[0:00] That sounded so good.
[0:02] >> All right, it is 7:01
[0:06] on June 17th, 2026, and I will call the
[0:11] meeting of the Essex Planning Board to
[0:12] order.
[0:20] We will jump in to the um public hearing
[0:26] which is scheduled to resume at 7
[0:28] o'clock. Um, this meeting is being
[0:31] recorded um by 16:23
[0:34] and um it's remotely available on on
[0:38] Zoom to members of the public.
[0:41] I will take a motion to reopen the
[0:44] public hearing that was opened on March
[0:46] 4th, 2026 and which was continued to
[0:49] March 18th, 2026 to April 1st, 2026 to
[0:54] April 15, 2026 to May 6th, 2026 to May
[0:58] 20th, 2026
[1:00] to June 3rd, 2026 and again to this
[1:04] evening, June 17, 2026
[1:06] >> on the definitive subdivision plan
[1:08] application by Bellpoint LLC. LC for
[1:10] property at 0 Essex Park Road and 0 Pawn
[1:14] Street rear. Map 147 lot 19 and map 142
[1:18] lots 30 and 31 to create a 36 lot open
[1:22] space residential sub residential
[1:24] development OSRD subdivision under the
[1:28] town of Essex rules and regulations
[1:29] relative to subdivision control.
[1:32] Massachusetts general law chapter 41
[1:34] sections 81K to 81 GG. the subdivision
[1:39] control law and per a special permit
[1:41] issued on September 3rd, 2025 per
[1:44] section 6-8 open space residential
[1:46] development OSRD of the town of Essex
[1:49] zoning bylaw. So take a motion.
[1:53] >> So moved.
[1:54] >> Second.
[1:58] So who moved that? Beth moved that. Shel
[2:00] want a second?
[2:01] >> No. Simone second.
[2:03] >> I moved Simone second.
[2:04] >> Oh, okay.
[2:07] She did second.
[2:08] >> Okay,
[2:08] >> Simone.
[2:10] >> Beth moved it and Simone seconded. Thank
[2:12] you. Okay. Um the hearing is reopened.
[2:16] So, um this will be the um last evening
[2:21] of the hearing. We're scheduled to close
[2:23] it this evening. I know
[2:26] it is the eighth night of it. So, we're
[2:28] ready. Um to that end the reason that
[2:32] the hearing has been continued um was to
[2:36] let the process of the peer review
[2:39] complete and what has happened since our
[2:41] last meeting is that we have um gotten
[2:45] some additional um
[2:48] information
[2:49] I'm sorry we got we got the revised peer
[2:52] review along with some additional
[2:54] information from the applicant and those
[2:57] are via this hearing formally um
[3:00] admitted to the process. So we have um
[3:03] dated June 12th the final version of the
[3:05] peer review from Western and Samson
[3:07] Engineers. And we have also received um
[3:11] dated June 10th and revised on June 15th
[3:14] a an exhibit of the intersections that
[3:17] are the question of one of the waivers.
[3:19] The exhibit doesn't change anything
[3:21] other than to highlight the areas that
[3:23] are um
[3:25] the focus of the waivers. and then um
[3:28] additional information on the storm
[3:30] water
[3:32] um and a foxhole manhole at the um
[3:36] bottom of road A where it intersects
[3:39] Essex Park Road. So that's the
[3:41] additional information we've received
[3:42] from the applicant that has come after
[3:44] our last meeting and then also the peer
[3:48] review um we received last Friday and
[3:50] then got an a final version of it on
[3:52] Monday. It's still dated June 12th. We
[3:55] have here tonight um two copies of
[3:58] Weston and Samson's peer review in case
[4:00] anyone needs to review that as just as a
[4:03] reference rather than printing all 52
[4:05] pages. We just have two reference
[4:06] copies. We have the full size set of
[4:08] plans here for the planning board. That
[4:10] is the final version. Um it's not the
[4:13] final final version, but it's the
[4:14] version that we're reviewing tonight
[4:16] that was revised from the original
[4:19] submitt from January.
[4:21] um that's dated that that set of plans
[4:23] we had before the last meeting, but it's
[4:25] been officially submitted to the
[4:26] planning board and stamped in by the
[4:28] town clerk. So, that's where we are with
[4:30] the materials.
[4:35] So, our next step is um if anyone uh has
[4:40] questions or comments on Weston and
[4:42] Samson's review, we're also going to
[4:44] talk about the procedure tonight is
[4:45] we're going to sort of formally accept
[4:47] these materials um go through any
[4:51] questions
[4:52] that we would want the applicant's input
[4:55] in while we're still in the public
[4:57] hearing. So if we have questions for
[4:59] either Jesse Johnson from Weston and
[5:01] Samson who's online or questions for the
[5:03] applicant their engineer Will Shuda is
[5:06] here also that information would be
[5:09] conducted in the hearing and then after
[5:11] we close the hearing the planning board
[5:13] will deliberate on the documents the
[5:15] draft of the decision that's in front of
[5:17] us. So during the hearing is our
[5:18] opportunity to engage with Weston and
[5:20] Samson for any questions on the peer
[5:22] review or with the applicant for any
[5:24] questions on that. Um, so planning board
[5:28] members, do you have questions on for
[5:31] either the applicant or our peerreview
[5:33] engineer?
