So, we're happy to take your comments. Um, in terms of lighting, we did a lighting analysis presented here. You can see this yellow blob shows the brightness, um, at the boundaries. Um, the, the property line is not shown on here, but the closest neighbor at Eight Castle Road, um, is 45 feet away from the edge of that lighting impact. And then, same thing over here, it's 46 feet away. Oh, sorry. The parcel, from the parcel. Okay, so it's even farther. Um, the parcel boundary is 45 feet from the lighting impact. This is, this is rather zoomed in on the pump station, so. Um, and the fixtures will be dark sky compliant.
In terms of sound, um, this diagram will help us visualize that. So, this blue dot represents the inside of the building where the pumps, um, water pumps are housed. And, um, this, the, there's a similar noise from either the pumps or the generator, which is this gray, greenish box, which, if you're standing right next to it, is about 70 decibels, which is about as loud as a vacuum cleaner. Um, you're inside the building standing next to it. Um, at the property line, the sound will be down to less than 60 decibels. So, at the property boundary, it'll be the equivalent of a, like, a clothes dryer running. Um, the generator is only expected to be used about 30 minutes per week. And the pumps would normally be about three hours a day, unless, um, they're needed for more pumping, like if Happy Hollow is down for servicing. And we, also, this doesn't include the analysis of plantings, which would probably reduce the noise further. In terms of traffic, um, so the, for routine operations, the pump station is only going to need one to two maximum trips per day by the DPW operators. So, we, we did not propose or conduct a traffic count study. So, our transportation folks looked at, you know, industry standard guidance to look at traffic count and intersection sightline analyses. Um, the intersection sightline analysis, um, with the plan I just showed you, the revised plan and reduced fencing, shows that it does not impede on sight distances. Um, but, you know, as Tom, Tom can speak to, the DPW recognizes the existing concern about the traffic and the speed on Old Connecticut path as it goes by the intersection of Castle Road. So, um, they have already planned on installing some traffic comic signage for westbound vehicles there. And I don't know if, Tom, you want to say anything more or? Yeah. I mean, it was recognized during our site visits. We heard it from the public when we were at our last hearing in September. And, um, it was recognized by us that, uh, you know, although this project is not going to add traffic, uh, the current conditions and acting more as a DPW director and not a project manager as DPW director, uh, you know, we regularly take into account, uh, concerns and issues relative to, you know, safe traffic patterns. So in observing what we saw and hearing from the public, I think we are, uh, certainly supportive and have made orders already for some signage on the westbound side, um, that will alert vehicles traveling westbound of a blind road ahead and to, to use caution as approaching that area. And, you know, you know, we'll, we'll monitor things and we're glad to work with the residents, um, you know, aside from this project, uh, gladly work with them towards, um, you know, hearing additional concerns and seeing how the signage works and, and considering even additional things that we have the ability to do. So thank you. Great. Um, I'm going to hand it over to Matt. He's going to talk about the stormwater at the site and then segue into discussing a happy hollow. So yeah, thank you. Our responses to the peer review comments as well.
So I'll start in with stormwater here and just touch on a few of the items that came up in the third party review last week. And that were just mentioned a few minutes ago. So first off this system at castle road, um, just for maximum clarity here, it is an underground infiltration system. So just like we saw in those artistic renderings, it's not actually visible. Um, it'll be below the grass and just noting on the mass stormwater handbook requirements, we do exceed the Massachusetts stormwater handbook requirement for, uh, attenuation with a larger storm than the minimum, uh, required by that handbook. Those storms being the hundred year and the 20, 50, 10 year storms for standard four, as Greg noted a few minutes ago, um, our stormwater team in response to this, and we can certainly respond in writing to Greg or whatever's appropriate. The TSS and phosphorus removal are met because the first inch of runoff is treated by infiltration for all impervious areas. Um, um, complying also with Local Bylaw, chapter 193. Um, we do have Mike Hanson on the call if there's any feedback on that point. Um, otherwise I'll keep, I'll keep moving onto our additional slides. So there were some concerns also raised about construction impacts. So I'll speak to some of the mitigation for those for those comments. First off, it is a prefabricated building package. So in other words, just like you see in the photograph here of a similar project, this package will arrive on a truck bed. It'll be lifted by a crane onto a concrete pad. That particular activity should be about a day with some minor trade work to follow for connections to the system. Construction and all, of course, will be more than just lifting the pump station. So we have utility work, as is shown on the plans, some minor clearing, electrical duct bank, paving at the end, and of course, concrete work to support the pump station. In all, we expect a duration of just a single construction season for these relatively straightforward activities. The hours will be limited from 7am to 5pm. There's a bullet here just noting that the number of subcontractors is significantly reduced by the use of this prefabricated pump station. And of course, standard noise and dust control requirements are going to be maintained in the contract documents and also enforce the maximum extent possible on site. So I'll touch on some of the third party review comments here and I'll just start with what what Greg pointed out at the start of the meeting. And if there's any further discussion, we can certainly take it from there. So first off, he noted the groundwater levels both at Castle Road pump station and at Happy Hollow. So I'll actually start just at Castle Road pump station. For the groundwater level there, as he pointed out in the review, the ground, there were borings completed at that location. The groundwater was found with that method at 30 feet below ground surface. For seasonal fluctuation, we typically observe at maximum in our experience around five to seven feet up or down from that point. And the infiltration system at that point of location is just four and a half feet deep. So we think even even with the method applied to observe the existing groundwater, we think that there's significant boundary there between the bottom of the infiltration system and where the groundwater was observed. And that it's not likely that the groundwater would be raised to within four feet of that point. Similarly, at Happy Hollow, we have a proposed bottom elevation of that infiltration basin at 133 feet and groundwater was observed again via the boring method at 113 feet. So that represents 20 feet separation. Again, even with five to seven foot typical fluctuation, we should be far away from the four feet of groundwater required for that. We're certainly open to any discussion on that point if needed. But I'll just move on and kind of address those other comments. So secondly, I guess, while we're on that infiltration system, I'll speak to the backwashing system. So just for a quick overview of how that works. So the backwashing is to wash the granular activated carbon media vessels, in other words, GAC vessels, which will be installed for the removal of PFAS. The backwashing is actually not an activity that occurs on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis. The backwashing occurs just when new media is swapped for for spent media. So PFAS is actually never washed off of the media. The PFAS laden media is removed from the site. New media is loaded into the vessels. And then that new media is backwashed as a standard procedure to remove some. Sometimes there's fine materials within the media, basically bits of granular activated carbon that become loose in manufacturing and shipping that have to be washed off. So the backwash to be discharged will just contain a mix of potable water, which is the source of the backwash water, and these fines from clean granular activated carbon media. To speak to how the backwash treatment system works, as Greg noted, that flows into a lined lagoon where it will not be allowed to infiltrate into the ground. And basically, according to DEP standards for these systems, that lined lagoon overflows into the infiltration basin. And that overflow allows media that's been discharged from the backwashed process to settle out to the bottom of the lined lagoon. So that would just be cleaned periodically. So it's just clean water, essentially, entering the infiltration basin. So that's designed according to DEP guidelines. Our understanding of the aquifer protection district is that that activity is allowed since it's for drinking water. And I'll also just note two additional things. We are pursuing the WS06 permit through DEP. We'll certainly draw their attention to this to this process. And DEP does regularly permit similar systems throughout the state. So I think those were the two big things. There's several other comments that were noted here that we can certainly speak to. So I'll just I'll just quickly cover them and then we can move on or maybe loop back at the end if that's if that's helpful. So resource area delineation. We worked on that with the Conservation Commission. So we'll make sure that those are up to what they're looking for or the floodplain district. This is probably the last one I'll speak to before moving on. So in the floodplain district, my understanding of or reading of this as far as the trigger for the for the variance would be if any buildings were to be erected in the floodplain or if any excavation or fill activities were to occur. So the activities that will be performing in the floodplain up at Happy Hollow will actually be removing existing infrastructure from that location. It's actually a major goal of this project is to get critical drinking water infrastructure, namely the existing emergency system tent out of the floodplain and increase the resiliency of of the water supply here by moving that installing that infrastructure upland. Yep. Thanks. That's that's the system there. The existing system that, you know, as part of mitigation in the floodplain, our proposal is to this will be done after everything's activated and working properly. This needs to stay aligned during construction, but then once the new facilities are constructed up the hill, this will be removed. Sorry, Matt. No problem. Yeah, thanks for showing the photo there. So tree clearing the six inch, we will certainly add those to the plans. As Kirsten mentioned earlier that we have a lumens figure generated for for both areas. And we will add pipe sizes and then as far as emergency vehicle access the fire department. We've already engaged them for comments during this process, and we'll certainly continue to provide them with progress sets to get their comments. All right. I think that's all I have on this slide. So some folks might remember we presented some of these photos last time. This is the existing chemical feed facility. The new one will have an additional chemical to better match the MWA system and also a greater supply of potassium hydroxide for to also better match the MWA system. Otherwise, the other chemicals are the same, and that'll be noted in an application to the Board of Health. This is just that same existing condition slide. And then we have example photos of the buildings. I don't know if you had any other slides specifically, Matt. You want me to click through these? No, I think we can just click through the rest of the photos. A lot of these were on the previous presentation. This is what it'll look like. We also have the site. Yeah. And this hasn't changed. These plans have not changed since the ninth. No. Not substantially, anyway. Nothing. Nothing major, so. But we are, just to be clear on that point, we have draft plans that address the concerns that were raised on the ninth. Yeah. Yeah. Like the parking spaces. And a letter to respond point by point. Yep. But I think that ends our formal presentation portion. Okay. The Board, are there questions from the Board and or Dillis and Roy? I have no other questions, Annette. I think they've responded very well to our points. I hope, though, that they can do a final negotiation of the landscaping and fencing and so forth with the neighbors. I think it's the Butters who can now weigh in on what you're presenting and comment. Anybody else from the Board? No, I just, we've heard that there are changes. I think it'll be just good to see the actual changes. Right. So. In the plans. Yeah. I agree. Greg, do you have any additional comments or responses to the things that they've provided? No, I think just generally speaking, I appreciate the dialogue on the backwash system. That makes me breathe a little bit of a sigh of relief. And I think on two fronts on that, just for you to explain how the backwash is not backwashing PFAS-laden material. So that's good to understand. And there, I believe, is a carve out in that section. That's why I pointed out the fact that the WS06 permit, I think that the bylaw has a carve out for things like that that are permitted by, you know, are administered by a state permit. So to the extent that that facility is going to, is the subject of your WS06 permit, I think that that does inform that portion of the review comment. So I appreciate that. My only question I'll have, and I'll just happy to hear you're going to respond point by point, and I'll certainly just cross check and can provide a follow up to the board. But it sounds like you're addressing things. On the septic system for the Castle Road site, did you do, you must have done deep standard observation testing for the, you know, witnessed by the Board of Health? They'll actually be deleted. We pursued the variance actually before ever doing the traditional excavation that I think you're referring to. But we do have the borings that were included with the stormwater report. So you're relying on the borings for the leaching system? There will be no septic system. Oh, you're not putting a septic system in. Yeah, so I wasn't clear. The variance is to get a variance from the plumbing code that typically requires a bathroom. I understand what you're saying. That's your variance. Okay. All right. Yep. Okay. I mean, I appreciate the commentary on the borings. I mean, I don't want to be too over the top with it. I just want to make sure that you provide the documentation relative to, you know, real groundwater elevations. I just, in my experience with borings, sometimes you get different, different results when you're looking at soil coming out of a, you know, small diameter hole versus opening it up and actually observing the soil. So just, just provide the documentation on that and we'll, we'll take a look at it. So I'm certainly not, I want to be unreasonable for, if we're in an area and if Tom can maybe provide some, some local experience with the, with the soils in that area. You know, I'm, I'm, I'm certainly happy to, to consider all that information. Your arguments don't seem off the wall. I'll say that. So I think that's it. I'm just happy to take a look at, you know, updated information as they, as they provide it. Anybody else in the panel? Madam Chairman, there are people who are typing questions into the question panel and those I don't think will be part of the public record. So people. I didn't even know we had a question. Yeah. If you look down at the bottom, there's a little red circle where it says Q and A and people should not. I don't have a Q and A circle. Okay. But people should be asking those questions when we open up for public comment and not typing them in. Okay. Thank you. Yep. I think typically that's turned off. I don't know why it's on. Yeah. It's on tonight. Yeah. Oh. Hey, I answered a few of the questions that are pretty obvious, but a lot of the questions that they have are very detailed or opinion based. I answered two questions that were more a quick, quick answer that can actually answer a question. Are there anything that should be on the record? Do you need to say what you just did? One question. One question. I'll read the questions that I answered. One was, will the 7 a.m. 5 p.m. construction timeline be weekend only? Or 7 a.m. weekends at 2. And I said, if it proved to be a standard condition to address this concern, we have a standard condition about construction time, including holidays too. And then also, what is, what is the dark sky? What does that mean? And I just addressed that dark sky, the regulations with lighting and give the website. But I'm not going to answer any more questions. I just answered the two obvious ones that I know the answer to. Okay. And make sure. If they have questions that are more technical, they should ask that in the public folks, public comments, not Q&A. Okay. So can you turn that whatever it is off so that people don't put anything into Q&A? Because we can't see that. I'm going to open it up to public comment now. If you want to raise your hands, that would be great. And then we can call on you. I don't see any hands. Can you state your name and address, please? You have to. Yeah. Hi, my name is Catherine Wilkins. I'm at 8 Castle Road. I am the property directly abutting next to the pump station on Castle Road. I did, you know, get as Robert Hummel said, he answered a couple of the questions I had asked. But I do have a couple other questions, one of which is regarding the construction methods. So I have an in-ground concrete pool in the backyard. I know that we have septic tanks in the yards. Is the construction method going to be any sort of a risk to the pool or the septic tanks on the properties here on Castle Road? I'll let Kleinfeld her answer that. Do you want to pass that to Jen? Hi. Yeah, so the activities that will happen at the pump station site include excavation for the concrete pad, the foundation that the building is going to be placed on, and for the underground infiltration system, and then site work, paving, the fence work, and then site work. So really, I'd say the most risky activities are the pouring of the concrete pad and the installation of the underground stormwater detention system. And these are similar to any work that would happen in a suburban neighborhood like this, like if your neighbor's putting in a pool or if your neighbor's doing some work for a shed outside in their yard. So really not risky at all. Just a little clarification on that. I think that it sounds like there isn't an impact. So if there isn't, then say it. Otherwise, I don't really know what you just said. There will be no impact to neighboring property associated with this construction that is abnormal to the neighborhood that it takes place in. Ted, do you have some more questions? I do. So the area that you guys are planning to put the pump station, there does get some seasonal flood water in that area. Is there a risk of if you guys build up this area and put, you know, the concrete pad foundation and the underground infiltration system and all that, what is the likelihood that that will displace some of the flood water into the neighboring property? Mike, do you want to let Mike address? The way the site's designed, nothing should be leaving the site. We are rebuilding up a little bit, but the way the topography is, it's going to work its way towards the road and into the closed drainage system. So we should not be impacting any adjacent properties. Okay. And my last question is that there are several families on the road here with young elementary school children that get on and off the bus. At the intersection of old Connecticut path and castle road. These, these kids, you know, seven, nine years old are standing at the end of the street while they wait for their bus. And then they're getting off the bus in the afternoon and walking up the street to their houses. What's the likelihood that this is going to be affected by not just the construction traffic, but when the DTW folks come to do their, you know, once or twice a day checks and they're pulling onto the street. You know, the kids are often standing at the end of the road. Yeah, I can certainly speak to the second question. I mean, we have likely a hundred bus stops around town that we maneuver around on a daily basis. So that, that, that truck that arrives at that site would be able to, you know, take account for children like we would do at any particular intersection. So I, I would not think that there would be any problem, any additional risk to those kids getting on the bus, standing at the bus stop or exiting the bus and walking to their homes. So I, I, I, there was, there was no concern for that. Tom, is it likely that you would even be doing it during those hours? So we will make a daily station stop there. Um, it would likely be between the hours of like 8 AM and 1 PM. Um, we would visit the site if there were any problems, if, you know, all of these, uh, facilities that we have are alarmed, uh, with instrumentation. You know, so if there was an alarm, you know, we do have, um, you know, a particular need to, to, to, to visit that site off hours, that would happen. But on a daily basis, it's once, and it would likely be at a time when there were not children at the bus stop. Okay. Thank you. Um, Heather, can you state your name and address, please? Hi, my name is Heather. My name is Heather, and I live at 11. And your last name, please. Thank you. And I have a house at 11 and 9 Castle Road. I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you. You're. House at 11 and 9 Castle Road. 9 Castle Road. And 11. I have both. Thank you. And a couple, a couple of questions I have. One is that the boring that you guys did, or that was done. That was done very close to the road. And the actual level of the ground is much different. Um, where you guys plan on putting the building. So kind of what the guy was talking about. I just want to make sure that the same thing, the groundwater would be very different because it's a much lower elevation where the building would be. So that's, that's one statement I just wanted to like throw out there. My other question is on the plans, it shows the building. If you look at your plans, it shows the actual building that you guys are proposing like almost right on the aqueduct. And as far as everything that I've known, there can't be anything on the aqueduct. So is your picture actually really moved over? And is there any way to have someone come out and kind of flag where the building would actually be? I'm going to pull up the drawing. Yeah. See, it's not certainly not on the aqueduct. That would not be possible. It's a little hard to see. This gray shading down here, this like hash mark. Can you see that at the bottom of the image? Yeah. The aqueduct. This is a gravel area. That maybe is what you were thinking was the aqueduct. This is the building. Yeah. So, I mean, the aqueduct, I guess the aqueduct comes to right to the end of the road. We're saying it goes through 126, opposed to coming out the bottom road. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And my other question is, while you have that up, is how, how close, how far back is the fence from the side of the road? Right now, there's probably about two feet into the guardrail on old Connecticut pass, because that's, that's what we need to be able to see. So how far back will the fence be from that? Okay. If you could say that pine tree. Right here? Yeah. So like, how far back? So just say like that pine tree is where you have those three lines, right? The current pine tree. Oh, yeah. The current pine tree is like right about here, I believe. Okay. So how far, so is the fence right on the other side of it? The fence is this red line right here. Okay. And how far? And the blue is the guardrail right here. Okay. So it's going, it's going to follow the guardrail? It's going to butt up against it. At one point only. Yeah, right here. Yeah, that's, that's the point. And my team can be like measuring things off of a plan while I'm speaking. I don't know what the answer is. If you pull that fence back to, so that we have more line site. Normally site line is at where the street meets. Right. So if I, if, if I pull out into my street, like if I'm pulling out into my street, like if I pull out too far, cars that whip around the corner are, it's too, it's too close. You know what I mean? So you need, it's almost like, I'm just wondering if there's an eight foot fence, cause that's what's proposed, right? Back here. And here. Right. Where that red line is. Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about viewing being able to pull off or pull on the Capitol road. Okay. So you're, so therefore it's showing it's going to be, it's not going to butt up to the guardrail. It's going to be back. Yes. She just said at one point. This will meet the guardrail because we, we're basically trying to prevent a vehicle is lost or whatever, just wandering onto this part of the Holtman. Now this fence line, I think we could probably shorten the height of this particular fence. Okay. Because we're not protecting the pump station infrastructure with this piece of it. I think that's a good idea. That would help visibility. Yeah. And I don't know what your thoughts are on this tree, Heather, but that could also move, I suppose. I think that should move also. Yeah. Or, or be a shrub, you know, again, this was really designed to help this look more residential, like provide something more visually appealing from what we heard from like DRAB. But if you prefer something different, I personally, we have no problem with that. You could move it further along the driveway, closer to the rear fence. Back it up to here. Yeah. That's right. If that, if that fence that's not protecting anything, if that could be lower or even removed, that would be amazing. It can't be. It can't be removed because theoretically, right, a car could drive up this driveway and make a left and get up on here. Yeah, but. We, and we don't want that lower it, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Like team. Yeah, we could. No problem with lowering the fence somewhat. Right. Right. What MWRA has right now is that guardrail for screening and their chain link fence on the other portion of the property. So we would, this would be a discussion we'd need to have with them, but I don't see that being a problem to do something lower for that connecting piece. Right. I think that'll help. Thank you. Yeah. Honestly, that section of the fence could be replaced with a guardrail. Yeah. But it's not, that's even more unsightly. Yeah. That was the balance. Right. But it, it's lower. I worry that a low fence, somebody could not see it. I don't know. It just seems a little riskier. I suppose if it's just six feet instead of eight feet, but then it's still a visual issue. I mean, it could be, it probably could be four feet. Right. The chain link fence, let me find the existing conditions slide. Can you still hear me? Yep. One last thing. So, sorry. But with that corner also is that's where they pile the snow. Um, because if they leave it, so just be careful with your fence is mine. That's where they what? That's where they pile all. Oh. So next year they try to just put it on the corner and it's too big of a file and you can't see. So they have to come and push it over the guardrail. That's why right now the guardrail is all damaged. People don't have to push the snow off and so caught onto it. Um, so that I would just be concerned also with that. Is there another place where you can push the snow? No. There's no other place? No. Tom? I mean, I would love it. I've been, we've been complaining for years about the pile there. I mean, it would be amazing, but the snow is piled in this right here or over here or here. It's first piled in the first spot you pointed out, but then because we can't see they have to come and push it up over the guardrail. Oh, you can't see. Okay. Yeah. So, so obviously that that is something that we have, you know, some ability to, to relocate that snow or do something different based upon what we're proposing here tonight. So, um, that is something I know a guy at the public works department that can probably help that situation, but good, good point. Yeah. I can, you know, uh, yeah, I, I can certainly envision how we push back snow and what you're describing to be correct. And, but, uh, we can, we can make some alterations. Sure. Thank you. Um, Barbara, tomorrow. Yes. Um, I'm going to, my brother, Bill is going to speak for me. I live at 374 old Connecticut path, right across from the driveway that you're proposing for the, um, facility. Hello. We can hear you. Okay. Um, my name is Bill Ross. I'm, um, speaking on behalf of Barbara tomorrow and Michael tomorrow. Uh, first of all, I'm wondering if, uh, we have access or the public has access to this advisory, uh, board input. Is this a report? Is it published online or is it published on the, on the town site? It will be available online. It was just submitted. Okay. And the next issue is Sycamore road site. We saw a chart put up by Kleinfelter of, uh, what distinguished, uh, Sycamore road from Castle road, which seems to have been simply the, um, number of aqueduct crossings. But I'd like an explanation of what is an aqueduct crossing? Is it a surface crossing? Is, are we talking about pipes having to go through the aqueducts? What are, what are we talking about and how many are there from one site versus another? That's one question I have. Okay. Why don't we answer one at a time? Okay. Then go ahead. I'm gonna pass that to Jen. Thanks. Uh, so what's referred to there is when we need to take our proposed water main and cross the MWRA is existing aqueduct. Those crossings like this is critical infrastructure for MWRA. So they have a lot of restrictions over what we can do to put a pipe across their, their aqueduct. Um, so they involve intensive coordination with MWRA and resulting cost to the town. So those are complicated construction components. Um, I can't speak to the specific number we would have had if we went with that other site. Um, but, but we, our goal was to minimize the number of crossings needed for the project. I think it was two versus one for this, this site. Excuse me. I think it was two for the, the other Sycamore site versus one. And how many for Castle Road? For one. Yeah. So matter of two versus one. Okay. Um, I do note though, though, that one of the other factors, which was included in a report online was that, uh, noise and visual impacts on nearby abutters, which I think is a significant issue here also. Um, actually noise seems to have been a significant issue for sitting in consideration, uh, with the Sycamore site, which would indicate that maybe it's a little bit more than the, than the equivalent of a vacuum cleaner and, and, uh, noise that we're going to expect. I don't know what you're referring to, but I mean, we. Well, I'm referring to what was said versus why the Sycamore site was not chosen in a report I wrote that was one of the listed reports on the, uh, planning board site regarding this, uh, this whole construction project. And it, uh, it cited as a factor noise and visual impact on nearby abutters. Right. So noise was obviously consideration and it should be a consideration here. I'm, I'm concerned about that. Initially you said actually in a. We're not going to argue, sir. Well, I want to provide full information here. I want to provide a full background here earlier that in this project, it was cited that this would be the equivalent of, of, um, ambient traffic noise, which wouldn't seem to be the same as a vacuum cleaner to me. So I'm just confused. I think it was before we had a more detailed sound analysis, but you know, the sound analysis does show that the decibel level at the property line is going to be attenuated down to 60 decibels. Okay. Um, yeah, I think you were looking at maybe our 30% design. And so we're, we're at a more advanced stages design with more information. And to speak to the question of Sycamore, the impact we felt on abutters would be equal to either. So it was not, it was going to have the same, you know, effect on either site. So this one involved the more complex crossing situation and more cost. Um, with regard to the lighting, um, what is the lumen level of these lights? I know diagram was provided, but it's not really very, it's not really very convincing. Frankly, it goes down to zero at the boundaries of that figure that we showed. What is the, what are the lumen level at its, at its origin? That's not just so you know, that's not how we look at those things. When we look at them as a planning board, we look at where the, the light stops because it can't shine out. It has to shine down because of the night sky requirements. And we can't cast shade, um, glare on roadways adjacent. But wouldn't the lumen level, the finger that we provided shows that. But wouldn't the lumen level actually determine that? No. No. Not at all? It dissipates. I'm not saying not at all, but there's a whole calculation and a model that is used and it shows based on what they start with, uh, what the light, uh, intensity is from the distance from that light to where it doesn't appear any longer. Where, where, where's a, where can I find that, uh, model? We'll have to get back to you. It's, I mean, I don't have it off the top of my head. Okay. That's fine. Um, as for traffic, we still have our concerns about, you know, the ambulance access during the period of construction. I don't feel that traffic calming signage will be sufficient as that's, I think then from what I've heard from other people in the street, it's been tried in the past. Um, but my question, most important question here is what is the, um, what are the criteria for this traffic study that's going to occur? The safety study and who's going to be performing it? Is it an independent traffic consultant? I think the traffic study, I don't, I think that was stated by a member of the planning board who sits on the design review board. I think that what was stated by the applicant was that they had looked at it, that it met the sight lines, that they can't do a traffic count because there's not a traffic to count because this doesn't add anything. Correct. To the flow of traffic. Now, normally with a traffic study, you're looking at number of vehicles during the rush hour. I know it's not a traffic study though, Ms. Lewis. I know it's not a traffic study. It's a, it's a study of the safety of the castle road access. No, actually it's not. That was what, that's what I was told the DPW was going to do earlier. Well, they did. They said that that sight lines will be. They're not impacted by the project. So you've already performed that study. Yes. It was an analysis. Yes. Is there, is that on, has that been put online? It's in draft form. We can't, we're, we'll be finalizing it and sending it. Oh, it's our revised submission to the planning. So that's not actually been issued yet. Nothing has. What they're giving us tonight is their response to the last meeting that we had. No, I understand that. I understand Roy's comments, and then they will be submitting their materials. And they would like to hear, um, constructive comments on things that they can actually help with and make changes on. It's not an attack period right now. This is not an attack. I'm just looking for information and some, some explanations and also raising some comments about some of the issues here. That's what the prerogative of the public. Do you have any other questions? Yes. Um, will there be any construction on Castle Road to tie in the pump station with, with 126? Um, will there be a necessity to build a piping across the road? Yeah. Yeah. Where, where will it tie into the 126? 126. The, the larger project here that that's not part of this planning board review for the, the site plan, but the larger project is, does involve construction on old Connecticut path. Yeah. The water mains will be replaced on old, old Connecticut. There'll be no construction planned in regard to this pump station on castle road itself too. There, there will, there will be utility crossings within the public right of way as part of this project. Is that the street, the public right of way? Yes. Yeah. Okay. There are going to be traffic management plans, police details, traffic controls for the public. Okay. That will be part of the standard contract documents and the contractor will be required to implement. Okay. Thank you. I guess if I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not, Madam chair, this property owner stated that you're at the corner of castle road and old Connecticut path across directly across the street from the driveway. Is that correct? Are they still on? I believe so. Yes, Tom. It meant across old Connecticut path. 374 old Connecticut path is the house on the corner. They're on old Connecticut path. But they're on, they're right on the corner of castle in old Connecticut. Okay. It's the house with the porch right across from the site. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess as we're looking to improve site line situations and, and, uh, and install signage, I will likely be reaching out to that property owner because it does appear that there's some shrubbery, um, along the property line that, uh, if we could arrange to have that cut back, it probably would improve the site lines in that area. So I guess while they're on the, on the meeting call tonight, I, uh, just to give them a heads up, I would like to, to at least have a conversation with them about perhaps getting their assistance and, and having them cut that back. Mr. Ross, is there something you want to say? I think by a Barbara's cut that back as far as their property line allows. And it didn't make a significant difference. Okay. So Robert, um, yes, with regard to the, uh, white stuff, can you get from Kleinfelder what the model is that they use? Yeah. And, uh, send a note. I don't even know that we have Mr. Ross's email. Uh, I do. I think I actually, I have one of the emails. Okay. Recently. So I'll send it to him. And you could put it on the webpage too. The link. Yeah. And I will put the, uh, uh, design reward, uh, memo. I'll put that underneath the, uh, Thank you. Also, uh, Kleinfelder's presentation from this evening. Yes. I'll put that for tomorrow and next week. I'll get back in the office. I'll send you the final version. I think I sent you a draft earlier today. Agreed. Are there any other comments from anyone on this call? Um, at this point, uh, we still have to finalize, get finalized plans. Um, Tom, I think you had sent an extension letter to Robert. To the six to November for number six, November six. Fine. Um, do you think that, um, you'll have what you need by October the 21st? Um, that's our next meeting. The meeting after that is November the 4th. And we'll start just putting together parts of the draft decision because we have to list everything that's been filed, comments from people, all of that stuff. I think that should work for us. I don't know, Matt. What date should work for you? Hmm. Um, what was the 10th, the 21st or what's the alternative? November the 4th. Probably November the 4th would give us a little more time just to. Dot all the I's cross T's, but. Okay. That's the suggested hearing date, right? To be clear. Yes. Yep. Um, but that would have, you'd have to really be dotted. Um, yeah. I would suggest getting this stuff in, not piecemeal so that Robert can look at it. Yeah. And listen, Roy can look at it so that we can actually issue a vote. Yeah. And then issue a decision on November the 6th. That sounds good. We should, we can get it to you at least the week before. And Tom, I don't know if you, if you, do you know, do you know when the public hearing is for the, is that shade tree? Is that on November? I thought it was November the 4th at six 30. Six 30. I have. Yeah. Some of us looking at that information. So we, we, if you schedule a public hearing, we know what time to schedule public hearing for. So. So if we're going to do this on the 4th, um, maybe we should do it like at 7 15 or 7 30. Uh, Tom, we don't know what the trees are, so we don't know how long. And, uh, in speaking with Joe, he seems to think it's going to be a pretty light lift that night. Um, you know, I mean, if you wanted to put it down for 7 15, I think that that would leave. Well, you've got. Right. We only sit with you for the, uh, scenic road thing. Right. And then you do your regular tree hearing after that. Right. And I, I can part ways with that joke and handle that. And I can attend your hearing with, uh, with client Felder. Okay. Yep. Uh, so 7 15. Is that what you said? Sounds good. Yes. Thank you. Um, okay. Um, can I have a, um, Oh, one other thing. Uh, we did get a request for a site visit and I believe that each of us has gone out individually and looked at the site. Um, so we're not going to have a site visit at castle road. We don't think it's really necessary for us at this point. Um, and, uh, can I have a motion to, uh, continue this public hearing for PB, uh, 2603, uh, the DPW's MWRA Holtman Aqueduct, um, interconnection, uh, at happy hollow and, uh, castle gate road. Um, for 7 15 on Wednesday, November the 4th. So moved. Second. Uh, all in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Uh, who else is here? I'm sorry. Bill. Bill Sterling. Sorry. There are too many bodies in the way. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Do you want that meeting in person or remotely? Well, if it, it's actually a lot easier for us to do it remotely because we can then see the plans much better. Yeah. That would be our preference too. Okay. And the tree hearing will probably be remote. It will be. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that would be the, that's the way the board of public work operates. Yes. Okay. So I just, I'm assuming that we will jump onto the DPU zoom link for that meeting. And then we'll jump off and then join. All right. Plenty board. Plenty board. You can work it out. Whatever. Just make sure it works. Exactly. All right. Perfect. Okay. All right. Terrific. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Yeah. We are ready for PB 2605, 8 Park Ridge Road. Uh, Andrew DeLore, uh, counsel for API development company is going to, uh, explain to us, um, what he's requesting. Um, but I'm going to have Robert first, uh, cite the law that we're dealing with, explain how it works and, uh, if there's case law, uh, what it says. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. So there was a ZBA case. Um, I believe it was 25-35 in front of the ZBA for a special program for addition on the house. In this case, it's actually not addition, but it's actually partly demolition while retaining a portion of the existing foundation. Um, and, but they need a special program to rebuild partly most of what it is. Um, they unfortunately got denied by the ZBA. There's a clause in Mass General Law that allows someone to reapply within two years. Um, but they must apply to the planning board first and then the ZBA, and they must get a, uh, the planning board, the planning board, the planning board must weigh the reapplication fee and find out that specific and material changes have occurred in the condition upon which the unfavored decision was based. Um, and of course, this has case law that has been tested against it with Ramsey versus the board of appeals of Nantucket where the court focused on the material of changes necessary to constitute a sufficient and revised reapplication. The court held that the board may give weight to the differences, which is in absolute sense are relatively minor. Whereas several changes were kind of cosmetic or standing alone. The board could consider wherever taking together the alter the condition causing the unfavorable vote of the board. Specific material changes, which section 16 of Mass General Law 48 requires that it must be something less than different than radical. So they must obscure security under the seat of the theater. What it really means is that someone couldn't come back and say, I got denied my house. Now I'm going to paint it blue instead of red. Like it has to have material changes that are sufficient. It's not saying, Oh, I'm going to change these two windows. I remove these two windows. And now that my application is completely different. So the burden is on the point where that, that we must play, but must weigh the reapplication to, to determine the specific and material changes have occurred, which, which in the condition we upon the, the unfavorable decision was based. Um, and this is, this is a screwed section of Mass General Law that I have not, um, accounted yet in my 11 years of career and planning, but, um, it is an option under the statute for an applicant to come back to the board. Um, and I will also mention that it is very unclear of the advertisement. So we, we, we did a full advertisement with the newspaper and also to the abutus because the statute is very, uh, um, is silent on that. So I will just address that too. We did notify the abutus and notify in the, in the paper too, just to make sure we count all our bases. Can I ask you a question, Robert? Yeah. In simple terms, what were the, what was the reason for the denial of the ZBA? Um, I, Mr. Planner, I I'm sorry. I, I just, I don't mean to interrupt, but, um, the board, we do not have a full board tonight. Am I correct about that? Is there? Yeah. So I, I, I've been discussing with my client before we go too much further down the road, where there is not a full quorum. Um, and where this requires a super majority vote. I think my client would like to request a continuance, uh, if the board would agree, uh, to the next meeting. And ideally we'll have a, a full board. Um, and. Yeah. That's, I would just chime in. That is a fair, um, point. And we have had that within the plan board where applicants have decided or asked. Um, but it would be, let the board decide if they would like to continue. But I, I, I personally have no opinion against that. They, what the applicant wants to continue to address the whole board. Um, the next meeting is October the 21st. Uh, we already have Hobbs road. Uh, the, uh, uh, the, I can't even remember what it is. It's this it's not assisted living, but the living. And that's, uh, 715. So we do have, we do. And then we have the COA as built plans. That will, won't be it longer. Okay. Um, so, um, do we think that Hobbs road is really coming in then? Um, I would, well, this is, so this is not actually, well, this is public hearing. I would, it's kind of the public hearing. So if you want to, I would not. Okay. Super far off. That's fine. I'm just trying to figure out timing. You could also address it at 7, 730. Um, and it may, it will open up, it will open no, or other than 730, but we will just have to, you know, discuss other things in the next half an hour. If somehow Hobbs road got continued or withdrawn or whatever. I would not recommend putting it too, super far away from the Hobbs road hearing, just in case they somehow ask for continuation or the discussion is short. Okay. Um, Mr. Delroy, um, I don't want to make you sit around and wait. Um, but if Hobbs road is going forward, it will take time. If it's not going forward, it will be very short. And if I put you on, for example, at 730, you might be sitting around for a while. Understood. Understood. It happened tonight. You know, it's just, it's, that's how it goes on the board. Sometimes the hearings run long. You know what I, what I would, what I always like to think to avoid is a situation where you end up with like a 40 minute gap because you finished something early and then you can't take the other item until, until later. So I, whenever we can get on, if, if we have to wait idly by, like we did tonight, that's, that's how it goes. Okay. How does the board feel? It's fine. Are you talking about 1021? Uh, yes. The next meeting? Yeah. The next meeting. And everybody's going to be here so far? As far as I know. Knock on wood. I want to jinx myself on that. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, a motion to, uh, continue this hearing on, uh, PB 2605 Park Ridge road until, uh, October the 21st at 7 30 PM. So moved. Seconded. Uh, one question, Robert, we don't have a time limit on when we have to render this decision. Because it has to be a decision and we have to give reasons. It's not just, we say yes. There's no time limit on the statute. Okay. Um. There's no stat. There's no time limit to start the hearing or to, uh, to, uh, to render a decision. Okay. But we did, we did. I did push it as fast as possible and get the other thing done, um, with the applicants. But this is, this was as soon as possible. They, they could be heard, but. Actually, um, Madam chair, if there's any kind of extension that the applicant needs assigned to avoid it. Oh yeah. No, it's not that. Um, I was just. I know we're in the middle of a motion, but since you're here, I just want to, uh, suggest to you that some of the materials that you sent are inaccurate and you want to check the distances that you have put on plans and you want to show the real plans. Um, you sent a one pager that has the wrong, it's got pictures of before what you was denied and what was then approved and, um, not approved what you're proposing now. And the diet, the, uh, dimensions are not accurate and nor are the pictures of the plans. So, um, if you're going to put something in front of us, I suggest you get it in beef. Like at least a week before the meeting and that it be accurate so that we can give a real decision. Understood. And I, I do have a comprehensive set that we can provide to the board. Okay. As soon as tomorrow. In the interim, is it possible for the board to receive copies of the ZBA's decision so that we understand. I did. Okay. I didn't see much of it. Um, I can also resend the decision. I, the decision, you can also find it's on a registered deed, I believe, but, but, and also on the website, but I can resend it to you. Okay. I didn't see it in my packet, but it was there. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion, uh, to continue until, um, October the 21st. We have a second, uh, all in favor, uh, Bill Sterling. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Okay. So we'll see you at seven 30. Um, we're doing a virtual meeting that, that evening. Excellent. Thank you. See you in two weeks. Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Minutes. Yes. Uh, we only have one set, nine. We only have one set. So we'll, we'll plan behind like a few days of time. So. Nine, nine, 26. I have, I have started looking to maybe potentially doing, try to speed it up with maybe some, do some AI minutes too, but. Pardon me. I'm not following you. Uh, I, I'm looking to try to maybe also do some AI minutes too, to help. To help. Okay. I think that would be helpful. Also. Um, if there's possible that we can keep the minutes so that we get them at the next meeting, that would be really helpful for all of us. Yeah. It's. It has to do with that. The, the minute taker and her schedule. And when she, when she does them, she has them all the weekend. Rob, you got a spelling mistake on my name there. There's miss telling us. I see one too. For me too. Yeah. It was on there last time too. I don't know. Why are you saying that? As B O. R. B O R G. B O R G. Yep. That's so small. I can't even read it. Oh my gosh, Jesse. I didn't even catch that one. When I reviewed them, I was more concerned about the content. Oh my gosh. You missed nine minutes. Um, was there anything else on here that was any other concerns on the subject piece of it? Everything else looked good to me. I'm just trying to verify. Any other comments? No. Sorry. I was just checking. Just making sure her name was spelled right. Okay. We should be all set. Is that how it's spelled up front too? B O R G E S T E D T. Yeah. It's, it wasn't. Okay. Fixed it. So now the men is an hour. Okay. I'm with stuff like that. There are certain things that she repeatedly does that we keep correcting. When she's quoting something, it needs to have a double quote, not just a single. And for the motions that are under a specific topic, it needs to be indented. The timing needs to be indented so that it's clear it's under that topic. And then the spelling. Yeah. Yeah. I've, I've been giving a red line version back. It's just, you have such things to change as that. Okay. I learned this week that in British English, they only use single quotation marks for quotations. Do they really? Yeah. We don't do that. Fun fact. Fun fact. Fun fact. Fun fact. Okay. Okay. Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes of 9-9-26? I move to approve the minutes of 9-9-26 as amended. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Uh, all in favor. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Okay. Updates from the town planner. Yes. We'd, so we, one thing that came in the mail this week or email mail is if someone, an architect that is interested in the ZBA and design view board or one or the other. Um, and he's, he is an architect, he's a registered architect. And we, right now we currently have two registered architects on the design view board. So I need, I need to have already reached out to him and see if he, if he's interested to join this, this, uh, ZBA as a, a social member, because there, there's a bigger need for there than design view board. I don't know if it's best to have three architects where we're looking for a landscape architect and a graphic designer, but that was just my kind of my point of view of thinking. Yeah. Yeah. I, I think we really could use landscape designer. Yeah. Coming up. I think, I think he'd be a good, he'd be a good candidate, but I think, I think the design board should be in the town, should be looking at, uh, expanding different, different professions on that board than just. Right. Well, we're required. And I also think this person is almost overqualified for the roles we need. He would actually serve the zoning board much better. He's done large buildings of, uh, a huge variety. And that is, and that just in the, um, is, uh, ZBA. I mean, you never know who's gonna, not gonna attend a meeting and miss meetings sessions. So it's important to have a full stack of associates. It doesn't actually rotate them. Their people don't have to just sit. Oh, I'm going to be called upon. They just sit and participate. So. Okay. Um, I don't have anything. I don't think. Uh, I will be, me and Anita will be at conference the next two days. Um, so you feel free to email us. I know Anita will bring, bring her laptop, so she'll probably respond to emails, but, um, I will probably just respond to emails on my phone if there's something that comes up. So, um, all the things that will fall for sending over things, I will send it over on Tuesday. We'll get back from the holiday weekend. Okay. So Thursday and Friday, you're not going to be in. No, neither. So we'll be there, which I mean, I'll start, um, working on the, um, town center thing, just reorganizing it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then we can talk. Um, Robert, I talked to you on Saturday about getting some, uh, the zoning maps printed on like 11 by 18. So I can talk to the Wayland housing partnership about zoning. That's, they wanted me to talk about it. So I said, sure. So if, if you can print out, you know, a half dozen or so of those, maybe eight of them. And what do you want? What do you want on the map? Like the residential zones or. Yeah, I think so. Cause they're, I don't think they're interested in things that aren't potentially residential. Um, and then I don't know if you can leave. How many copies are on? What? Make copies. Yeah. Just print out, you know, I don't know, eight of them. All right. We never know how many are going to show up. Um, and then I don't know when you're around next week, Tuesday or Wednesday, maybe. And I'll come grab them. If not, I'll just put, I can put them out to my office and you can just pick them up when, whenever. When I come for the meeting. Cause they meet in person. Oh yeah. I can, I can put it on my summer off and clip it, clip into the off outside of the office. Okay. All right. That Tuesday. Okay. Thanks. The other thing that I did want to mention that I just thought of is, um, we are moving forward with the housing production plan and we have selected a consultant and I will be meeting with them next week to kind of do a kickoff meeting, but, um, it's gonna, we're gonna try to move as fast as possible. So I started reaching out to all the different, um, other committees, um, to ask for representatives to be part of this steering committee, not a committee to make real decisions, but a committee just to really help guide it, make sure that, that, you know, staff is working on them and that they, we get what we want out of it at the end of the day. Um, and then the end goal and getting, getting the goals and the objectives and what the plan is. So. Okay. So is Robin the person who's doing it for the planning board? Because she's. I believe so. Partnership. I, if you want to take a, a formal vote at the next meeting, we can do that to make it, I think, I think that's the other boys right now are doing, but it's not so bad. Robin. I did it the last. Okay. Yeah. And that's all half. It's gone. It's getting late. So I don't want to. Okay. Any board comments and concerns? Everybody's happy. So happy. So happy. We got it done under three hours. I'm amazed. Unbelievable. Well, only because the last one. Yeah. We got locked up. Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bill, do you want a second? Good boy. Thought you should get a chance tonight. All in favor. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Good night. Good night, everybody.
Then updates from the Town Planner, board comments and concerns, and adjourn. So? I already promoted the two applicants for... Okay. I promoted at least one. If AJ wants to jump on, you can just raise his hand. If not... Okay.
All right. So I think where we last, to kind of quickly summarize what happened last meeting, you asked the applicant to provide an updated narrative, which I provided to the board, and an updated site plan that had at least a date on it, or a date to show what's been changed. Correct me if anything else. Is there anything else, Jesse, that besides that and the draft decision, was there anything else that you modified or changed? No, you got it right, Robert. Sorry, Jesse B. Newberry and Bear Camp. Classic. So I think where we're at now is to review the material that is sufficient, what they submitted, and then overall go for the decision. And then the board can also approve and then delegate the planning board chair to work with the staff on that. But I hope it at least gave you some of the bigger... Hope you guys looked at it and gives you at least the major things that you're looking at, any kind of conditions that would be super prevalent in this case. Can I ask, before we proceed with this, if there are any public comments on anything not on the agenda, can you just raise your hand so that I know you're here, and then after we're done with this item, I'll go back to public comment.
No answer raised. Okay, great.
So how do you want to proceed, Robert? I would, I think, be helpful for the app and just to quickly go through any of the changes that you made. I believe I highlighted, I think there was a few changes to the application or the narrative, and then I believe that there was a small change to the date to providing what was modified. It says September 25, 2026 on the site plan, adding decking and seating. But I don't know if there's any other changes that we should be aware of. That was it, and we had it stamped as well, as you can see. And that's where we got back with the instructions you all gave us from our design consultant. I know, Bill, you'd mentioned kind of annotating and showing the spot on the plan where the change is. This is what we got back from our design consultants when I gave them the instructions. So this is what we sent along, unaltered, unmodified. And then within the narrative, Madam Chair had some comments around the changing of language from uses to amenities to kind of align it with, this is in relation to the skating rink, to align it with the narrative we had for some of the other active uses. So those are really the only updates we made. You know, the red lines, I'd sent a red line to Robert just to try to make your review easier based on, you know, our appearance at two meetings ago. So what you were seeing with red lines were actually duplicative of what we provided at our last hearing. I just wanted to ask a few questions, if I may, before we go past. We had asked at one point, I think, how you're dealing with toileting for those open spaces. And I don't know that we heard anything back. Yeah, so I can take them in turn. But we are talking to all the operators about providing adequate facilities. Sorry, let me just close my door. I got two little kids around the house here.
Pardon the interruption. Some of you probably know the routine or did at one point. So we're talking to operators, for example, the skating rink, about providing adequate facilities and trying to think through what are the most tasteful, least disruptive, and aligned with kind of the character of the site, as well as starting to understand how we can provide bathrooms, you know, common bathrooms within the building. So that is ongoing, you know, our understanding is that working with you all and this amendment to the master special permit, we are getting the right, we will have the ability to execute on these uses, they'll be part of the master special permit, we anticipate there'll still be some work to do once we identify partners with the town. And, you know, we view this as being one of those issues to ensure that we're in line with town regulations as related to not just public safety, which we've talked about a lot, but frankly, bathrooms, you know, the health department will have requirements for certain events, which we've dealt with for hand washing. So we'll be subject to all of that in anything that we do in the public realm. So, Robert didn't have a condition about that, but I'm suggesting, and I'm telling the board and asking, I'd like to put in a condition that there have to be arrangements for toilet facilities. Is that okay with people? There is, in fact, no change in the amount of impervious surface that was originally approved in the master special permit. That's my understanding, that's my understanding, because you would have had buildings that had impervious surface, and this is still open space. So, you're, okay. The site plan lot notations are problematic, and I just realized it today as I was looking at them really closely. When you assign the lot numbers and plot numbers, is that what was approved in the master special permit? Because it doesn't match our map and parcel numbers from the assessors and what we announced.
That is an excellent question. I think we were working off of the prior site plan, or our consultants were, that was in the master special permit from 2008 as an exhibit. That's what I was, I couldn't tell, and because there was another site plan that wasn't in the master special permit, but was more understandable, that was filed at the registry later. So, I think that after tonight, we all need to just go back and look at the notation to make sure that the plans and the decision match, because we're going back and forth between the two of them, I think. Then, the existing lighting plan, you've said that everything will remain the same, but that was never the, on Alyssa Avenue, that lighting was never approved. So, I'm not sure how you want to deal with it. It either really needs to come down, or you need to ask for permission to have it. Yeah, this has come up and understood the ask.
We think it adds scale and actually some character. It was installed before we purchased the site. We've heard from a lot of members in the community that they quite like it. But, I think what you're suggesting is, if that is the case, we should ask this board to approve those string lights. You know, our take on that is, they're easy to take down, they're temporary in nature, but if there was some way to ask for the specific approval to keep the string lights as currently exist on site, that would be wonderful. Okay, because normally that kind of lighting is not allowed in town at all, only on Christmas, or only on holidays. So, are you asking us to? Yes. Okay. How does the board... What I want to make sure, Madam Chair, we do hear is that this is not a threshold issue for us, just to be clear. We're just drafting off what we've heard in the community. If this has the potential of delaying this current decision, my preference would be not to come back here and revise it for this one singular specific ask. I know we're going to be back in front of you all at some point. And I mentioned this to Bill last time, as we start thinking about moving into wayfinding within the site, and some of the other elements, which we could include this in. But I would ask for the board's opinion on this as part of this hearing, just knowing that time is really of the essence for us, because we want to get going making some of these improvements. What if we, Madam Chair, what if we put in a condition that the applicant needs to come back, but it doesn't have... I'm trying to figure if it has to come back for a fall amendment, or can it come back, the board can review it at a public meeting and put the ornament on the applicant at a later date? It's just balancing, not like putting too much on the applicant to leave it, but also like, no, we're not going to approve it. You need to take it down. However, you can come back. Let me ask something. Is this something that the building department would have had to approve? I would think so. Or fire. Fire is the one that does not like it at all. Oh. It beats it. And they've told me that, but I, I don't think I have any for you to get it down. It was before my time. So it's been up there for five years. Yeah, it hasn't been temporary. It's been up there at least for five years before my time. And I've been here for four years. Would the fire department find it less objectionable if it ran parallel to the street? Because right now it zigzags across the street, so they can't maybe move under it. They're all about safety. I think anything that kind of like gets in your way of the ladder is not, they don't like. So we, just if I, if I, if I may, when we met with fire and I believe Robert, you were in this meeting, they actually already tweaked the lights at some point prior to ownership when I think Sarkis was the town planner. This is, if my memory is serving me right, where they already took down a section of the lights that were adjacent to the building on the corner of Alyssa and Andrew to the west where there's a residential unit above through follow me because the fire department said it would be an obstruction to our ladder to have this one row of string lights and that was already taken down. So there's just been, what seems like a bunch of casual mitigation to some of this prior to our ownership, but we're happy to, um, do what the board deems appropriate here.
Thoughts? So board members? I personally don't mind the lights, but I could see if we required that they have approval from the fire department. Um, the other thing that this makes me think about is there's no provision for lighting at the skating area. And so if we're doing this, then I would also throw in some provision, some restriction that there can be lighting at the skating area seasonally, but it has to meet the following requirements or something so that we're dealing with that all at once. Isn't it the same thing at the fields though, too? Um, fields you're not going to be using at night unless you have like real floodlights. So I wouldn't imagine they're getting used at night, but the skating rink in the wintertime, it's dark so early that it might be used, you know, when it's a little bit dark out, but could we say something like, um, as the development proceeds, um, they should be, um, applying to the appropriate, uh, departments for approval of lighting. Um, and we have the, we'll have a condition that no light goes into the sky and all that stuff. Our standard would that be very comfortable with that. It's fine with me. Yeah, I'm good there. Okay. Let me write down. So I don't forget what, um, it may be hard to meet the dark sky requirement. So it's because they're not shielded. Those lights, they make ones that have little, little, you mean the ones on a list. I'm sure they comply with that.
Yeah. Our intention is to do, um, so, so one of the things I'll, I'll wait until the chair is done writing to not distract.
Um, so the ice skating rink, Robin's a great point. Um, we thought we could execute this winter and move really quickly. We are not going to be able to do that. There are a lot of moving pieces that touch things like lighting and public safety. Um, there's a lot of work we have to do. So we, in working with, um, the Eliza J. Norton Foundation have decided, and we've been regular contact with them, that we are going to wait to do this for a year, which will give us time to work with the town on all of this sort of stuff. Um, and we anticipate having to do it. So this is, this is very much consistent with what our expectations were going to be on, on things like this. Um, okay. Um, so, uh, for the rest of you, have you read through the decision? Yeah. Yeah. Um, I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I think it needs to be, um, more condensed. I think that there are sections that we can leave out because they're already in the master special permit, uh, like the construction conditions and the, um, going back to look, uh, construction conditions and most of the construction conditions, uh, and the general conditions. They seem to be repeats of what's already in the master special permit, Robert. Okay. Um, the first general condition, um, is fine because we do want it recorded so that there's a record of it. Um, and then in the construction and stop me at any point in time when you want to jump in, uh, for the construction condition. I'm just going to put on the screen just so that Jesse, you can see. Okay. Sorry. And then I'm going to go back. I didn't have to write a copy to the app because there was nothing in the decision. I thought that was, um, okay. I'm going to show. So. Okay. So the we're on page eight, the first, uh, paragraph talks about getting, uh, this thing, uh, filed at the registry of deeds, which makes sense. Um, and then the rest of them under general conditions, I believe are already covered in the master special permit. So I don't really think we need to repeat them again because at one other place we say everything in the master special permit that isn't changed stays. Um, and then with the construction conditions, the limit, uh, at five, four, two limits of hours of work, um, parking of construction vehicles, all of that is already covered again in the master special permit. So I don't really think that we need to say it again. Um, about 5.4.1. I was just going to ask you about that. I don't, I'm not sure when that would even really come into play with the kinds of things that they're doing. Why would they need to meet with the DPW and the conservation commission, for example? The only thing I could think of, and there's maybe, maybe it'd be, maybe it'd be me and the police and fire is when they install the ballers. Potentially that's the only, I also, I, I think fires on it. I also can take it out. It's not, it's not, it's not a big deal. That's okay. We can do, I think that it would be fine to do fire and, um, and planning. The building department as well. Let me, let me fly down and we can, we can work on that hopefully offline to, to a little more, to make it more, uh, um, define what exactly construction activity we're talking about.