[5:37] You don't have to because it's really a
[5:39] thorough review. I mean, listen and
[5:40] Samson went through every single thing.
[5:42] Yeah. So, um, but if you do have
[5:45] questions, this is the opportunity to do
[5:47] it so that it is information that's
[5:48] received and clarified in the public
[5:50] hearing while it's still open.
[5:52] >> So, does it questions or comments?
[5:55] Um I I would say questions right now
[5:57] because comments will be part of our
[5:59] deliberation.
[6:00] >> Okay.
[6:00] >> So this is just clarifying information
[6:02] if we need to get more basically more
[6:05] information from either peer review or
[6:08] applicant.
[6:09] Uh but other than that once the hearing
[6:11] is closed we'll have our um in-house
[6:14] conversation and that's when we can
[6:15] comment to each other. Um that's still
[6:18] going to be on the 1623 recording as a
[6:20] conclusion of this whole process but
[6:22] we'll be out of the hearing at that
[6:24] point.
[6:26] So, okay.
[6:27] >> I have a question.
[6:28] >> Sure. Microphone Simone. Sorry.
[6:33] >> On on the peer review and this may be a
[6:36] question for you.
[6:39] Uh number five, I'm going to use your
[6:41] numbers or
[6:43] >> you're using my numbers. Okay.
[6:44] >> Just because it's easier. You wrote,
[6:47] "Our intent is to remove the wetland
[6:50] overlay district." What does that mean?
[6:53] Uh that is on page six,
[6:55] >> right? Yep.
[6:59] And that that was just honestly that was
[7:01] a note to myself regarding um because
[7:04] we're still including
[7:06] um a a a condition in the decision that
[7:11] addresses the wetland protection overlay
[7:13] district. But in in working through this
[7:16] whole process, we've realized that our
[7:19] wetland protection overlay district is
[7:21] really outdated because the maps that we
[7:23] have of the wetlands are from 1974 and
[7:26] we know those things creep. And also any
[7:29] project that is close to wetlands is
[7:31] going to be going through the concom
[7:33] anyway. So it's kind of redundant and
[7:36] our wetland protection overlay district
[7:38] maps are not as thorough as any wetland
[7:40] mapping that an applicant will come in
[7:42] with anyway. So that's that has that was
[7:45] kind of a parenthetical note to us
[7:48] >> that we need to do something about it.
[7:50] Okay.
[7:50] >> Yeah. Later much later.
[7:55] » Um
[8:15] So,
[8:17] one of the peerreview comments was that
[8:20] uh there is a section on parks that we
[8:24] can or cannot require and it appears
[8:27] that we haven't ever discussed it unless
[8:30] I just that was I don't I'm not aware of
[8:33] it and I just wondered what people's
[8:36] feelings were about that. What page of
[8:39] the peer review is that on?
[8:47] » The I think it's part parks comes from
[8:50] our rules and regulations and talks
[8:52] about parks in a subdivision and and I
[8:54] think we did touch on this and I can
[8:56] look back, but
[8:58] because this is an OSRD, there's not
[9:00] really an opportunity to have any
[9:01] parkland within the residential loted
[9:04] area itself because it's so tight
[9:06] already. And then the whole point of the
[9:08] OSRD is to have the open space. Excuse
[9:12] me.
[9:14] >> And so that was a decision that was made
[9:16] consciously.
[9:20] » Yeah, I think we did talk about the fact
[9:22] that um yeah,
[9:24] >> somehow printed this upside down.
[9:26] >> Parks aren't really part of the OSRD
[9:30] model, but Val Val has something to add
[9:32] to that. Val,
[9:36] you're muted. Sorry, hold on.
[9:41] » Sorry. Um, that language is dated in
[9:45] terms of subdivision control. Um, that's
[9:48] from long ago times and isn't something
[9:52] that is currently considered um as
[9:56] viable as it was when it was first
[9:58] thought of. And so um but I agree it's
[10:02] not really relevant to this decision
[10:03] because it is uh going to have a lot of
[10:06] open space related to the development.
[10:13] » I guess it depends on whether that
[10:17] open space is considered public.
[10:20] >> We we do touch on that at the very end
[10:22] of the decision. Um we do have a um we
[10:25] had a discussion with the applicant
[10:27] regarding public access and that
[10:30] condition has been included in our
[10:32] decision that well we can't we cannot
[10:36] ask for public access
[10:38] because that's essentially taking a land
[10:40] but we can accept public access if it's
[10:43] offered by the applicant which it has
[10:44] been and that is formalized and I think
[10:47] it's one of the very last decisions one
[10:49] of the last conditions of our decision
[10:51] so that there is indeed um public access
[10:55] to the open space.
[10:57] >> Okay. All right. So,
[11:04] I'm just curious, is everyone in
[11:06] agreement with the park comment?
[11:09] Do do you guys know which one I'm
[11:12] talking about? Sorry, there are a lot of
[11:14] pages.