It could also be, it could be, the work could be started out on the field and we just want, you know, fire and police is just to be there a week before and just, Hey, this is a plan. Here are the pictures. We're going to install it next Friday. Boom. And just so everybody is aware. Or because once it doesn't stop, people are going to be asking questions, but we should probably be aware of the town, at least public safety should be aware of that. It's being installed. Jeff, do you need a week or do you need something shorter? Somebody there while you're doing it for the bollards?
Um, don't know the answer to that. Um, I'm just reading this for the first time you're saying, so we could also just say prior to construction activity. Um, yeah, I think that, I mean, again, this is stuff we knew we were going to have to do anyways. Um, in my anticipation is that we would, we would actually do it at least one week prior. Right. Um, you know, this is, this is work that we're going to be, um, starting and executing on the scope. And I think we'll, we'll understand our lead times and construction schedule and we can plan accordingly. Okay. So is you want to leave the weekend or do you just want to say prior to construction? I think you just say prior to construction. Prior to construction is great. Okay. Yeah. Um, just knowing if you can't get everybody all at once and if you end day, like, yeah. Right. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Um, then going back to, um, page one, um, the, the center, the header needs to be centered with the logo over to the left.
Um, I started sorting through under location, the, uh, map and lot numbers and what is in each of those just so we could start understand, so we could understand what was what, because we have to somewhere in here talk about, for example, we don't, well, I'm asking this of the board in the decision as written, it doesn't say a skating rink goes here, a dog park goes there. It just says, these are the kinds of things that can go in. Um, and if we're going to do it that way, then it would be helpful. I think if we said, these are the specific areas, um, within the specific assessor's lots, that we're dealing with as unbuilt areas. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure what unbuilt areas means. The unbuilt areas are areas that were already approved to have, um, commercial development on them. The sizes of the commercial development is already approved. But no, I know what it is, but why are you using that term? Um, because I'm trying to, I'm trying to describe the area. It could be future development, right? Pardon me? They're still approved, so they could be future development.
I'm, I'm just trying to clarify. As yet, what we're, what this thing talks about essentially is as yet unbuilt areas, because the applicant doesn't want to lose the right to. I just have a, I'm agreeing with your comment, and I just want to add that this was not noted on the site plan. They, they identified the skating rink and the dog park. They had two other areas circled, but they did not identify what they were, and I think they need to be labeled. So I'm agreeing with you. Okay, so do you, do you want everything labeled, or do you want them to have the flexibility to just do these uses on any of those parcels? I think we need to label it as, you know, what the developer intends for those to be. Yeah, like right now, the dog park is labeled, and. That's it. That's it. So the other ones, I suppose, could be, even if they have multiple potential uses, like sports field and, you know, whatever else, and then the skating and whatever else, it could be noted on there, just like dog park is. I think in truth, and in practice, given our experience with public realm activation and place making projects of a similar nature, you know, Bill, what you're explaining is by design so that we can have some flexibility for some of these things as the specific needs of our community and operating partners come forward, always, of course, subject to having to go back to the town for all the things we've been speaking about. We did label the dog park because that is a kind of awkward piece of real estate that has some existing trees. It's not at the right grade. And that's where we are going to put it. But, you know, we're going to learn a lot as we get out there and start talking to operating partners and community partners. And my concern is if we are too prescriptive with exactly where some of that goes, that limits our ability to be creative with folks. I understand the ask, but that's kind of our perspective and how we're thinking about these uses, which, you know, I do want to be forthcoming. You know, some of this work to activate the public realm is very fluid and is very partner dependent. And even, you know, being out there over the weekend at the Wayland Fest, like it actually validated my sense and my team's sense that there's just so much we could do to bring the community to this place and we'd be a little bit hesitant to say exactly what we're going to do on these unbuilt parcels. I think that's fine and I agree with that. I think that, but they should be labeled and otherwise it's like, why are you circling it? You have to say these are future development undetermined or something like that. I mean, I just, just so that whoever sees that document understands what that circle is for. You could just label them underutilized space like it is in here. Yeah. Well, it's actually more than that though. Those are, those are approved for development in the master plan so that they actually are approved development sites to be developed or something like that. Yeah. They're currently unbuilt, approved and unbuilt. Yeah. That's why I think they should be labeled. Yeah, I think where we may have tried to do this was in the narrative, just detailing that we are not changing the underlying zoning of the site. And we were, we were hesitant to start labeling pieces of the unbuilt sites for anything, but what their intended use is. We just want to do stuff in the interim. So we'll follow the board's lead on this. But we did spend a lot of time thinking through the right language for the actual narrative because we don't want something to go on the public record. That's, you know, and I think Madam Chair, this was your intent by calling them unbuilt that suggests that the underlying zoning is changed in any way whatsoever. And I don't know how you do that on a plan versus the narrative, but we're happy to do it if the board so pleases. But right now the plan has no, there's no key that says that that particular type of dashed line is unbuilt space. And so if just, if somewhere on here is a key that says something that has that dotted line around it or dashed line around it is the unbuilt space that is discussed in this decision. That's all. Yeah. Would that help in that? The last thing I'll say, and then you, you all can do what makes the most sense is we were also just trying to follow the pattern. And I know no one's super happy with it of the prior site plan used as an exhibit to the master special permit. But, and the way in which it was referenced as that exhibit, because we do detail in the actual narrative, but, but totally heard and happy to do what the board deems most appropriate. Okay, moving on in the beginning part where we just say, normally, we just give a summary of what's going on in the decision. I think it would be better to revise it and just talk about the three things that are being approved. I think, I'm assuming they're being approved. The closing of a portion of Alyssa Avenue to traffic, traffic, traffic, pardon me, and the kind of uses replacing the gateway signage at route 20 and 27 entrances to the site and providing the opportunity to use as yet unbuilt portions of the site for tenant and community programming while retaining the development potential of the 2008 approved master special permit plan.
Sounds good to me. Okay. I think that sort of captures it. And then that will tell people, okay, this is what's happening. And then we can start moving through the procedural history. In the procedural, I guess this is a question, 100 Alyssa Avenue, which is lot 502F is cited here. What's happening there? That is behind the wastewater treatment plant.
I don't know if that came from you, Jesse, or if Robert figured that one out. I don't think that came from us. Okay. Robert, I don't know. I mean, it's all the properties they own, right? Included all the properties that they all joined together. They're not doing, okay. They're not doing anything. I don't think they're doing anything. We can note that this 100 Alyssa Avenue is owned by the Apkin, by N.P. The Master Special Permit applies to much more than what they own. Okay. So, okay. So, that answers that. And we'll figure that out. Yeah. When we're done, again, if it's okay with people, I'd like to try and go back with Robert and reorganize this a little bit. Yeah. And then we can decide how you want to get it, you know, whether you want to review it afterward or whatever. We'll talk about that. The, okay.
With some of the plans, I just want to, again, work with Robert to make sure that we say, for example, that Exhibit C is in something that was submitted. We can't tell that. So, that's not a big deal. With the Phase 2 Site Plan Review, Robert, your second bullet, this Planning Board is required to review building design and elevations. There really aren't buildings. Yeah. That was no for kill. Okay. I was being, trying to be very detailed on this. Okay. And then, on the next page, the second bullet at the top, you talk about screening and buffering. Isn't it really just landscaping that we're doing here? Yeah. Okay. And then, oh, we're not touching open space. What they're doing is not open space. The only open space is the Town Greens.
Okay. And the subject property, this is under General Findings, actually is 59 acres. That's what the whole Master Special Permit went to. And so, the 20.14 is what these guys own.
Yes. I think we have to figure out if we want to do this at all and talk about the total acreage.
Or that we could say something like their application affects 20.14, but it really doesn't affect F, so we would have to take that one out.
We also, I think, need to say something that we're approving the reduction in parking. The federal floodplain and federal floodplain protection. And then, watershed protection. We only have two districts. I'm not sure which one has to drop out, but you can check that, Robert. Mm-hmm. Okay. And the property is not really, well, we have to be careful how we do this. The Master Special Permit applies, again, to 59 acres, and so that's not bounded by River Trail Place. River Trail Place is a part of this, so we just have to finesse that a little bit. But the, I'm hoping that this makes sense in 414, in order to revise the previous approved plans for the retail and office portion of the Wayland Town Center mixed-use project, the board has determined that a major amendment to the 08 Master Special Permit is required.
I think, Jesse, that that is the section that you're dealing with, retail and office. Yes. Okay.
The, okay, then for specific findings, I think somewhere we have to say something like, um, it's an opportunity to use as yet unbuilt portions of the retail and commercial portions of the site for tenant and community programming while retaining the development potential of the 2008 approved Master Special Permit Plan.
And just some of the language, um, for example, on the next page, page four, the one, two, three, the fourth bullet consideration of existing streets. I just think we need to clarify what we're saying, um, subject to, to conditions imposed herein, the entrance to the site. It's not, it, it, we're talking about here, we're talking about, um, the Alyssa Avenue area only with the bollards. So we just have to be clear about that.
And for the inconsiderate next bullet underneath in consideration of existing streets, the second bullet under that bullet, um, can we talk about, um, with Alyssa Avenue that what they're trying to, what they're doing is creating a corridor for connection to the rail trail. Or pedestrian connection. Yeah. Thank you. To the rail trail and the rest of the, the interior of the site. Yeah.
Okay. Um, parking and loading standards. There are 24 parking spaces that we're going to be losing, not just 16. Um, but I think we have to say something like, um, that was what was for the full build out and there are currently as yet unbuilt areas so that there is leeway to lose those spaces. I just think we have to give a, a logical reason why it's okay.
Uh, and in lighting design, again, we'll talk about the night sky in our standard language. Um, and the open space thing, I think doesn't belong there because this isn't open space. It's already, it's already gone. Okay. Um, and then in the decisioning conditions, um, all of these people, all of these boards and departments did not comment, uh, on the decision. Only the, um, board of health did. I think it was the board of, no, not the board of health, whoever it was. There was only one that commented. So I think we can say that, um, the other boards were given an opportunity to comment because when you look at the, the page of, of who submitted, what it's only one department that submitted something. Uh, and then, um, for the amendment to the master special permit, um, the sections that need to be amended again, I think we can just state the facts and again, say the three areas that we're amending, uh, and, uh, many of the things that are on page five under the recreation area seem to me more like conditions rather than decision. The decisions are, you can do this, you can do that. You can do this. And these are the conditions that you have to do to comply with those. So I would move those to conditions, um, coming back to the other customary amenities, uh, language that you have here, Robert. Um, I don't, it's a little vague. And I thought that the last time we talked about, um, a way of referring to it, but not calling it customary. How about other necessary accessory improvements or other necessary? I mean, that could be serving food at a place where you shouldn't be serving food. It could be building a little building for people to change in.
I think for something like that, we would want to know that that's what's being done.
I'm saying these things and I'm hoping that you guys are thinking and feeding back what you think. Yeah, no, they're fine. But this level of detail shouldn't be done in live, you know, meeting. I think that kind of thing, we can just, you and Robert can work it out and ask us to approve it later. Okay. Yeah.
Um, well, but that's, that's not, we're going to approve it and, you know, allow Annette to make some changes. Right. So this is the time to kind of talk about whether we'll approve some of these ideas or not. Right. And what we can do is, uh, Robert and I can revise it. He can send it out to you. You could send any comment. As long as we have an understanding of what we're approving, um, you can send comments back to him. He can make the final changes and you can either deal with it at our next meeting, or you can authorize me now to sign it. Um, and it's, it's certainly up to you how you want to proceed.
And again, some of these other things as we go on are like findings of fact. And I mean, there's going to be the decision, which is essentially simple findings of fact that precede the decision and then conditions that follow the decision. And I think, again, with that, we can just really simplify this and make it a much shorter document. It'll be easier for everybody to follow.
Are there other things in here that you people saw that I missed? No, it's just a lot of redundancy. Um, a little below where you are right now, Robert is another parking section that has that 16 figure instead of the 24. Right. I think it was originally 2016 when we did the, uh, and that's why it must not have changed it. It's been working on us for weeks. Yeah. No, I just thought I'd point it out. It's so bad, the four. It says 20. There you go. But I, you know, I think that, that stuff you just mark up and you, you fix it, you know, to do this live on the show is a waste of time, public time. Well, normally I, I generally ask Robert if I can get it in advance before it goes to the board so that I can do these things and save time, but I didn't get it in advance. So, sorry. So we'll review it again when you fix it. That's great. Is that what you'd like to do at the next? That's what I propose. Yeah. Right. Do you want to, you, you, I, I clearly it's fine to review it. Do you want to review it, get your comments back to Robert and then allow me to sign it? Or do you want to review it, get comments back to Robert and then, um, take the vote at the next meeting?
I think a vote at the next meeting would be soon enough. I don't, I'm just one vote though. So I don't know what everyone else thinks. How do the rest of you feel? I'm fine with everybody sending in their changes and letting Annette sign it because there aren't going to be any substance, substantive changes. These are just words. Yeah. Yeah. Dramatical changes, organizational changes. Yeah. Jesse. Jesse Newberry, you're muted. I was talking that whole time, agreeing with you, Robin. Um, thank you. Yeah, no. So this is, you know, it's, it's just clean up in here. Right. So, um, and consistency. So, um, I'm, I'm fine with voting with, um, the provision that Annette's going to clean this up with Robert. That's fine. There's nothing, there's nothing big that's going to change here in this. No, I don't think so. And again, what we, what we'll be approving is closing a portion of Alyssa Avenue to traffic, uh, and using it for the kinds of things they've been talking about, replacing the gateway signage at route 20 and 27 entrance to the site. And we've talked about that in the sizing, um, and providing the opportunity to use the, as yet unbuilt portions of the site, uh, and, uh, while retaining the, uh, right for potential development. Yeah. Okay. So if that is what we've got, um, I would ask, um, we can either close the hearing and vote, or we can vote and close the hearing. Why don't we, is it okay? How about if we are ready to close the hearing? Yeah. Um, can I have a motion to close the, uh, public hearing on, uh, PB 2604 application of Graffito SP, uh, for amendment to the 2008, uh, master special permit? So moved. Second. Okay. Uh, Bill Sterling. Hi. Robin. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. So it's a four zero vote. Um, and then, um, I'd like, um, a motion, uh, for, um, Robert and I to, uh, revise the draft to simplify it and clarify some points in line with what we spoke with this evening. Uh, and then, uh, uh, and then me to sign it and issue it again. Do you want to see the changes before I sign it?
I think you don't want to say, okay, that's fine. Fine. I mean, we, we've talked through everything here. All right. I think right now. It's all right. Pretty well. Fine. So I will work on it over, um, the next week. I'll try and get it in faster, but I won't be around for a few days. Um, so, um, again, uh, a motion to, uh, authorize me to, um, to the chair to, uh, work with the town planner and finalize the decision. And then the plan, the chair to sign it on behalf of the board. So moved. Seconded. All in favor. Bill Sterling. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. I hope we're in good shape. Um, are you Jesse, uh, bear can what we will get back to you with is we'll try. Um, I'll try also and look at the site plan, uh, and see if I can sort through sort of some of, because there are a million different site plans as we have talked about in the past.
And, um, so we might need to just revise it finally, but we can approve this. Um, and subject to the final thing coming in. Um, yeah, and we'll work with you expeditiously on that when, uh, when needed and, and thank you all. It's been really, uh, a great first matter. Um, your guidance has been helpful. Your questions are great. I think they've made this first. Bit of the project better. Uh, we'll be back in front of you soon, but really appreciate the collaboration. And, you know, as you can tell by our enthusiasm, we're just excited to get going here. Um, and continue our work so much appreciated. Thank you. And people are pretty excited about what you're doing out there. So that's good. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Thanks, Jesse.
Okay. Uh, now it is 730 and we're a little late. Uh, this is PB 2603, Continued Public Hearing on, uh, the MWRA Holtman Aqueduct Corridor. Um, uh, the, uh, the, uh, uh, treatment plant at Happy Hollow and the, uh, Castle Road pump station, uh, to bring MWA water to Wayland. So I just want to see.
Be sure. I think Tom's here and Matt O'Dowd's here for the client photo. Yeah. Okay. And I also, I just changed Greg Roy's name to Dales and Roy just so he, it's not confusing. He's, um, also going to change the peer reviewers just so it's not confusing because this client photo, there's a lot on the applicant team. So I'm just going to leave it as peer reviewer just so that everybody knows.
Okay. Um, so, um. Can I comment on that as the peer review, um, I, is something that we can discuss offline or some, there are some things in there that I need to be cleaned up. A typo and an error in their judgment that I think needs to be, is that something we can just do later?
Depends what they are. It depends how significant they are.
So why don't we let the peer reviewer go over his comments. And if you have comments while, after he's gone over them, Bill, or. We can do it offline. We'll do it. I can send a letter to you if you want. Well, it has to be in the record though. Yeah, uh, the letter will be in the record.
But, uh, Greg, can you, do you mind just going through the highlights of, of the peer review letter? We don't need like every little detail, but just give us like the highlights of the things that are, um, outstanding or questions. Yeah, I have just a few items. That's great to start. We can get to your questions too, Bill, after. If that's okay. I'm happy to yield if, if Bill wants to, I'm at the pleasure of the board here. So whatever you'd like to.