[11:20] Does anyone else not have anyone else
[11:22] know notice this comment?
[11:35] Well, I'll have to find it. Um, also I
[11:40] don't I guess when we were talking about
[11:43] the
[11:45] perimeter trees
[11:47] and then I was looking at his comments
[11:50] on the protection of natural features.
[11:53] So we are not expecting to protect any
[11:56] natural features in the development
[11:59] zone.
[12:00] >> Correct.
[12:02] >> Okay. So, if there are nice trees there
[12:05] that could be saved, we're not going to
[12:07] do that.
[12:09] >> If they could be saved, they probably
[12:11] won't take them down because if there's
[12:13] not a reason to take them down, they're
[12:15] not going to make extra work. But um
[12:17] that was a discussion we had at the last
[12:20] meeting um with the applicant about
[12:23] the fact that because this is such a
[12:25] condensed um quarter acre lot
[12:27] subdivision that there's really not an
[12:29] opportunity to do the grading and the
[12:30] work that they need to do while the
[12:32] trees are still there.
[12:33] >> So that you you're just going to clear
[12:34] cut. You're not going to assess any
[12:36] trees. That's what it sounds like.
[12:38] >> Clear cut.
[12:45] Okay. Uh, for the record, Will Scooter
[12:48] from the Moren Cameron Group. Um, yeah,
[12:50] that's correct. Because this is a dense
[12:51] development, um, the grading
[12:53] requirements, we're not going to be
[12:54] preserving the trees within the limit of
[12:56] work.
[12:56] >> Okay.
[13:02] » Does that microphone not work? Does it
[13:05] need batteries?
[13:08] There you go.
[13:09] You're an engineer. You can figure that
[13:10] out.
[13:12] >> Maybe.
[13:18] » So, does anyone have questions for
[13:21] Weston and Samson
[13:23] regarding any of the um guidance that
[13:27] they've offered in their in their
[13:29] feedback?
[13:33] » Yeah, you don't have to. I'm just giving
[13:35] you the opportunity. I don't think we
[13:37] have do we have any um members of other
[13:40] departments, boards or committees on the
[13:41] line tonight? I'm just
[13:44] um we we can come back planning board. I
[13:47] just want to see if anyone else from um
[13:49] town of Essex
[13:51] departments, boards or committees is
[13:53] online and has any questions. Not so
[13:56] much for the planning board, but these
[13:58] are questions for either Weston and
[14:00] Samson, our peer reviewer, or for Warren
[14:03] Cameron, the applicants engineer.
[14:07] And I'm not seeing anyone, but if
[14:10] someone is there and does have a
[14:12] question, please raise your hand.
[14:13] Otherwise, we'll continue on. Um,
[14:15] Simone, did you have other questions?
[14:18] >> No, I was just going to see if I could
[14:19] find the park thing, but we can.
[14:21] >> Okay. We can we can come back to that
[14:23] when we're doing our deliberation
[14:24] because that's more an internal planning
[14:27] board decision kind of thing. Um, okay.
[14:34] I'm just making sure I check all the
[14:36] boxes here from Teresa.
[14:42] So, um, at this point then, um,
[14:50] we have not had any more public comments
[14:52] since our last meeting. And what we're
[14:54] going to do now is open the floor to um,
[14:58] comments from the public. So, this is
[15:00] the final opportunity for the public to
[15:03] comment on this process. Um, we have a
[15:07] couple people in the room, but more
[15:09] people online. So, if you're online and
[15:11] want to offer public comment before we
[15:13] close the hearing, this is your
[15:15] opportunity. Please raise your hand and
[15:18] we will unmute you and let you speak.
[15:26] Okay. Not all at once.
[15:32] All right. I'm not seeing um any public
[15:34] comment uh either online or in the room
[15:38] here this evening. Public comment. So um
[15:41] that said, prior to closing the hearing,
[15:45] one of my duties is to read in a list of
[15:47] public comment that we have received
[15:50] during this hearing process. These
[15:52] materials are all available on the
[15:54] planning board's web page um where we
[15:57] have a whole tab set up for the OSRD.
[16:00] And these are the following emails that
[16:02] we've received as public comment during
[16:04] the definitive subdivision plan period
[16:06] which has been from January 22nd, 2026
[16:10] through June 17th, 2026
[16:14] with messages and re replies to follow.
[16:18] January 23rd, we heard from Josh
[16:21] Franklin at 11 Turtleback Road. February
[16:23] 5th, 2026, Emily Commtock, no address.
[16:27] Again, March 2nd, Emily Commtock, no
[16:29] address. March 4th, Dorothy Ewell from 4
[16:33] Essex Park Road. March 20th, Jay and
[16:37] Mary Tetsoff and family from 98 Western
[16:40] Avenue. March 31st, Paula Johnson, for
[16:43] Essex Park Road. April 11th, Bob Smith
[16:47] from 29 Pond Street. April 12th, 2026,
[16:51] Patrice Murphy of the Essex Manchester
[16:53] Essex Conservation Trust. April 14th,
[16:57] Ken and Holly Real. June 1st, Peter
[17:01] Ferrario, no address given. Additional
[17:04] public imput
[17:06] emails received before the vote takes
[17:08] place will be added to this compilation
[17:10] and updated if any are received. But the
[17:14] hearing is closing tonight, so that's no
[17:16] longer an option.