I think it would be cool if you, if you did your overview. Sure. Uh, thanks everybody. Greg Roy with Dills and Roy. Um, and I, I'm the, was, uh, conducted the peer review for the project. And, um, I, uh, we'll give you an overview. Um, I'll just, uh, if, if there's anyone that you want me to, um, discuss in particular, or if there's any cleanup, feel free to let me know. I, uh, I guess I'll apologize in advance, uh, for, for that. If there was, if there was something that needs to be cleaned up in there. Um, but I'm just going to do the ones that I think are, uh, are significant. But if I skip over any, uh, please just stop me and I can, I can talk about any of them. Um, and I'll say that, um, the plan set that was submitted, uh, was, was fairly comprehensive. My peer review really focused on the civil, uh, portions of the plan review. So you can see that in the, in the opening, um, statement of the letter. Um, so I didn't, I didn't necessarily go through all the architectural plans and all those, those type of things. So just, just for clarity. Um, numbers one, two, uh, and, and three, uh, really just tended to be informative to the board, uh, relative to, uh, where the parcels lie in the various zoning districts, overlay districts. Um, number three, uh, was relative to, uh, some, some earth, the earth work provisions or earth movement provisions, rather in your, uh, in your zoning bylaw. Um, um, it, it, you know, it's, it's, uh, um, project being, you know, conducted by the town. So I think that you're afforded exemptions under that section. So just pointing those things out for information purposes. Um, number four relates to offsite parking. We didn't have any significant concerns, uh, with the parking. It doesn't appear that the facilities are, uh, a really high traffic generators. Um, the applicant did provide some, uh, information relative to that in their, in their project narrative. Uh, so again, we just pointed out the, um, uh, what the plans were showing, uh, for parking on the plans. And we didn't have any significant issues with that. It doesn't, um, it doesn't show up, I think, as a, uh, as a listed use in your parking table. So I think that ultimately your board has to make a determination as to the adequacy. Uh, but in our opinion, uh, I don't, we don't see any, any issues relative to the parking proposed. Um, in that section, you're citing the wrong section, I believe. I think it's 506, uh, 110 and 50681, uh, 50631 deals with mixed use projects.
This is on number four. Yes, it was. Sorry. Okay. Number six. Sorry. That's parking facilities. Sorry. Oh, I see. Yeah. Sorry. I was on number four. I apologize. I should be more specific. No, that's my fault. Um, uh, lighting again, there didn't appear to be any, any, uh, major exterior lighting proposed. Uh, that very well may be the case for these types of facilities. I just, I just wanted to make sure that that was, that the applicant commented to make sure that was the case. Um, there, there is lighting and they did show it, I believe on some of the plans and probably the architectural plans. Uh, okay. Well, um, apologize for that. I, I didn't see any on the, uh, on the, on the civil plans. And I, again, I was focused, I was really focused on those, uh, on those sheets. Um, so perhaps that's a, uh, a clarification there. Uh, and I apologize for that. Um, on six, um, the, um, the, particularly on the castle roads, the, the, um, happy hollow sites, fairly remote, you know, fairly, fairly isolated. Um, I think from the, uh, surrounding, uh, residential, uh, uses, uh, quite, quite a distance, but on the castle road side, of course, the sites pretty close proximity to abutting sites. They are proposing a chain link fence, uh, in there, which I, I think, um, I think your bylaw, um, you know, doesn't necessarily stipulate the method for screening. It just says that screening has to, has to, um, has to be provided in those types of situations. Uh, so there wasn't any natural plantings there. I'm not certain that your bylaw requires it, but I'm just pointing it out. There wasn't really any, uh, the applicant, I think, even reported in their narrative that they're not proposing any, um, any proposed plantings on the facilities, but there is some screening proposed, um, on the, particularly on the castle road site.
Seven again is informative, uh, for the board. Before you move on, can you explain, um, why you thought particularly on the Northern property line, um, that it would need screening from parking. Um, because these regulations that you're citing deal with parking and the parking is on the old Connecticut pass side. Um, well, they've got, sorry, I'm pulling the plan up here.
So, um, I guess it depends on how you translate the plan, but they, they have the, um, I mean, if the board's determination is that the, you know, that there's no parking adjacent, they are showing the gravel parking area on the, um, old Connecticut path side of the, of the property. Um, but I guess I was just looking at it, um, the, you know, they have the driveway access that comes in, which certainly could be utilized for parking. I would imagine. Um, so I reckon that this is a, um, a, a judgment call by the, by the, uh, by the board. But, you know, I just wanted to point out that they, they aren't proposing any naturalized screening, but there is a fence that's adjacent to the entire facility on the northerly side.
Bill, if we hit anything that you want to ask, John. Well, you know, this, this is the one, the Happy Hollow. Are you referring to the Happy Hollow or are you talking about the Castle Road site? This is on the Castle Road site. Okay, well, yeah, what's interesting is that we've spoken with, uh, DPW and they've already agreed to put landscape. They actually showed, uh, design review board some proposed landscaping for screening. Oh, okay. That is not, what you're saying is actually not true anymore. Oh, okay. Well, I, I didn't see that on the plant, so I apologize. No, you haven't seen the latest plant. Oh, okay. Can the applicant go through that too? Yeah, that, that may be, may be resolved then. I, I, and again, I wasn't trying to, um, I think that portion of the bylaw, I think it doesn't necessarily stipulate that it has to be landscaping, but it, it has some, um, it, it just calls for screening. I think is the, is the language in there. If my, I'm not reading it verbatim, but that's my recollection. I apologize if I didn't have the latest and greatest plan there, but I, uh, I was using the submitted application materials. So. Well, I understand that. I think it's appropriate. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, again, seven is just informative. Um, I, I, it appears that this, this project fits into a quote utility facility. And, uh, uh, that is a, a use, um, that's listed in the table of uses as requiring a site plan. So of course we're here for that purpose. So this is, again, just, just informative for the board, um, applicant, the application, uh, eight, um, eight is important. Yeah. So I'll read it application requirements. The applicant has provided a project narrative along with supporting information, which addresses the requirements of this section. They have requested waivers, um, including a waiver from the preparation of a traffic study. Uh, and again, I just, I didn't have it. We didn't have any, I didn't have any specific concerns with the waivers they've requested, but it is pointing them out to the board that they, they did indeed request some. Um, and you'll have to make, uh, you know, as part of your review, you'd have to make a formal finding. Yeah, I think that that's the word waiver, I think is probably not, doesn't apply anymore because the DPW has agreed to do a study, not for traffic volume, but about the safety and the visibility of the entrance from, uh, castle road onto old Connecticut path. Uh, so, so, so I, I wouldn't use the word waiver at all because they actually have agreed to do analysis and calculated what the safe, safe intersection wouldn't, would require. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's fine. When we're done with this, um, then the DPW will, um, respond and tell us what they've done since the last meeting. I think, um, it would be better if we didn't intersperse what you now know because you were at the DRP. And again, it was just written in their narrative, but the waivers are requested. So I wasn't trying, you know, if perhaps the, it's appropriate for them to just retract that waiver request and that, that's fine. Yeah. So, um, again, nine, just in form of the, the structures to me appear to meet, uh, zoning setbacks, uh, as, as stipulated in your dimensional, uh, table, uh, which is also, um, sort of eight and nine, uh, nine and 10, uh, together. Um, 11, same thing. It's another, uh, carry over, uh, just take, it's, it's your section of table, uh, of permitted uses in the, in the district. It appears to be an allowed use, um, same thing in the aquifer protection district, um, which is number 12, um, 13, I, I guess, um, relates to earth removal. This is one that I'll, uh, I'll stop on. Um, I'll just read this one. The happy hollow site includes a relatively deep cut. It looked to me about 10 feet in the, uh, at the worst point, um, in the infiltrate in portion. Of the infiltration lagoon, uh, for the, uh, for the construction of the lagoon areas, the applicant should provide documentation as to the depth of the groundwater in this area to ensure earth removal, uh, within four feet of the water table is not proposed. Uh, we know that borings have been conducted on both sites. However, these do not provide as accurate of a groundwater assessment as traditional deep observation holes. Um, and I'll talk about the deep observation holes later in the letter relative to support of the, uh, um, stormwater system as well. Um, so, um, this portion of the regulation has some stipulations in terms of the depth of the cut. Uh, you can't, uh, you can't go within four feet of the water table. And I guess I was just a little concerned that, um, the, the soil boring information that was, um, provided on the plan might not give us quite enough information to assess, uh, the actual location of the, uh, or depth of the, of the water table to assess that. So, um, we would recommend that deep observation hole be done there, um, at least down to those, to those, uh, proposed cut depths so that you can really determine, uh, where that estimated, you know, the seasonal, uh, water table is, uh, in that, in those locations.
Um, number 14, uh, and I said this in a few different, uh, spots, but this is probably one of the ones that I was looking for a little bit more information on. And, and, and perhaps this is one that, uh, that the applicant has responded to, uh, previously, but, um, I'll also read this one, uh, again, I'm on number 14. The happy hall of facility includes the proposed lagoon system for the discharge of backwash. The applicant, uh, should provide additional documentation regarding the operation of this system to ensure compliance with the act for protection district requirements. We do note that the applicant lists a BRP W6, a WS06 application, which is an underground injection permit as one of the listed permits that they submitted, uh, of many, several that, that, that this project requires. Um, this permit is reviewed and issued by DP. The applicant should confirm that this UIC permit includes the proposed lagoon system. So I guess my intention of this comment is, and I have it, I say a little bit different, a little bit different, stated a little bit differently later. Um, I'm just interested to hear what the applicants, uh, what, how that system will work and how it, and how it's, um, designed to work and how it will protect. It's, it looks to me like there's a, there's two lagoons, one that's lined where the backwash is discharged to, and it's an overflow into the infiltration system. And I was just a little concerned that particularly in the aquifer protection district, but really anywhere that, um, that there might be possibility of, um, you know, contaminated water, backwash water, if you will, that will now then be infiltrating into the, uh, you know, into the ground. And that infiltration portion of the, of the lagoon system. So, um, but I did, I did want to point out that they did list the UIC injection, uh, UIC injection permit. Uh, so perhaps, um, perhaps this has already been anticipated. Um, so just looking for a little bit of additional information on that from the applicant and the design team. Um, uh, uh, for, um, there is a portion of the Happy Hall of Sight that, that is in the floodplain area. Um, and they do, they are proposing some work down there relative to some, some trenching down by where the wellheads are, I think, utility work and things. Uh, so it, it looked to me like, like a, a CBA special permit could be, uh, required. I wasn't sure if there had been one filed, but I just wanted to point that out. Greg, I think that, um, if you read the floodplain bylaw, it only deals with removal of structures. Okay. So I don't think it, they're not going to be removing any structures in that area. Yeah, I, I agree. It looked, it looked to me like it was limited to, uh, utility trenching and things. Uh, let's see. Um, the next section is, um, relative to review of the, of the plans and things, uh, pursuant to your site plan, uh, review, uh, review and approval regulations. Um, number 16, I think was the one that I keyed in on here. So perhaps this is a joint review with you and the Conservation Commission. So this might be more appropriate to the Conservation Commission, but it is in your site plan regulations. Um, the, um, the, the, the plan showed the riverfront area and the buffer zones, but it didn't seem like it really clearly identified the associated, uh, river, the bank and the, uh, and the buffer zone, excuse me, in the, uh, boarding vegetative wetland. Um, so, um, and, and that's a requirement of that section of the regulations. So, um, our recommendation is just to add those, that those resource areas really should be delineated and, and, uh, and added to the plan so that you can be sure that the buffer zones and associated riverfront areas are, uh, correctly depicted on the plan. There is work proposed in them. So I think it might be a little different story if, um, you were, um, well outside of the areas, you know, perhaps the approximate of those areas would be sufficient, but it seemed to us that, that it warrants, um, field delineation of those, uh, resource areas. Um, um, let's see, uh, number 18, again, uh, just to, if the applicant may need, may, may not be asking for this waiver anymore. So, uh, at the time when I was reviewing it, uh, the, the waiver was requested. So, um, if they, if they pulled that and they're going to provide traffic, uh, study information, then they may not require that waiver anymore. Uh, the next section relates to stormwater. Um, uh, in as much as the project will disturb, uh, more than 10,000 square feet of land, it, it appears to fit into the major care category. So I, I reviewed those, uh, requirements. So that was number 19, um, number 20 is really just to clean up the, uh, the stormwater calculations did include a Massachusetts stormwater checklist. Just should be stamped and signed by the professional engineer, uh, just a cleanup item. Um, uh, fee, fee payment waivers. So I would assume that the town would find those appropriate since it's a town sponsored project, but they did ask for a waiver to those. Um, number 22, uh, 21 is the, uh, the other waiver one. I think, uh, I think there's a typo in there. It's a, it shouldn't be a waiver form, but probably waiver from, and we're probably going to change that anyway. Uh, because we're not asking. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. That's one of those ones that kills you because it doesn't, uh, uh, uh, number 22, uh, the happy hollow site has a small amount of treat of clearing. It looked to us. Um, and, uh, the, the, the, the portion to this requires, uh, you to show individual trees over six inches in, in, uh, DBH and diameter. Um, it's a pretty small amount of clearing. It may be the case that they're located, the canopy on the plan and there's no actual, uh, trees that are going to be coming down, but, um, you just, you know, for clarity, uh, should, uh, probably show the, the individual, if there's any trees there or note that if, if there aren't any on the plan. Right. And we should, we should share that with the conservation commission. This is sent to the conservation commission as well, Bill. Yeah. Yeah, they, yeah, yeah, I, I think we jointly sent it over, but yes.
Um, let's see, 23 is just, again, another rehash of, uh, of comments 16 above, um, relative to the resource areas. Um, so, uh, number 24, um, if, um, if there are trees over six inches that would be, would need to come down this, this section of your regulations report. Requires, uh, requires, uh, you to show replanting mitigation plantings. So, um, again, uh, we won't know exactly, uh, if this, uh, would come into play unless there's, uh, unless there's any that are proposed to be taken down. So just, uh, we'd need to take a look at that or a waiver requested, whatever the applicant chooses. Um, so again, on 25, this relates to the, uh, the soil testing, uh, that I said before, but from a slightly different angle. Um, I'll just read the soil borings have been performed at each site. However, deep observation holes, uh, whole soil testing to assess the groundwater in accordance with the Massachusetts stormwater policy guidance should be provided for each infiltration BMP depicted on the plan. So this would include the infiltration portion of the lagoon system on the happy hollow site, and then the infiltration underground infiltration area on the, uh, Castle road site. Um, so just a deep hole, uh, by a competent soil professional, I think is the, the, what's, uh, is the requirement of the Massachusetts stormwater policy, uh, to assess where the groundwater is and to assess soil textures. So that you can, uh, uh, uh, support the design calculations, um, 26, uh, the, the, the plans do include erosion control details. This section technically requires, uh, you know, a separate plan, uh, showing erosion control. They didn't have a separate erosion control plan per se. They do have, you know, quite a bit of the information shown throughout the civil set. Um, uh, uh, but there, um, there, there was some of the information that wasn't, that wasn't identified on the plan. So I think just, uh, again, uh, some, uh, additional notes, perhaps a detail or two, uh, just to, to make this, um, uh, just to document compliance with this, with the requirements of that section.
27 is a rehash of the soil testing, uh, comment that I just made. Um, 28, uh, requires that priority and estimated habitat areas be shown of endangered species. It does not appear to us based on the current Massachusetts GIS polygons that any of the work area is within the, um, mapped habitat areas, uh, estimated or priority, um, areas. But there are some shown on the site and the regulation requires that those be shown. So, um, you may just want to add it in a locus or something just so that we can document that the, uh, check document compliance with that section. And also just document that the work area is, is indeed outside of those areas. Um, well, you may want to actually fence them off so that they don't, they don't park trucks there or whatever. Yeah, I can't remember, Bill, exactly. I think they were quite remote. So I, I'm not sure that it's even, um, I can't remember exactly how close it was. I, I'm not, I don't think it was really that close to be quite honest with you, but there was a portion certainly on the property. So just, but, um, yeah, to your point, if they're on the plan and you can make a decision whether or not, yeah. Whether or not they have to be, uh, some protections in place. Um, 20, yeah, the content might have some feedback on that too. Uh, 29, 29 was just relative to some additional information relative to compliance for, uh, 90, the 90% TSS total suspended solid standard. Um, that, uh, uh, that it exists for, um, uh, for the, uh, for new construction projects, uh, in your stormwater regulations, as well as the 60% phosphorus. So I think, uh, I think that documentation on that shouldn't be that difficult. I just, um, I didn't see that it was, you know, the I's were dotted and T's crossed on that with the, uh, documents in the, in the, uh, stormwater report. Um, and I didn't see for 20, I didn't see, uh, a long-term pollution prevention plan included. Um, again, that's just a administrative cleanup, um, item, um, but as a requirement of your regs and also the Massachusetts stormwater management policy. Um, almost there. There's really only four, four more questions. Um, four more comments. 31, again, relates to the comment I had about the, just, just looking for some additional information from the applicant on how that lagoon system is going to operate. Um, and, um, um, how the groundwater, uh, particularly will be protected from infiltration, um, of, of that, uh, of that water. Um, 31, uh, excuse me, 32, uh, there was just a couple of, um, a couple of things with the way that the, uh, flow paths were modeled. Um, I didn't really have any significant concerns with the, with the stormwater calculations. They looked fairly reasonable to me, uh, uh, uh, uh, with the hydrocad, uh, results. Um, but it, it looked like, um, on a couple of the, uh, tributary watershed areas, um, that just a couple of TC, uh, time of concentration paths, uh, seem like they may need to be, uh, tweaked a little bit, uh, just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples between, with, uh, pre-developed versus post-developed analysis. Um, but not a significant, uh, not a significant thing. Uh, let's see. Um, and then just on the civil plans, um, there, it looked like, um, some additional information on pipe sizes and materials and things should be added. I didn't, there was some notes, uh, some calls where you could see some of the pipe sizes and inverts, but I didn't see, uh, some places you saw inverts, but no pipe sizes. And so just, just clarify that information, um, on the plans, uh, so that, uh, you know, contractors know, uh, what they're building. Um, and then just a general note about fire and emergency apparatus. It sounds like that may have tied in, uh, with the, uh, particularly on the Castle Road site with proximity to that intersection, uh, to the main road where the driveways coming in. But just to make sure that you folks solicit the, I'm sure you already have, but just make sure you solicit the input from your emergency services folk, uh, folks in town, fire and, uh, and police. Um, and that was it.