[17:18] Um, that said, I take a motion to close
[17:21] the hearing.
[17:23] >> So moved. Thank you, Shelley. Second,
[17:27] >> second.
[17:28] >> Thank you, Peter. Um, all those in
[17:30] favor?
[17:31] >> I Ariel.
[17:35] >> I
[17:36] >> Thank you.
[17:37] >> Said I
[17:38] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Okay,
[17:40] so the hearing is officially closed and
[17:42] we will move into our
[17:45] next step of reviewing the draft
[17:48] decision and deliberating and making any
[17:53] changes that the board agrees on to the
[17:55] draft. And um at the conclusion of that,
[17:58] we will take a vote on the decision.
[18:04] Um, I'm sorry. Prior to that, we have um
[18:09] we have a process waiver that I just
[18:11] this is sort of a formality that I want
[18:14] to go through. Amy will help me with
[18:15] this when I stumble upon it. Um in our
[18:21] subdivision rules and regulations there
[18:24] is a um section which is 6.13 of our
[18:28] rules and regulations that says
[18:31] um if the applicant submits a
[18:35] modification to the plan
[18:38] uh then the other boards and we have to
[18:41] the planning board has to send that
[18:43] modified materials to um the other
[18:47] boards. and committees that are listed
[18:48] in the subdivision control law for their
[18:52] review and they get an opportunity to
[18:54] review that that is 35 days long and the
[18:57] board of health gets a review period
[18:58] that's 45 days long. What is problematic
[19:02] about the language in our rules and regs
[19:04] is that modifi modification of the plan
[19:07] is not defined in the industry. A
[19:11] modified plan is typically a change to a
[19:14] plan that has already been approved. So,
[19:16] say tonight we approve the plans and
[19:19] then in the process of going through the
[19:21] NOI or the septic design or something,
[19:23] the plans become modified, they come
[19:26] back to us as modified plans and that's
[19:28] when that would kick in. Normally, our
[19:30] bylaw doesn't describe exactly what's
[19:32] called a modified plan. So, there's a
[19:34] gray fuzzy area about the fact that, you
[19:37] know, we had a submitt from the
[19:40] applicant. We went back and forth with
[19:42] their peer review. They made some
[19:43] updates and some agenda and things like
[19:45] that. They haven't changed the roads.
[19:47] They haven't changed the loading. They
[19:49] haven't changed the location of the
[19:50] septic. They eliminated one drainage
[19:52] basin, which is hardly that's not like
[19:55] adding one, taking one away is simpler.
[19:59] So, it's it's unclear whether that would
[20:01] technically rise to a modification or
[20:03] not since we don't have a definition in
[20:05] our rules and ranks of what a
[20:06] modification is. What's problematic
[20:08] about this is that this process gives a
[20:10] 90-day
[20:13] um 90-day period for us to do the
[20:16] review. So, if after all the time of
[20:18] going back and forth with the peer
[20:19] review and getting changes and updates
[20:21] from the applicant, if we needed another
[20:24] 35 days for the other boards and
[20:25] committees to review that, we would be
[20:27] out of our time frame and the applicant
[20:29] would be granted a constructive
[20:30] approval. So, it's just a backwards kind
[20:33] of wording in our bylaw that would allow
[20:36] that would seemingly make us default to
[20:39] a situation where we couldn't meet the
[20:42] deadline if we followed those rules to
[20:44] the letter of the T. Um, so what this
[20:47] process waiver is is just a formality to
[20:50] go on record to say that the planning
[20:52] board understands this irregularity in
[20:54] our rules and regulations which will
[20:56] also be updated.
[20:58] Um but so you know so the rules and
[21:00] regulations that are in place at the
[21:02] time this goes the application was
[21:04] submitted the ones that we have to work
[21:06] with. But when they're unclear like this
[21:07] the point of this waiver of of waving
[21:10] this section in that 35day review period
[21:13] requirement is simply to sort of cross
[21:16] that tea and dot dot eye to make sure
[21:18] that it's not problematic down the road
[21:20] for any reason until we have a chance to
[21:22] go revisit our rules and regulations and
[21:24] define what modified plans are. So, if
[21:28] you guys have questions about that, I'm
[21:29] gonna defer to Amy because she's the one
[21:31] who explained all that to me. And if I
[21:33] screwed it up, she can correct it.
[21:36] >> You have a mic there if you need it.
[21:40] >> Question.
[21:40] >> Does that Do you guys have any questions
[21:42] about that? It's It's We're not No one's
[21:45] trying to pull a fast one or anything.
[21:46] It's just a an abnormality in our in the
[21:50] way our um rules and regulations are
[21:53] written. So, are you saying we won't
[21:56] have time to review them then?
[21:59] >> What?
[22:00] >> You won't we won't review them then? I
[22:02] I'm just
[22:03] >> No, they are reviewed, but um you don't
[22:07] have to send them out again to the board
[22:11] of health and other boards like you do
[22:12] after we review them
[22:14] >> after. So there's hardly ever um a
[22:18] project that comes in with a plan and
[22:21] that plan is exactly the same when you
[22:23] vote on it.
[22:23] >> Yeah.
[22:24] >> Especially with peer review.
[22:25] >> Well, we got all these conditions.
[22:27] >> Yeah. Things like that. They address
[22:28] comments, address concerns. So, um this
[22:33] section of your bylaw is very
[22:35] problematic because it adds a certain
[22:38] amount of time that's past the 90 days
[22:41] or the 100 day that you know that you
[22:42] have to to work with. So, um, it should
[22:46] be waved today, but it should be
[22:49] changed.
[22:51] >> Okay. I've never seen this before
[22:55] >> cuz Essex is special.
[22:59] » Could you explain again though why it
[23:01] should be waved?
[23:02] >> So, your this provision, it provides
[23:04] that when there's any change to a plan
[23:08] that it has to go back out. It has to
[23:10] essentially start over again. And under
[23:12] the subdivision control law, under the
[23:14] actual state statute, you don't have
[23:16] that ability to start things over again.
[23:19] >> The only time that you can add time to
[23:22] the statutory time limit is by um
[23:26] consent, written consent from the
[23:27] applicant.
[23:28] >> This seems to um require that extra time
[23:32] just just automatically happen. And um
[23:36] if you went with this, the applicant
[23:38] didn't agree to a written or didn't
[23:40] issue a written um extension, the
[23:43] applicant after a certain amount of days
[23:45] pursuant to the statute can just get a
[23:47] constructive approval and then you lose
[23:49] all control over the plans.
[23:51] >> So the state law overrides this.
[23:54] >> So when you look at um
[23:56] >> and our rules of regulations are in
[23:57] conflict with state law, which is the
[23:59] problematic part. So when you look at,
[24:01] you know, you know, you have you have
[24:03] statutes, you have bylaws, and then you
[24:05] have regulations. So it's pretty far
[24:08] down considering it's the statute that
[24:10] it's in conflict with.
[24:12] >> So even though the state overrides it,
[24:15] we're just doing this formality just to
[24:18] >> because it's still in your still in your
[24:22] Okay, great.
[24:26] And the other thing that's that's our
[24:29] bylaw isn't even clear that the changes
[24:31] the level of changes that have been made
[24:33] through the peerreview process would
[24:35] even really rise to modified plans
[24:37] because like the example I used is if
[24:40] they go through the NOI and something
[24:42] drastically changes about the wetland
[24:43] crossing and a lot moves and something
[24:45] like that that's a substantive change
[24:47] that would be a modified plan. Um but
[24:49] none of the stuff that has happened in
[24:51] this peerreview process has
[24:53] substantially altered the plans to a
[24:55] point that if if modified plans was
[24:58] defined somewhere we would be able to
[24:59] say whether it was a modification or not
[25:02] which is what we'll be adding to. So, the motion for the process waiver is
[25:10] um well I will take a motion to wave
[25:13] strict compliance with the requirements
[25:14] of section 6.1.3 of the town of Essex
[25:18] rules and regulations relative to
[25:20] subdivision control in accordance with
[25:22] Massachusetts General Laws chapters 41
[25:25] section 81R and the town of Essex rules
[25:28] and regulations relative to subdivision
[25:30] control section 1.3
[25:33] after finding that is in public interest
[25:35] and not inconsistent with the intent and
[25:37] purpose of the subdivision control law.
[25:42] » So moved.
[25:43] >> Thank you, Beth. Second.
[25:44] >> Second.
[25:45] >> Thank you, Peter. Questions? Any
[25:48] discussion or further comment on that?
[25:50] >> So, we're doing a roll call vote on
[25:52] this.
[25:52] >> Yep. Yeah.
[25:56] » So, um go around the table.
[25:59] >> Peter Lobster. I
[26:01] >> Beth Walsh. I
[26:03] >> Simone Early. I Shelley Bradberry. I
[26:06] >> Ariel Brain. I
[26:08] >> Lisa O'Donnell. I
[26:10] >> All right. Thank you. That was our
[26:14] just to keep things interesting part of
[26:16] the evening.
[26:21] So then next up before we dive into the
[26:26] rest of the decision, the um the
[26:29] waiverss that have been requested um by
[26:33] the applicant are um listed on page five
[26:38] of the PDF document. And and just to as we talk through this to just describe
[26:43] what is in front of you, this um big set
[26:48] of
[26:50] paper here is is the word draft of the
[26:53] file and that has all the change changes
[26:57] tracked since the draft that I emailed
[27:00] Sunday night. And the only thing that um
[27:04] Teresa took out of that draft was the
[27:07] references that I put in there about the
[27:10] conditions and how they related to my
[27:12] numbering of the issues in Weston and
[27:14] Samson's report since that was not
[27:17] really part of the document. That was
[27:19] just to help everyone connect the dots
[27:21] from what Weston and Samson had
[27:24] suggested in their peer review as
[27:26] conditions of the decision. and and that was just my exercise in making sure
[27:31] that all everything that Wesson and
[27:33] Samson recommended be a condition of the
[27:35] decision actually make it into. So that
[27:39] um I believe has been done and they're
[27:42] still all there.