Thank you. Um, does anyone have specific questions for, uh, Greg, or should we move on to, um, the applicant to tell us what they've done since the last time? I think applicant first. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Who's speaking for the applicant?
Um, do you want to start? Yeah, I can, uh, I can start off with some opening remarks. Um, good evening, everyone. Again, for those that don't know me, I am Tom Holder, the director of the department of public works. When we last met with the planning board, we heard, uh, many remarks and suggestions from the board membership. And we also heard concerns from residents of Castle Road. Uh, since our last meeting with the planning board, we met with the design review advisory board, where we received additional comments and suggestions. Um, the design team took what we learned from these meetings and made amendments to the original concept, uh, which we feel helped to address those suggestions and concerns. What we're presenting tonight, um, make accommodations for much of what we had heard from the two prior meetings. And we're, we're, we're, we're pleased to present that tonight. So with that, I'd like to hand that over to Kirsten Ryan, um, and her design team from Kleinfelder. Thanks, Tom. Can, can folks hear me and see my screen? Yep. Yes. Okay, great. Um, yeah, I have, uh, I'm Kirsten Ryan, project manager for Kleinfelder. Um, thank you all. Um, wasn't at the last hearing, but, uh, as Tom said, we've done a lot of work since then. We're sort of, um, you know, playing catch up in terms of getting things back out to Greg and you all. But I think hopefully you'll, you'll see that we've done a lot of work to try to make some improvements. Um, I have just want to introduce the team I have with here with me tonight. I have a senior project engineer, Jen Neckerman. I think she might not be a panelist yet. Um, project engineer, Matt O'Dowd. And then I have Travis Pryor. He's a civil engineer and landscape architect and Mike Hansen, our senior stormer and stormwater engineer. So those folks are here for, um, Q and A, but I do have a presentation. I wanted to go through to, you know, for, um, the board members and the public's benefit. Um, I wanted to break it down between Castle Road first and then Happy Hollow. I think, um, most of what you'll hear us cover regarding Castle Road will address, um, you know, the public concerns, um, and some of, um, the peer reviewers' concerns. And then we'll get into Happy Hollow. But, um, yeah, we, we thank everybody for their really, um, valuable comments and feedback. Um, really appreciate that. I want to talk to some residents and they've provided some written comments. I think that were very, very helpful. And I know the DPW takes those concerns seriously. So, um, let me get into it. Um, just really quick, I wanted to briefly touch upon, because I know this question came up last hearing. Why here? Why Castle Road for this pump station? How did we get here? Um, just to kind of remind or introduce people to the work that we did previously. So we did analyze several options in 2024 during conceptual design and, um, settled on the Castle Road location as the best, um, for minimizing both impact to neighbors and cost. Um, and also the differentiator also related to the MWRA's infrastructure and the need for our pipeline to cross the aqueduct. Um, the Castle Road site minimizes the amount of times we have to cross it. So that does minimize cost and complexity. So this is just a little bit of background and history of, of why this is the site that we've chosen for the design. Oh, and, uh, we did do some outreach back in spring 2025. Um, the DPW mailed a flyer, uh, that we prepared during the 30% design phase, um, explaining what was happening and providing the initial rendering that we had at that time. Um, just looking at Castle Road pump station existing conditions for reference here. Um, I won't dwell on this page, but I will note the guardrail and fencing that's there. Um, this is part of what the MWA needs so that vehicles can't, um, drive onto the Hultman, uh, through here. So we needed to consider that during our design. And this slide summarizes kind of, you know, for context, what we need to consider in this type of infrastructure, uh, the drinking water infrastructure that we're designing. Um, we really have been working very closely with the Massachusetts water resources authority, um, since the beginning for several years now, um, so that we understand, you know, their concerns, their constraints, and we are making sure to address them. Um, since the pipeline and the pump station are, are on their, uh, property, um, of course, we need to meet the drinking water guidelines and, and all those components, um, the requirements of backwashing lagoons at Happy Hollow is one example where those are key and primary. Um, the comments we received on capital, uh, Castle Road pump station just kind of summarized here. Fencing was a big issue, landscape screening, aesthetics, lighting, traffic, noise, and stormwater. So we will, um, touch upon each of those, each of those, as you just heard from Dillis and Roy, um, some of the things for Castle Road specifically were the fence screening, lighting, and, uh, stormwater question. Um, this is what we presented on September 9th. Um, you can see the original fence line in red and closed pretty much all of the infrastructure of the site, including the underground stormwater system here. Um, so that kind of really had a visual impact, um, close to Castle Road, um, that people commented on. So I'm going to show you a revised site plan of where we are now. Um, this plan also showed the subject system that we believe we'll be able to get a variance for. And, um, the generator was out here in this orientation. So we've made some changes, significant changes. Um, so this is a revised site plan that we have right now that, uh, you know, um, with, I know that Greg from Dillis and Roy haven't, hasn't seen this yet. So, um, we take, took the, the red is the fence line we're proposing now, and we've pulled that way back from what used to be close to the front of the site, pulled it back to enclose the building, primarily just the building and the generator. Um, the septic system has been taken out, the generator's been reoriented to kind of tuck behind here a little more closely. And so you won't see it from Castle Road. Um, we believe that we will be able to remove the fence line and guardrail that are up front here. Now that we have the fence line back here, we'll tie the new fence into the existing chain link that's here. We do need to still make sure that MD Bray can have vehicle access prevented from getting onto the Haltman. So that's why this fence line here kind of has a leg that comes out and ties into the existing guardrail. So this guardrail will remain, it'll have a new, um, crash end here and then be removed for the rest of the way across the front. Um, so what this does is it allows the DPW operators to pull in and pull right into the driveway, park here, open the gate, and then pull forward to access the pump station. Um, instead of pulling up, parking on Castle Road, getting out, opening the gate. And I know that was a concern that folks had. Um, pedestrians will still be able to, as they do now, um, hop over the, uh, or step over the guardrail, you know, and walk along the grass pathway of the Haltman. Um, we put, um, I'll show you a landscaping plan in a moment. We definitely put some landscape screening in there based on what we heard from the 9-9 hearing and also the DRAB meeting, the Design Review Advisory Board meeting. Um, I just want to caveat that we have been coordinating with MDRA, we've shown them this plan. We haven't been able to meet them yet, but we, we were pretty sure that we know what their key issues are, what they might have concerns about. And so, um, you know, there may need to be some slight tweaks in the future, but this is, we think they'll be pretty comfortable with this. And, um, I think the next slide will help you visualize this better. So, so this is a revised design, existing conditions down here for comparison. You could see that, um, and let me click forward to the, yeah, here's the initial design. So now it has a more open feel, the underground stormwater system is back here in this grass area behind some shrubs. Um, we changed the type of fencing, um, the color of the building based on Design Review Advisory Board suggestions. We have plantings, um, and I want to point out this, this existing pine tree right here. So these, these trees are, these are proposed, proposed, proposed, we can adjust these, um, this existing tree, we definitely realize is a, a site line hazard. And so the DPW has already tagged that and plans to remove it. Um, so that will be removed. This is, um, just a little bit more detail on that. Yeah, that, that tree, um, because the, you know, the, the planning board, they're involved with some of the tree hearings, specifically the ones that are on scenic roads. But this tree has been tagged and included in a tree hearing that we're holding on November 4th. Um, so, uh, that the intent, uh, will be to remove it based upon the results of that hearing.
Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Tom. Um, this is a view kind of facing west from the corner, um, showing that tree. This, you can, here you can see kind of where the fence connects towards the guardrail so that vehicle access will be prevented. We'll have a gate here that MWA will have access to so they can mow, um, down here, you know, bring a riding mower or a bush mower or wherever they do it. Um, yeah. So, again, I think the plantings can be moved around to some degree, um, modified, but this kind of gives you an example of, of what it might look like. Did the building design change as well as the color? The building is slightly different dimensions. Yes. Thank you. It gets longer and narrower. Um, this view is, just shows the rendered new plantings right up near the corner.
Um, just briefly on landscaping, you know, our landscape architect picked some native planting schemes, um, consultation with the design review advisory board, some evergreens, perennial grasses. Um, I won't go into too much detail here, people have, unless people have questions, but, again, we have a couple taller trees here, um, or small trees, I guess I would say, the cedars. Um, those, those could be moved. I could see how, if people have particular concerns about site on this corner, even though we did do a traffic analysis that showed it, it should have a clear enough sight line. I, I understand that there's a lot of concern from residents leaving this intersection. So, um, the one thing we can't do is plant deep-rooted things close to the aqueduct. So, anything along this fence line would need to be grasses or small shrubs. So, which is what we have shown here, really trying to balance it, you know, what we heard from D-Rab was screen the fence from, from the neighbors so they can't see things. But, on the other hand, um, I understand that some of the neighbors may not want too much shrubbery over here. So, we're happy to take your comments. Um, in terms of lighting, we did a lighting analysis presented here. You can see this yellow blob shows the brightness, um, at the boundaries. Um, the, the property line is not shown on here, but the closest neighbor at Eight Castle Road, um, is 45 feet away from the edge of that lighting impact. And then, same thing over here, it's 46 feet away. Oh, sorry. The parcel, from the parcel. Okay, so it's even farther. Um, the parcel boundary is 45 feet from the lighting impact. This is, this is rather zoomed in on the pump station, so. Um, and the fixtures will be dark sky compliant.
In terms of sound, um, this diagram will help us visualize that. So, this blue dot represents the inside of the building where the pumps, um, water pumps are housed. And, um, this, the, there's a similar noise from either the pumps or the generator, which is this gray, greenish box, which, if you're standing right next to it, is about 70 decibels, which is about as loud as a vacuum cleaner. Um, you're inside the building standing next to it. Um, at the property line, the sound will be down to less than 60 decibels. So, at the property boundary, it'll be the equivalent of a, like, a clothes dryer running. Um, the generator is only expected to be used about 30 minutes per week. And the pumps would normally be about three hours a day, unless, um, they're needed for more pumping, like if Happy Hollow is down for servicing. And we, also, this doesn't include the analysis of plantings, which would probably reduce the noise further. In terms of traffic, um, so the, for routine operations, the pump station is only going to need one to two maximum trips per day by the DPW operators. So, we, we did not propose or conduct a traffic count study. So, our transportation folks looked at, you know, industry standard guidance to look at traffic count and intersection sightline analyses. Um, the intersection sightline analysis, um, with the plan I just showed you, the revised plan and reduced fencing, shows that it does not impede on sight distances. Um, but, you know, as Tom, Tom can speak to, the DPW recognizes the existing concern about the traffic and the speed on Old Connecticut path as it goes by the intersection of Castle Road. So, um, they have already planned on installing some traffic comic signage for westbound vehicles there. And I don't know if, Tom, you want to say anything more or? Yeah. I mean, it was recognized during our site visits. We heard it from the public when we were at our last hearing in September. And, um, it was recognized by us that, uh, you know, although this project is not going to add traffic, uh, the current conditions and acting more as a DPW director and not a project manager as DPW director, uh, you know, we regularly take into account, uh, concerns and issues relative to, you know, safe traffic patterns. So in observing what we saw and hearing from the public, I think we are, uh, certainly supportive and have made orders already for some signage on the westbound side, um, that will alert vehicles traveling westbound of a blind road ahead and to, to use caution as approaching that area. And, you know, you know, we'll, we'll monitor things and we're glad to work with the residents, um, you know, aside from this project, uh, gladly work with them towards, um, you know, hearing additional concerns and seeing how the signage works and, and considering even additional things that we have the ability to do. So thank you. Great. Um, I'm going to hand it over to Matt. He's going to talk about the stormwater at the site and then segue into discussing a happy hollow. So yeah, thank you. Our responses to the peer review comments as well.
So I'll start in with stormwater here and just touch on a few of the items that came up in the third party review last week. And that were just mentioned a few minutes ago. So first off this system at castle road, um, just for maximum clarity here, it is an underground infiltration system. So just like we saw in those artistic renderings, it's not actually visible. Um, it'll be below the grass and just noting on the mass stormwater handbook requirements, we do exceed the Massachusetts stormwater handbook requirement for, uh, attenuation with a larger storm than the minimum, uh, required by that handbook. Those storms being the hundred year and the 20, 50, 10 year storms for standard four, as Greg noted a few minutes ago, um, our stormwater team in response to this, and we can certainly respond in writing to Greg or whatever's appropriate. The TSS and phosphorus removal are met because the first inch of runoff is treated by infiltration for all impervious areas. Um, um, complying also with Local Bylaw, chapter 193. Um, we do have Mike Hanson on the call if there's any feedback on that point. Um, otherwise I'll keep, I'll keep moving onto our additional slides. So there were some concerns also raised about construction impacts. So I'll speak to some of the mitigation for those for those comments. First off, it is a prefabricated building package. So in other words, just like you see in the photograph here of a similar project, this package will arrive on a truck bed. It'll be lifted by a crane onto a concrete pad. That particular activity should be about a day with some minor trade work to follow for connections to the system. Construction and all, of course, will be more than just lifting the pump station. So we have utility work, as is shown on the plans, some minor clearing, electrical duct bank, paving at the end, and of course, concrete work to support the pump station. In all, we expect a duration of just a single construction season for these relatively straightforward activities. The hours will be limited from 7am to 5pm. There's a bullet here just noting that the number of subcontractors is significantly reduced by the use of this prefabricated pump station. And of course, standard noise and dust control requirements are going to be maintained in the contract documents and also enforce the maximum extent possible on site. So I'll touch on some of the third party review comments here and I'll just start with what what Greg pointed out at the start of the meeting. And if there's any further discussion, we can certainly take it from there. So first off, he noted the groundwater levels both at Castle Road pump station and at Happy Hollow. So I'll actually start just at Castle Road pump station. For the groundwater level there, as he pointed out in the review, the ground, there were borings completed at that location. The groundwater was found with that method at 30 feet below ground surface. For seasonal fluctuation, we typically observe at maximum in our experience around five to seven feet up or down from that point. And the infiltration system at that point of location is just four and a half feet deep. So we think even even with the method applied to observe the existing groundwater, we think that there's significant boundary there between the bottom of the infiltration system and where the groundwater was observed. And that it's not likely that the groundwater would be raised to within four feet of that point. Similarly, at Happy Hollow, we have a proposed bottom elevation of that infiltration basin at 133 feet and groundwater was observed again via the boring method at 113 feet. So that represents 20 feet separation. Again, even with five to seven foot typical fluctuation, we should be far away from the four feet of groundwater required for that. We're certainly open to any discussion on that point if needed. But I'll just move on and kind of address those other comments. So secondly, I guess, while we're on that infiltration system, I'll speak to the backwashing system. So just for a quick overview of how that works. So the backwashing is to wash the granular activated carbon media vessels, in other words, GAC vessels, which will be installed for the removal of PFAS. The backwashing is actually not an activity that occurs on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis. The backwashing occurs just when new media is swapped for for spent media. So PFAS is actually never washed off of the media. The PFAS laden media is removed from the site. New media is loaded into the vessels. And then that new media is backwashed as a standard procedure to remove some. Sometimes there's fine materials within the media, basically bits of granular activated carbon that become loose in manufacturing and shipping that have to be washed off. So the backwash to be discharged will just contain a mix of potable water, which is the source of the backwash water, and these fines from clean granular activated carbon media. To speak to how the backwash treatment system works, as Greg noted, that flows into a lined lagoon where it will not be allowed to infiltrate into the ground. And basically, according to DEP standards for these systems, that lined lagoon overflows into the infiltration basin. And that overflow allows media that's been discharged from the backwashed process to settle out to the bottom of the lined lagoon. So that would just be cleaned periodically. So it's just clean water, essentially, entering the infiltration basin. So that's designed according to DEP guidelines. Our understanding of the aquifer protection district is that that activity is allowed since it's for drinking water. And I'll also just note two additional things. We are pursuing the WS06 permit through DEP. We'll certainly draw their attention to this to this process. And DEP does regularly permit similar systems throughout the state. So I think those were the two big things. There's several other comments that were noted here that we can certainly speak to. So I'll just I'll just quickly cover them and then we can move on or maybe loop back at the end if that's if that's helpful. So resource area delineation. We worked on that with the Conservation Commission. So we'll make sure that those are up to what they're looking for or the floodplain district. This is probably the last one I'll speak to before moving on. So in the floodplain district, my understanding of or reading of this as far as the trigger for the for the variance would be if any buildings were to be erected in the floodplain or if any excavation or fill activities were to occur. So the activities that will be performing in the floodplain up at Happy Hollow will actually be removing existing infrastructure from that location. It's actually a major goal of this project is to get critical drinking water infrastructure, namely the existing emergency system tent out of the floodplain and increase the resiliency of of the water supply here by moving that installing that infrastructure upland. Yep. Thanks. That's that's the system there. The existing system that, you know, as part of mitigation in the floodplain, our proposal is to this will be done after everything's activated and working properly. This needs to stay aligned during construction, but then once the new facilities are constructed up the hill, this will be removed. Sorry, Matt. No problem. Yeah, thanks for showing the photo there. So tree clearing the six inch, we will certainly add those to the plans. As Kirsten mentioned earlier that we have a lumens figure generated for for both areas. And we will add pipe sizes and then as far as emergency vehicle access the fire department. We've already engaged them for comments during this process, and we'll certainly continue to provide them with progress sets to get their comments. All right. I think that's all I have on this slide. So some folks might remember we presented some of these photos last time. This is the existing chemical feed facility. The new one will have an additional chemical to better match the MWA system and also a greater supply of potassium hydroxide for to also better match the MWA system. Otherwise, the other chemicals are the same, and that'll be noted in an application to the Board of Health. This is just that same existing condition slide. And then we have example photos of the buildings. I don't know if you had any other slides