[27:44] Um, so this is this version, the Word
[27:48] version here has um a lot of comments
[27:51] that Teresa did just as far as
[27:53] formatting goes and making sure all our
[27:56] references were correct and citing all
[27:59] the documentation that's part of the
[28:01] process. And then the PDF file that's in
[28:04] front of you is um
[28:09] what it would look like if those changes
[28:11] in the Word draft were accepted. There's
[28:14] one highlighted thing that we're going
[28:15] to get to in a little bit that is still
[28:17] a question. Um, but other than that,
[28:21] most of them have been cleared up. So,
[28:23] for the purposes of talking about the
[28:25] waiverss, I think it's more instructive
[28:27] to look at the word draft because that
[28:29] has um some tracking on changes and
[28:32] comments that were made in our process.
[28:36] The PDF draft assumes that the waiverss
[28:38] are accepted. So, um,
[28:42] that's obviously
[28:44] not the case yet since we haven't talked
[28:46] through them and discussed any changes
[28:49] were,
[28:51] um, nuance to any of them. So, right
[28:53] now, what I'd like to do is to walk
[28:55] through the waiverss and understand each
[28:57] of them, and if if you guys have
[28:59] questions or concerns, we'll talk about
[29:01] those.
[29:02] Um we have feedback from um both the
[29:07] applicant and some boards and
[29:09] departments in town as well as um
[29:13] guidance from Weston and Samson on the
[29:16] those items. So the first waiver which I
[29:21] we did add numbers to the waivers just
[29:23] to be able to refer to them more easily.
[29:26] So, waiver number one is asking to um
[29:29] increase the pavement thickness to 4 in
[29:31] from 3 in.
[29:34] Um, which
[29:36] is kind of a no-brainer. Um, and the DPW
[29:40] supports that obviously. So, unless
[29:44] anyone has questions on that, we'll move
[29:45] to waiver number two.
[29:48] to show bearings and distances, radi
[29:50] arc, central angle and tangent distances
[29:53] on the loting plan instead of on the
[29:55] plan and profile sheet. All dimensions
[29:56] are shown on the loting plans. And we
[29:58] had talked about this in the past. So
[30:00] there's not um any missing information.
[30:02] It's just showing some of the
[30:04] information on a different location. So
[30:06] that seemed reasonable.
[30:09] And if anyone I'm just going to walk
[30:10] through these and if and when you have
[30:12] comment, please chime in.
[30:15] Section 6-3.3 says to show proposed
[30:18] sidewalk grades on the site plan instead
[30:20] of plan and profile sheet. Sidewalks are
[30:22] linear along the roadway and grading is
[30:23] shown on the site plan. Again, that's um
[30:27] just um nuance of how the information is
[30:29] shown and I don't think we had any
[30:31] concerns with that.
[30:34] Then show all the requirements of the
[30:36] construction plan contents on the
[30:38] definitive plan set. information
[30:40] required on the construction plan is
[30:41] shown on the definitive subdivision
[30:43] plans.
[30:44] The um the language around granting the
[30:48] waiver there asks for the um final plans
[30:51] for endorsement shall include a note
[30:54] that lists items of the construction
[30:58] plan content that are included on the
[31:00] definitive plan set. And this is just
[31:02] taking the list from what is in our um
[31:05] rules and regulations and adding a note
[31:07] to say this information required on the
[31:09] construction plan as follows is shown
[31:12] here. So that's it's just just because
[31:16] of the way our rules and regulations are
[31:18] written just to make that clear.
[31:21] Section 6.4.3 4.3 is show the limit of
[31:25] the tree line instead of the individual
[31:27] trees over 12 in diameter at breast
[31:29] height.
[31:30] The existing site is wooded and require
[31:32] clearing within the limit of work for
[31:34] grading construction of the proposed
[31:35] subdivision.
[31:37] the um the language around granting this
[31:40] waiver um says that
[31:43] we recognize that the um this particular
[31:46] style of development the OSRD has
[31:48] significant open space that will be
[31:50] provided
[31:51] and then what we discussed about I'm
[31:54] sorry discussed about talked about in in
[31:56] the last meeting was um is is
[32:01] documenting all the trees that are just
[32:04] beyond the limit of work. So this
[32:06] language says that prior to clearing any
[32:09] trees from the site, the limit of work
[32:11] shall be laid out with survey flags or
[32:13] stakes for the entire area plan to be
[32:16] developed. And all 12 trees with a 12 in
[32:19] or greater diameter breast height
[32:21] located outside of but within 10 ft of
[32:25] the said limit of work shall be marked
[32:27] in the locations recorded by the
[32:29] surveyors. and a plan of these tree
[32:31] locations shall be provided to the
[32:32] building inspector and planning board
[32:34] before the start of any clearing. So
[32:36] that's an instrument that will
[32:38] memorialize all of the larger trees just
[32:41] beyond the limit of work so that we can
[32:43] ensure that they are preserved.
[32:46] So does that appear to be consistent
[32:48] with the conversation we had at our last
[32:50] meeting?
[32:51] >> Yes, I believe
[32:53] >> I do have a question. Later on we talk
[32:57] about the uh initial site visit or
[33:02] and that is to also look at the limit of
[33:06] work etc. Um
[33:10] are there any conflicts in here with
[33:12] that?
[33:13] Will this come to us after or before
[33:16] that meeting?
[33:19] » Um
[33:23] I don't know. They're not there's the
[33:25] limit of work would need to be laid out
[33:28] um ahead of that sitewalk
[33:30] because that's part of what we're
[33:32] walking is the limit of of the work. So
[33:34] that information should be recorded
[33:36] whether we have the plans or not. It's a
[33:39] matter of timing. It's something that
[33:41] you could require if you wanted
[33:44] >> that it's after it's been reviewed by
[33:47] the,
[33:48] you know, our construction
[33:51] inspector or whoever.
[33:53] >> Well, I think what you're saying is that
[33:55] we would have this plan in hand before
[33:57] the sitewalk.
[33:58] >> Okay.
[33:59] >> Does that was that what you would like
[34:00] to add, do you think? I mean, I think
[34:02] that's
[34:03] >> Well, either before or after. I mean, I think the sitewalk on some level may
[34:07] help define what they are, but
[34:11] >> well, the idea here is that when the
[34:13] surveyors lay out, they'll be out there
[34:15] with all their measuring things and
[34:16] they'd be the ones who flagging the
[34:17] trees. So, they'll flag the trees. So,
[34:19] when we do the sidewalk, the trees are
[34:21] actually going to be taped or marked or
[34:22] painted or something like that. So,
[34:24] we'll be able to have the plan and see
[34:26] the trees at that time.
[34:27] >> Okay. Yeah. So, before then?
[34:29] >> Yeah.
[34:29] >> Okay. So, we'll just add here, a plan of
[34:32] these tree locations should be provided
[34:33] to the building inspector and planning
[34:35] before before the start of any clearing
[34:37] and before the sitewalk.
[34:40] >> Yeah.
[34:42] >> Everyone good with that?
[34:44] >> Yeah.
[34:44] Will the silt fence be in place by
[34:46] then?
[34:47] >> I'm sorry.
[34:47] >> The silt fence demarcating the edge of
[34:49] work or the mulch sock.
[34:52] >> Um,
[34:53] >> just so we know what
[34:54] >> Yeah, there will Yeah, there is.
[34:56] >> So, it's super clear.
[34:58] >> It's going to be very clear when we're
[34:59] out there. I forget what Will said
[35:00] there's, but the the limit of work is
[35:02] going to be um laid out.
[35:04] >> Okay.
[35:05] >> In survey stakes and it'll be very
[35:06] visible on the ground when we do
[35:08] >> the silk fence around in place for the
[35:11] site, right?
[35:11] >> I think he's not the silk fence because
[35:13] that's the thing that can get but
[35:14] they'll put the straw waddles or
[35:16] something.
[35:16] >> Yeah.
[35:17] >> The what?
[35:18] >> Straw waddle. So there'll be
[35:20] >> the mulch. Yeah.
[35:21] >> Yeah. The straw
[35:24] >> things.
[35:26] So um
[35:29] it shall be provided to the building
[35:31] inspector and planning forward before
[35:32] the start of any clearing and before
[35:35] the scheduled sitewalk
[35:39] referenced in condition
[35:45] and then I will find the number of that
[35:47] condition and add that number in. So the
[35:49] language there is going to be and before
[35:51] the scheduled reference
[35:54] before the scheduled sitewalk
[35:57] important word there.
[35:59] So what I'm adding to the end of that
[36:01] sentence is or the sentence will read a
[36:05] plan of these tree locations shall be
[36:07] provided to the building inspector and
[36:08] planning board before the start of any
[36:10] clearing and before the scheduled
[36:12] sitewalk referenced in condition. And
[36:14] then I'll find the number of that
[36:16] condition that talks about the sitewalk.
[36:23] Section 7.1.9
[36:26] not include street lighting. This will
[36:28] help maintain the royal character of the
[36:30] proposed neighborhoods. Lighting will be
[36:32] provided via individual lots. And I
[36:34] think we had talked about this and
[36:35] agreed that no lighting would be
[36:37] preferable. Actually,
[36:41] Val wants to say something. Thank you.
[36:43] Go ahead, Val. Sorry.
[36:45] >> We have a little sign here. you know,
[36:47] little say something.
[36:51] » Um, yeah, I need a little gong or
[36:54] something. Can we add something that
[36:56] says it will be provided via individual
[37:00] lamp posts on in on the individual lots
[37:05] >> that that says what? I'm sorry, I didn't
[37:07] hear you.
[37:09] Lighting will be provided via individual
[37:12] lamp posts on the individual lots.