specifically, Matt. You want me to click through these? No, I think we can just click through the rest of the photos. A lot of these were on the previous presentation. This is what it'll look like. We also have the site. Yeah. And this hasn't changed. These plans have not changed since the ninth. No. Not substantially, anyway. Nothing. Nothing major, so. But we are, just to be clear on that point, we have draft plans that address the concerns that were raised on the ninth. Yeah. Yeah. Like the parking spaces. And a letter to respond point by point. Yep. But I think that ends our formal presentation portion. Okay. The Board, are there questions from the Board and or Dillis and Roy? I have no other questions, Annette. I think they've responded very well to our points. I hope, though, that they can do a final negotiation of the landscaping and fencing and so forth with the neighbors. I think it's the Butters who can now weigh in on what you're presenting and comment. Anybody else from the Board? No, I just, we've heard that there are changes. I think it'll be just good to see the actual changes. Right. So. In the plans. Yeah. I agree. Greg, do you have any additional comments or responses to the things that they've provided? No, I think just generally speaking, I appreciate the dialogue on the backwash system. That makes me breathe a little bit of a sigh of relief. And I think on two fronts on that, just for you to explain how the backwash is not backwashing PFAS-laden material. So that's good to understand. And there, I believe, is a carve out in that section. That's why I pointed out the fact that the WS06 permit, I think that the bylaw has a carve out for things like that that are permitted by, you know, are administered by a state permit. So to the extent that that facility is going to, is the subject of your WS06 permit, I think that that does inform that portion of the review comment. So I appreciate that. My only question I'll have, and I'll just happy to hear you're going to respond point by point, and I'll certainly just cross check and can provide a follow up to the board. But it sounds like you're addressing things. On the septic system for the Castle Road site, did you do, you must have done deep standard observation testing for the, you know, witnessed by the Board of Health? They'll actually be deleted. We pursued the variance actually before ever doing the traditional excavation that I think you're referring to. But we do have the borings that were included with the stormwater report. So you're relying on the borings for the leaching system? There will be no septic system. Oh, you're not putting a septic system in. Yeah, so I wasn't clear. The variance is to get a variance from the plumbing code that typically requires a bathroom. I understand what you're saying. That's your variance. Okay. All right. Yep. Okay. I mean, I appreciate the commentary on the borings. I mean, I don't want to be too over the top with it. I just want to make sure that you provide the documentation relative to, you know, real groundwater elevations. I just, in my experience with borings, sometimes you get different, different results when you're looking at soil coming out of a, you know, small diameter hole versus opening it up and actually observing the soil. So just, just provide the documentation on that and we'll, we'll take a look at it. So I'm certainly not, I want to be unreasonable for, if we're in an area and if Tom can maybe provide some, some local experience with the, with the soils in that area. You know, I'm, I'm, I'm certainly happy to, to consider all that information. Your arguments don't seem off the wall. I'll say that. So I think that's it. I'm just happy to take a look at, you know, updated information as they, as they provide it. Anybody else in the panel? Madam Chairman, there are people who are typing questions into the question panel and those I don't think will be part of the public record. So people. I didn't even know we had a question. Yeah. If you look down at the bottom, there's a little red circle where it says Q and A and people should not. I don't have a Q and A circle. Okay. But people should be asking those questions when we open up for public comment and not typing them in. Okay. Thank you. Yep. I think typically that's turned off. I don't know why it's on. Yeah. It's on tonight. Yeah. Oh. Hey, I answered a few of the questions that are pretty obvious, but a lot of the questions that they have are very detailed or opinion based. I answered two questions that were more a quick, quick answer that can actually answer a question. Are there anything that should be on the record? Do you need to say what you just did? One question. One question. I'll read the questions that I answered. One was, will the 7 a.m. 5 p.m. construction timeline be weekend only? Or 7 a.m. weekends at 2. And I said, if it proved to be a standard condition to address this concern, we have a standard condition about construction time, including holidays too. And then also, what is, what is the dark sky? What does that mean? And I just addressed that dark sky, the regulations with lighting and give the website. But I'm not going to answer any more questions. I just answered the two obvious ones that I know the answer to. Okay. And make sure. If they have questions that are more technical, they should ask that in the public folks, public comments, not Q&A. Okay. So can you turn that whatever it is off so that people don't put anything into Q&A? Because we can't see that. I'm going to open it up to public comment now. If you want to raise your hands, that would be great. And then we can call on you. I don't see any hands. Can you state your name and address, please? You have to. Yeah. Hi, my name is Catherine Wilkins. I'm at 8 Castle Road. I am the property directly abutting next to the pump station on Castle Road. I did, you know, get as Robert Hummel said, he answered a couple of the questions I had asked. But I do have a couple other questions, one of which is regarding the construction methods. So I have an in-ground concrete pool in the backyard. I know that we have septic tanks in the yards. Is the construction method going to be any sort of a risk to the pool or the septic tanks on the properties here on Castle Road? I'll let Kleinfeld her answer that. Do you want to pass that to Jen? Hi. Yeah, so the activities that will happen at the pump station site include excavation for the concrete pad, the foundation that the building is going to be placed on, and for the underground infiltration system, and then site work, paving, the fence work, and then site work. So really, I'd say the most risky activities are the pouring of the concrete pad and the installation of the underground stormwater detention system. And these are similar to any work that would happen in a suburban neighborhood like this, like if your neighbor's putting in a pool or if your neighbor's doing some work for a shed outside in their yard. So really not risky at all. Just a little clarification on that. I think that it sounds like there isn't an impact. So if there isn't, then say it. Otherwise, I don't really know what you just said. There will be no impact to neighboring property associated with this construction that is abnormal to the neighborhood that it takes place in. Ted, do you have some more questions? I do. So the area that you guys are planning to put the pump station, there does get some seasonal flood water in that area. Is there a risk of if you guys build up this area and put, you know, the concrete pad foundation and the underground infiltration system and all that, what is the likelihood that that will displace some of the flood water into the neighboring property? Mike, do you want to let Mike address? The way the site's designed, nothing should be leaving the site. We are rebuilding up a little bit, but the way the topography is, it's going to work its way towards the road and into the closed drainage system. So we should not be impacting any adjacent properties. Okay. And my last question is that there are several families on the road here with young elementary school children that get on and off the bus. At the intersection of old Connecticut path and castle road. These, these kids, you know, seven, nine years old are standing at the end of the street while they wait for their bus. And then they're getting off the bus in the afternoon and walking up the street to their houses. What's the likelihood that this is going to be affected by not just the construction traffic, but when the DTW folks come to do their, you know, once or twice a day checks and they're pulling onto the street. You know, the kids are often standing at the end of the road. Yeah, I can certainly speak to the second question. I mean, we have likely a hundred bus stops around town that we maneuver around on a daily basis. So that, that, that truck that arrives at that site would be able to, you know, take account for children like we would do at any particular intersection. So I, I would not think that there would be any problem, any additional risk to those kids getting on the bus, standing at the bus stop or exiting the bus and walking to their homes. So I, I, I, there was, there was no concern for that. Tom, is it likely that you would even be doing it during those hours? So we will make a daily station stop there. Um, it would likely be between the hours of like 8 AM and 1 PM. Um, we would visit the site if there were any problems, if, you know, all of these, uh, facilities that we have are alarmed, uh, with instrumentation. You know, so if there was an alarm, you know, we do have, um, you know, a particular need to, to, to, to visit that site off hours, that would happen. But on a daily basis, it's once, and it would likely be at a time when there were not children at the bus stop. Okay. Thank you. Um, Heather, can you state your name and address, please? Hi, my name is Heather. My name is Heather, and I live at 11. And your last name, please. Thank you. And I have a house at 11 and 9 Castle Road. I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you. You're. House at 11 and 9 Castle Road. 9 Castle Road. And 11. I have both. Thank you. And a couple, a couple of questions I have. One is that the boring that you guys did, or that was done. That was done very close to the road. And the actual level of the ground is much different. Um, where you guys plan on putting the building. So kind of what the guy was talking about. I just want to make sure that the same thing, the groundwater would be very different because it's a much lower elevation where the building would be. So that's, that's one statement I just wanted to like throw out there. My other question is on the plans, it shows the building. If you look at your plans, it shows the actual building that you guys are proposing like almost right on the aqueduct. And as far as everything that I've known, there can't be anything on the aqueduct. So is your picture actually really moved over? And is there any way to have someone come out and kind of flag where the building would actually be? I'm going to pull up the drawing. Yeah. See, it's not certainly not on the aqueduct. That would not be possible. It's a little hard to see. This gray shading down here, this like hash mark. Can you see that at the bottom of the image? Yeah. The aqueduct. This is a gravel area. That maybe is what you were thinking was the aqueduct. This is the building. Yeah. So, I mean, the aqueduct, I guess the aqueduct comes to right to the end of the road. We're saying it goes through 126, opposed to coming out the bottom road. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And my other question is, while you have that up, is how, how close, how far back is the fence from the side of the road? Right now, there's probably about two feet into the guardrail on old Connecticut pass, because that's, that's what we need to be able to see. So how far back will the fence be from that? Okay. If you could say that pine tree. Right here? Yeah. So like, how far back? So just say like that pine tree is where you have those three lines, right? The current pine tree. Oh, yeah. The current pine tree is like right about here, I believe. Okay. So how far, so is the fence right on the other side of it? The fence is this red line right here. Okay. And how far? And the blue is the guardrail right here. Okay. So it's going, it's going to follow the guardrail? It's going to butt up against it. At one point only. Yeah, right here. Yeah, that's, that's the point. And my team can be like measuring things off of a plan while I'm speaking. I don't know what the answer is. If you pull that fence back to, so that we have more line site. Normally site line is at where the street meets. Right. So if I, if, if I pull out into my street, like if I'm pulling out into my street, like if I pull out too far, cars that whip around the corner are, it's too, it's too close. You know what I mean? So you need, it's almost like, I'm just wondering if there's an eight foot fence, cause that's what's proposed, right? Back here. And here. Right. Where that red line is. Yeah. Yeah. I'm talking about viewing being able to pull off or pull on the Capitol road. Okay. So you're, so therefore it's showing it's going to be, it's not going to butt up to the guardrail. It's going to be back. Yes. She just said at one point. This will meet the guardrail because we, we're basically trying to prevent a vehicle is lost or whatever, just wandering onto this part of the Holtman. Now this fence line, I think we could probably shorten the height of this particular fence. Okay. Because we're not protecting the pump station infrastructure with this piece of it. I think that's a good idea. That would help visibility. Yeah. And I don't know what your thoughts are on this tree, Heather, but that could also move, I suppose. I think that should move also. Yeah. Or, or be a shrub, you know, again, this was really designed to help this look more residential, like provide something more visually appealing from what we heard from like DRAB. But if you prefer something different, I personally, we have no problem with that. You could move it further along the driveway, closer to the rear fence. Back it up to here. Yeah. That's right. If that, if that fence that's not protecting anything, if that could be lower or even removed, that would be amazing. It can't be. It can't be removed because theoretically, right, a car could drive up this driveway and make a left and get up on here. Yeah, but. We, and we don't want that lower it, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Like team. Yeah, we could. No problem with lowering the fence somewhat. Right. Right. What MWRA has right now is that guardrail for screening and their chain link fence on the other portion of the property. So we would, this would be a discussion we'd need to have with them, but I don't see that being a problem to do something lower for that connecting piece. Right. I think that'll help. Thank you. Yeah. Honestly, that section of the fence could be replaced with a guardrail. Yeah. But it's not, that's even more unsightly. Yeah. That was the balance. Right. But it, it's lower. I worry that a low fence, somebody could not see it. I don't know. It just seems a little riskier. I suppose if it's just six feet instead of eight feet, but then it's still a visual issue. I mean, it could be, it probably could be four feet. Right. The chain link fence, let me find the existing conditions slide. Can you still hear me? Yep. One last thing. So, sorry. But with that corner also is that's where they pile the snow. Um, because if they leave it, so just be careful with your fence is mine. That's where they what? That's where they pile all. Oh. So next year they try to just put it on the corner and it's too big of a file and you can't see. So they have to come and push it over the guardrail. That's why right now the guardrail is all damaged. People don't have to push the snow off and so caught onto it. Um, so that I would just be concerned also with that. Is there another place where you can push the snow? No. There's no other place? No. Tom? I mean, I would love it. I've been, we've been complaining for years about the pile there. I mean, it would be amazing, but the snow is piled in this right here or over here or here. It's first piled in the first spot you pointed out, but then because we can't see they have to come and push it up over the guardrail. Oh, you can't see. Okay. Yeah. So, so obviously that that is something that we have, you know, some ability to, to relocate that snow or do something different based upon what we're proposing here tonight. So, um, that is something I know a guy at the public works department that can probably help that situation, but good, good point. Yeah. I can, you know, uh, yeah, I, I can certainly envision how we push back snow and what you're describing to be correct. And, but, uh, we can, we can make some alterations. Sure. Thank you. Um, Barbara, tomorrow. Yes. Um, I'm going to, my brother, Bill is going to speak for me. I live at 374 old Connecticut path, right across from the driveway that you're proposing for the, um, facility. Hello. We can hear you. Okay. Um, my name is Bill Ross. I'm, um, speaking on behalf of Barbara tomorrow and Michael tomorrow. Uh, first of all, I'm wondering if, uh, we have access or the public has access to this advisory, uh, board input. Is this a report? Is it published online or is it published on the, on the town site? It will be available online. It was just submitted. Okay. And the next issue is Sycamore road site. We saw a chart put up by Kleinfelter of, uh, what distinguished, uh, Sycamore road from Castle road, which seems to have been simply the, um, number of aqueduct crossings. But I'd like an explanation of what is an aqueduct crossing? Is it a surface crossing? Is, are we talking about pipes having to go through the aqueducts? What are, what are we talking about and how many are there from one site versus another? That's one question I have. Okay. Why don't we answer one at a time? Okay. Then go ahead. I'm gonna pass that to Jen. Thanks. Uh, so what's referred to there is when we need to take our proposed water main and cross the MWRA is existing aqueduct. Those crossings like this is critical infrastructure for MWRA. So they have a lot of restrictions over what we can do to put a pipe across their, their aqueduct. Um, so they involve intensive coordination with MWRA and resulting cost to the town. So those are complicated construction components. Um, I can't speak to the specific number we would have had if we went with that other site. Um, but, but we, our goal was to minimize the number of crossings needed for the project. I think it was two versus one for this, this site. Excuse me. I think it was two for the, the other Sycamore site versus one. And how many for Castle Road? For one. Yeah. So matter of two versus one. Okay. Um, I do note though, though, that one of the other factors, which was included in a report online was that, uh, noise and visual impacts on nearby abutters, which I think is a significant issue here also. Um, actually noise seems to have been a significant issue for sitting in consideration, uh, with the Sycamore site, which would indicate that maybe it's a little bit more than the, than the equivalent of a vacuum cleaner and, and, uh, noise that we're going to expect. I don't know what you're referring to, but I mean, we. Well, I'm referring to what was said versus why the Sycamore site was not chosen in a report I wrote that was one of the listed reports on the, uh, planning board site regarding this, uh, this whole construction project. And it, uh, it cited as a factor noise and visual impact on nearby abutters. Right. So noise was obviously consideration and it should be a consideration here. I'm, I'm concerned about that. Initially you said actually in a. We're not going to argue, sir. Well, I want to provide full information here. I want to provide a full background here earlier that in this project, it was cited that this would be the equivalent of, of, um, ambient traffic noise, which wouldn't seem to be the same as a vacuum cleaner to me. So I'm just confused. I think it was before we had a more detailed sound analysis, but you know, the sound analysis does show that the decibel level at the property line is going to be attenuated down to 60 decibels. Okay. Um, yeah, I think you were looking at maybe our 30% design. And so we're, we're at a more advanced stages design with more information. And to speak to the question of Sycamore, the impact we felt on abutters would be equal to either. So it was not, it was going to have the same, you know, effect on either site. So this one involved the more complex crossing situation and more cost. Um, with regard to the lighting, um, what is the lumen level of these lights? I know diagram was provided, but it's not really very, it's not really very convincing. Frankly, it goes down to zero at the boundaries of that figure that we showed. What is the, what are the lumen level at its, at its origin? That's not just so you know, that's not how we look at those things. When we look at them as a planning board, we look at where the, the light stops because it can't shine out. It has to shine down because of the night sky requirements. And we can't cast shade, um, glare on roadways adjacent. But wouldn't the lumen level, the finger that we provided shows that. But wouldn't the lumen level actually determine that? No. No. Not at all? It dissipates. I'm not saying not at all, but there's a whole calculation and a model that is used and it shows based on what they start with, uh, what the light, uh, intensity is from the distance from that light to where it doesn't appear any longer. Where, where, where's a, where can I find that, uh, model? We'll have to get back to you. It's, I mean, I don't have it off the top of my head. Okay. That's fine. Um, as for traffic, we still have our concerns about, you know, the ambulance access during the period of construction. I don't feel that traffic calming signage will be sufficient as that's, I think then from what I've heard from other people in the street, it's been tried in the past. Um, but my question, most important question here is what is the, um, what are the criteria for this traffic study that's going to occur? The safety study and who's going to be performing it? Is it an independent traffic consultant? I think the traffic study, I don't, I think that was stated by a member of the planning board who sits on the design review board. I think that what was stated by the applicant was that they had looked at it, that it met the sight lines, that they can't do a traffic count because there's not a traffic to count because this doesn't add anything. Correct. To the flow of traffic. Now, normally with a traffic study, you're looking at number of vehicles during the rush hour. I know it's not a traffic study though, Ms. Lewis. I know it's not a traffic study. It's a, it's a study of the safety of the castle road access. No, actually it's not. That was what, that's what I was told the DPW was going to do earlier. Well, they did. They said that that sight lines will be. They're not impacted by the project. So you've already performed that study. Yes. It was an analysis. Yes. Is there, is that on, has that been put online? It's in draft form. We can't, we're, we'll be finalizing it and sending it. Oh, it's our revised submission to the planning. So that's not actually been issued yet. Nothing has. What they're giving us tonight is their response to the last meeting that we had. No, I understand that. I understand Roy's comments, and then they will be submitting their materials. And they would like to hear, um, constructive comments on things that they can actually help with and make changes on. It's not an attack period right now. This is not an attack. I'm just looking for information and some, some explanations and also raising some comments about some of the issues here. That's what the prerogative of the public. Do you have any other questions? Yes. Um, will there be any construction on Castle Road to tie in the pump station with, with 126? Um, will there be a necessity to build a piping across the road? Yeah. Yeah. Where, where will it tie into the 126? 126. The, the larger project here that that's not part of this planning board review for the, the site plan, but the larger project is, does involve construction on old Connecticut path. Yeah. The water mains will be replaced on old, old Connecticut. There'll be no construction planned in regard to this pump station on castle road itself too. There, there will, there will be utility crossings within the public right of way as part of this project. Is that the street, the public right of way? Yes. Yeah. Okay. There are going to be traffic management plans, police details, traffic controls for the public. Okay. That will be part of the standard contract documents and the contractor will be required to implement. Okay. Thank you. I guess if I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not, Madam chair, this property owner stated that you're at the corner of castle road and old Connecticut path across directly across the street from the driveway. Is that correct? Are they still on? I believe so. Yes, Tom. It meant across old Connecticut path. 374 old Connecticut path is the house on the corner. They're on old Connecticut path. But they're on, they're right on the corner of castle in old Connecticut. Okay. It's the house with the porch right across from the site. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess as we're looking to improve site line situations and, and, uh, and install signage, I will likely be reaching out to that property owner because it does appear that there's some shrubbery, um, along the property line that, uh, if we could arrange to have that cut back, it probably would improve the site lines in that area. So I guess while they're on the, on the meeting call tonight, I, uh, just to give them a heads up, I would like to, to at least have a conversation with them about perhaps getting their assistance and, and having them cut that back. Mr. Ross, is there something you want to say? I think by a Barbara's cut that back as far as their property line allows. And it didn't make a significant difference. Okay. So Robert, um, yes, with regard to the, uh, white stuff, can you get from Kleinfelder what the model is that they use? Yeah. And, uh, send a note. I don't even know that we have Mr. Ross's email. Uh, I do. I think I actually, I have one of the emails. Okay. Recently. So I'll send it to him. And you could put it on the webpage too. The link. Yeah. And I will put the, uh, uh, design reward, uh, memo. I'll put that underneath the, uh, Thank you. Also, uh, Kleinfelder's presentation from this evening. Yes. I'll put that for tomorrow and next week. I'll get back in the office. I'll send you the final version. I think I sent you a draft earlier today. Agreed. Are there any other comments from anyone on this call? Um, at this point, uh, we still have to finalize, get finalized plans. Um, Tom, I think you had sent an extension letter to Robert. To the six to November for number six, November six. Fine. Um, do you think that, um, you'll have what you need by October the 21st? Um, that's our next meeting. The meeting after that is November the 4th. And we'll start just putting together parts of the draft decision because we have to list everything that's been filed, comments from people, all of that stuff. I think that should work for us. I don't know, Matt. What date should work for you? Hmm. Um, what was the 10th, the 21st or what's the alternative? November the 4th. Probably November the 4th would give us a little more time just to. Dot all the I's cross T's, but. Okay. That's the suggested hearing date, right? To be clear. Yes. Yep. Um, but that would have, you'd have to really be dotted. Um, yeah. I would suggest getting this stuff in, not piecemeal so that Robert can look at it. Yeah. And listen, Roy can look at it so that we can actually issue a vote. Yeah. And then issue a decision on November the 6th. That sounds good. We should, we can get it to you at least the week before. And Tom, I don't know if you, if you, do you know, do you know when the public hearing is for the, is that shade tree? Is that on November? I thought it was November the 4th at six 30. Six 30. I have. Yeah. Some of us looking at that information. So we, we, if you schedule a public hearing, we know what time to schedule public hearing for. So. So if we're going to do this on the 4th, um, maybe we should do it like at 7 15 or 7 30. Uh, Tom, we don't know what the trees are, so we don't know how long. And, uh, in speaking with Joe, he seems to think it's going to be a pretty light lift that night. Um, you know, I mean, if you wanted to put it down for 7 15, I think that that would leave. Well, you've got. Right. We only sit with you for the, uh, scenic road thing. Right. And then you do your regular tree hearing after that. Right. And I, I can part ways with that joke and handle that. And I can attend your hearing with, uh, with client Felder. Okay. Yep. Uh, so 7 15. Is that what you said? Sounds good. Yes. Thank you. Um, okay. Um, can I have a, um, Oh, one other thing. Uh, we did get a request for a site visit and I believe that each of us has gone out individually and looked at the site. Um, so we're not going to have a site visit at castle road. We don't think it's really necessary for us at this point. Um, and, uh, can I have a motion to, uh, continue this public hearing for PB, uh, 2603, uh, the DPW's MWRA Holtman Aqueduct, um, interconnection, uh, at happy hollow and, uh, castle gate road. Um, for 7 15 on Wednesday, November the 4th. So moved. Second. Uh, all in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Uh, who else is here? I'm sorry. Bill. Bill Sterling. Sorry. There are too many bodies in the way. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Do you want that meeting in person or remotely? Well, if it, it's actually a lot easier for us to do it remotely because we can then see the plans much better. Yeah. That would be our preference too. Okay. And the tree hearing will probably be remote. It will be. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that would be the, that's the way the board of public work operates. Yes. Okay. So I just, I'm assuming that we will jump onto the DPU zoom link for that meeting. And then we'll jump off and then join. All right. Plenty board. Plenty board. You can work it out. Whatever. Just make sure it works. Exactly. All right. Perfect. Okay. All right. Terrific. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Yeah. We are ready for PB 2605, 8 Park Ridge Road. Uh, Andrew DeLore, uh, counsel for API development company is going to, uh, explain to us, um, what he's requesting. Um, but I'm going to have Robert first, uh, cite the law that we're dealing with, explain how it works and, uh, if there's case law, uh, what it says. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. So there was a ZBA case. Um, I believe it was 25-35 in front of the ZBA for a special program for addition on the house. In this case, it's actually not addition, but it's actually partly demolition while retaining a portion of the existing foundation. Um, and, but they need a special program to rebuild partly most of what it is. Um, they unfortunately got denied by the ZBA. There's a clause in Mass General Law that allows someone to reapply within two years. Um, but they must apply to the planning board first and then the ZBA, and they must get a, uh, the planning board, the planning board, the planning board must weigh the reapplication fee and find out that specific and material changes have occurred in the condition upon which the unfavored decision was based. Um, and of course, this has case law that has been tested against it with Ramsey versus the board of appeals of Nantucket where the court focused on the material of changes necessary to constitute a sufficient and revised reapplication. The court held that the board may give weight to the differences, which is in absolute sense are relatively minor. Whereas several changes were kind of cosmetic or standing alone. The board could consider wherever taking together the alter the condition causing the unfavorable vote of the board. Specific material changes, which section 16 of Mass General Law 48 requires that it must be something less than different than radical. So they must obscure security under the seat of the theater. What it really means is that someone couldn't come back and say, I got denied my house. Now I'm going to paint it blue instead of red. Like it has to have material changes that are sufficient. It's not saying, Oh, I'm going to change these two windows. I remove these two windows. And now that my application is completely different. So the burden is on the point where that, that we must play, but must weigh the reapplication to, to determine the specific and material changes have occurred, which, which in the condition we upon the, the unfavorable decision was based. Um, and this is, this is a screwed section of Mass General Law that I have not, um, accounted yet in my 11 years of career and planning, but, um, it is an option under the statute for an applicant to come back to the board. Um, and I will also mention that it is very unclear of the advertisement. So we, we, we did a full advertisement with the newspaper and also to the abutus because the statute is very, uh, um, is silent on that. So I will just address that too. We did notify the abutus and notify in the, in the paper too, just to make sure we count all our bases. Can I ask you a question, Robert? Yeah. In simple terms, what were the, what was the reason for the denial of the ZBA? Um, I, Mr. Planner, I I'm sorry. I, I just, I don't mean to interrupt, but, um, the board, we do not have a full board tonight. Am I correct about that? Is there? Yeah. So I, I, I've been discussing with my client before we go too much further down the road, where there is not a full quorum. Um, and where this requires a super majority vote. I think my client would like to request a continuance, uh, if the board would agree, uh, to the next meeting. And ideally we'll have a, a full board. Um, and. Yeah. That's, I would just chime in. That is a fair, um, point. And we have had that within the plan board where applicants have decided or asked. Um, but it would be, let the board decide if they would like to continue. But I, I, I personally have no opinion against that. They, what the applicant wants to continue to address the whole board. Um, the next meeting is October the 21st. Uh, we already have Hobbs road. Uh, the, uh, uh, the, I can't even remember what it is. It's this it's not assisted living, but the living. And that's, uh, 715. So we do have, we do. And then we have the COA as built plans. That will, won't be it longer. Okay. Um, so, um, do we think that Hobbs road is really coming in then? Um, I would, well, this is, so this is not actually, well, this is public hearing. I would, it's kind of the public hearing. So if you want to, I would not. Okay. Super far off. That's fine. I'm just trying to figure out timing. You could also address it at 7, 730. Um, and it may, it will open up, it will open no, or other than 730, but we will just have to, you know, discuss other things in the next half an hour. If somehow Hobbs road got continued or withdrawn or whatever. I would not recommend putting it too, super far away from the Hobbs road hearing, just in case they somehow ask for continuation or the discussion is short. Okay. Um, Mr. Delroy, um, I don't want to make you sit around and wait. Um, but if Hobbs road is going forward, it will take time. If it's not going forward, it will be very short. And if I put you on, for example, at 730, you might be sitting around for a while. Understood. Understood. It happened tonight. You know, it's just, it's, that's how it goes on the board. Sometimes the hearings run long. You know what I, what I would, what I always like to think to avoid is a situation where you end up with like a 40 minute gap because you finished something early and then you can't take the other item until, until later. So I, whenever we can get on, if, if we have to wait idly by, like we did tonight, that's, that's how it goes. Okay. How does the board feel? It's fine. Are you talking about 1021? Uh, yes. The next meeting? Yeah. The next meeting. And everybody's going to be here so far? As far as I know. Knock on wood. I want to jinx myself on that. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, a motion to, uh, continue this hearing on, uh, PB 2605 Park Ridge road until, uh, October the 21st at 7 30 PM. So moved. Seconded. Uh, one question, Robert, we don't have a time limit on when we have to render this decision. Because it has to be a decision and we have to give reasons. It's not just, we say yes. There's no time limit on the statute. Okay. Um. There's no stat. There's no time limit to start the hearing or to, uh, to, uh, to render a decision. Okay. But we did, we did. I did push it as fast as possible and get the other thing done, um, with the applicants. But this is, this was as soon as possible. They, they could be heard, but. Actually, um, Madam chair, if there's any kind of extension that the applicant needs assigned to avoid it. Oh yeah. No, it's not that. Um, I was just. I know we're in the middle of a motion, but since you're here, I just want to, uh, suggest to you that some of the materials that you sent are inaccurate and you want to check the distances that you have put on plans and you want to show the real plans. Um, you sent a one pager that has the wrong, it's got pictures of before what you was denied and what was then approved and, um, not approved what you're proposing now. And the diet, the, uh, dimensions are not accurate and nor are the pictures of the plans. So, um, if you're going to put something in front of us, I suggest you get it in beef. Like at least a week before the meeting and that it be accurate so that we can give a real decision. Understood. And I, I do have a comprehensive set that we can provide to the board. Okay. As soon as tomorrow. In the interim, is it possible for the board to receive copies of the ZBA's decision so that we understand. I did. Okay. I didn't see much of it. Um, I can also resend the decision. I, the decision, you can also find it's on a registered deed, I believe, but, but, and also on the website, but I can resend it to you. Okay. I didn't see it in my packet, but it was there. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion, uh, to continue until, um, October the 21st. We have a second, uh, all in favor, uh, Bill Sterling. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Okay. So we'll see you at seven 30. Um, we're doing a virtual meeting that, that evening. Excellent. Thank you. See you in two weeks. Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Minutes. Yes. Uh, we only have one set, nine. We only have one set. So we'll, we'll plan behind like a few days of time. So. Nine, nine, 26. I have, I have started looking to maybe potentially doing, try to speed it up with maybe some, do some AI minutes too, but. Pardon me. I'm not following you. Uh, I, I'm looking to try to maybe also do some AI minutes too, to help. To help. Okay. I think that would be helpful. Also. Um, if there's possible that we can keep the minutes so that we get them at the next meeting, that would be really helpful for all of us. Yeah. It's. It has to do with that. The, the minute taker and her schedule. And when she, when she does them, she has them all the weekend. Rob, you got a spelling mistake on my name there. There's miss telling us. I see one too. For me too. Yeah. It was on there last time too. I don't know. Why are you saying that? As B O. R. B O R G. B O R G. Yep. That's so small. I can't even read it. Oh my gosh, Jesse. I didn't even catch that one. When I reviewed them, I was more concerned about the content. Oh my gosh. You missed nine minutes. Um, was there anything else on here that was any other concerns on the subject piece of it? Everything else looked good to me. I'm just trying to verify. Any other comments? No. Sorry. I was just checking. Just making sure her name was spelled right. Okay. We should be all set. Is that how it's spelled up front too? B O R G E S T E D T. Yeah. It's, it wasn't. Okay. Fixed it. So now the men is an hour. Okay. I'm with stuff like that. There are certain things that she repeatedly does that we keep correcting. When she's quoting something, it needs to have a double quote, not just a single. And for the motions that are under a specific topic, it needs to be indented. The timing needs to be indented so that it's clear it's under that topic. And then the spelling. Yeah. Yeah. I've, I've been giving a red line version back. It's just, you have such things to change as that. Okay. I learned this week that in British English, they only use single quotation marks for quotations. Do they really? Yeah. We don't do that. Fun fact. Fun fact. Fun fact. Fun fact. Okay. Okay. Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes of 9-9-26? I move to approve the minutes of 9-9-26 as amended. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Uh, all in favor. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Okay. Updates from the town planner. Yes. We'd, so we, one thing that came in the mail this week or email mail is if someone, an architect that is interested in the ZBA and design view board or one or the other. Um, and he's, he is an architect, he's a registered architect. And we, right now we currently have two registered architects on the design view board. So I need, I need to have already reached out to him and see if he, if he's interested to join this, this, uh, ZBA as a, a social member, because there, there's a bigger need for there than design view board. I don't know if it's best to have three architects where we're looking for a landscape architect and a graphic designer, but that was just my kind of my point of view of thinking. Yeah. Yeah. I, I think we really could use landscape designer. Yeah. Coming up. I think, I think he'd be a good, he'd be a good candidate, but I think, I think the design board should be in the town, should be looking at, uh, expanding different, different professions on that board than just. Right. Well, we're required. And I also think this person is almost overqualified for the roles we need. He would actually serve the zoning board much better. He's done large buildings of, uh, a huge variety. And that is, and that just in the, um, is, uh, ZBA. I mean, you never know who's gonna, not gonna attend a meeting and miss meetings sessions. So it's important to have a full stack of associates. It doesn't actually rotate them. Their people don't have to just sit. Oh, I'm going to be called upon. They just sit and participate. So. Okay. Um, I don't have anything. I don't think. Uh, I will be, me and Anita will be at conference the next two days. Um, so you feel free to email us. I know Anita will bring, bring her laptop, so she'll probably respond to emails, but, um, I will probably just respond to emails on my phone if there's something that comes up. So, um, all the things that will fall for sending over things, I will send it over on Tuesday. We'll get back from the holiday weekend. Okay. So Thursday and Friday, you're not going to be in. No, neither. So we'll be there, which I mean, I'll start, um, working on the, um, town center thing, just reorganizing it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then we can talk. Um, Robert, I talked to you on Saturday about getting some, uh, the zoning maps printed on like 11 by 18. So I can talk to the Wayland housing partnership about zoning. That's, they wanted me to talk about it. So I said, sure. So if, if you can print out, you know, a half dozen or so of those, maybe eight of them. And what do you want? What do you want on the map? Like the residential zones or. Yeah, I think so. Cause they're, I don't think they're interested in things that aren't potentially residential. Um, and then I don't know if you can leave. How many copies are on? What? Make copies. Yeah. Just print out, you know, I don't know, eight of them. All right. We never know how many are going to show up. Um, and then I don't know when you're around next week, Tuesday or Wednesday, maybe. And I'll come grab them. If not, I'll just put, I can put them out to my office and you can just pick them up when, whenever. When I come for the meeting. Cause they meet in person. Oh yeah. I can, I can put it on my summer off and clip it, clip into the off outside of the office. Okay. All right. That Tuesday. Okay. Thanks. The other thing that I did want to mention that I just thought of is, um, we are moving forward with the housing production plan and we have selected a consultant and I will be meeting with them next week to kind of do a kickoff meeting, but, um, it's gonna, we're gonna try to move as fast as possible. So I started reaching out to all the different, um, other committees, um, to ask for representatives to be part of this steering committee, not a committee to make real decisions, but a committee just to really help guide it, make sure that, that, you know, staff is working on them and that they, we get what we want out of it at the end of the day. Um, and then the end goal and getting, getting the goals and the objectives and what the plan is. So. Okay. So is Robin the person who's doing it for the planning board? Because she's. I believe so. Partnership. I, if you want to take a, a formal vote at the next meeting, we can do that to make it, I think, I think that's the other boys right now are doing, but it's not so bad. Robin. I did it the last. Okay. Yeah. And that's all half. It's gone. It's getting late. So I don't want to. Okay. Any board comments and concerns? Everybody's happy. So happy. So happy. We got it done under three hours. I'm amazed. Unbelievable. Well, only because the last one. Yeah. We got locked up. Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bill, do you want a second? Good boy. Thought you should get a chance tonight. All in favor. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Good night. Good night, everybody.