[37:16] >> Oh, okay. Right. Um,
[37:20] >> you have
[37:21] >> Oh, it it says it says lighting will be
[37:23] provided via individual lots.
[37:26] >> She wants to add lamp posts. She wants
[37:28] to add be provided via lamp post on
[37:31] individual lots.
[37:32] >> Okay. So, we're adding via lamp posts on
[37:34] individual lots. Is that correct? Yeah,
[37:36] we so that we know
[37:38] >> there's a lamp post there and it lights
[37:40] up that it can be pro it'll be providing
[37:42] some light.
[37:43] >> Will those
[37:45] just a thought will those lamp posts all
[37:48] be the same or it just depends on the
[37:52] >> It's going to depend on how the buyer
[37:55] and how they how they construct the
[37:57] lots.
[37:57] >> Okay. Yeah. It's it's the kind of thing
[38:00] if if if one um home builder came in and
[38:03] developed the whole site and built all
[38:05] the houses ahead of time instead of
[38:07] individual people buying lots and
[38:08] putting up. So, it's going to depend on
[38:10] that. So, if if a um a home builder came
[38:13] in and put 36 houses up, chances are
[38:15] they will be the same because it's
[38:17] easier to order 36 of this light than
[38:21] >> But, um are we specifying where like the
[38:25] lamp post is? Is it
[38:28] >> I don't it's it's on their lot so I
[38:30] don't think you know it's out of the the
[38:32] right of way that would be in our
[38:34] control. Street lights would be in our
[38:36] right away but once it's on an
[38:38] individual lot that's up to them but it
[38:40] will have this much impervious area.
[38:45] » Okay.
[38:47] >> So to that point um if we don't tell
[38:50] them where these lamp posts can be I can
[38:53] actually see people putting in the
[38:55] backyard. Right.
[38:56] >> So you can say within 35 ft of the of
[39:00] the right of way.
[39:01] >> That's what I was going to suggest. They
[39:02] have to be so far within the rightway
[39:04] and they have to be a certain
[39:05] brightness.
[39:06] >> Yeah.
[39:07] >> Uh I'd recommend 35 ft of the rightway,
[39:10] but I don't recommend specifying the
[39:13] design in lumens.
[39:14] >> I don't I don't care about the design.
[39:16] It's the brightness of the light either.
[39:18] Some people put
[39:19] >> correct.
[39:20] >> Right. You know, some could be too
[39:22] bright and blinding people. Other ones
[39:24] would be too low and not providing any
[39:26] light. So if we had some type of range
[39:28] that we might be able to say.
[39:30] >> Yeah.
[39:32] >> So we have some control. And the other
[39:33] thing if we can put it that the
[39:37] homeowner association are responsible
[39:38] for making sure they're maintained.
[39:41] >> We can add that to the homeowner. We
[39:44] have conditions in here that require
[39:45] review of the homeowner association. In
[39:48] fact, we could put all that in the
[39:49] homeowner association.
[39:52] That way I have the homeowners chase,
[39:54] not each individual.
[39:55] >> Right. But when we get to the because
[39:57] there's separate from this whole process
[39:59] is going to be developing those
[40:00] homeowner association documents and
[40:02] getting our approval and Amy's review of
[40:04] them. And in that process, we can say we
[40:08] can talk about light brightness and we
[40:10] can talk about um light color too,
[40:13] >> right? It doesn't have to be specific,
[40:14] just a range, right?
[40:15] >> That's what I'd recommend.
[40:16] >> Right. And I think we probably could
[40:20] also at that point address where on the
[40:22] lot it goes or should we put it in here?
[40:25] >> Um
[40:27] I guess I would try for the homeowners
[40:28] association because you guys can't
[40:30] control what goes on in the lot.
[40:32] >> Okay. So that so any kind of guidance
[40:36] around what the light looks like is
[40:37] going to be in the homeowner documents.
[40:40] We'll have input into that but it's not
[40:42] part of our jurisdiction because now
[40:44] we're treading on to the lots. I mean,
[40:46] it feels like having a light post on a
[40:49] lot is defeating the purpose of not
[40:50] having street lights.
[40:53] I mean, why do we want to require that?
[40:57] >> I don't know that we're requiring
[41:00] >> Well, we are.
[41:01] >> Yeah, you are.
[41:02] >> Well, I if I may. And um
[41:05] >> that's what you're here for. Please
[41:06] don't.
[41:06] >> I although I do want to tread lightly
[41:09] because I do think that this is a policy
[41:10] question, which means that's up to you
[41:12] guys, not a legal question. Um, from a
[41:15] legal standpoint, the way that the
[41:16] language was before, lighting will be
[41:20] provided via individual lots was was
[41:23] acceptable
[41:25] because no matter what, there's going to
[41:27] be lighting, whether it comes from a
[41:29] light in the window or people put up a
[41:32] lamp post or people put up landscape
[41:34] lighting. Um, but that's nothing. We
[41:36] can't control what happens on the
[41:38] individual lot. Um, so, um, adding lamp
[41:43] posts may be okay, but then we're
[41:45] talking within 35 ft. Then we're talking
[41:47] about the type of lighting or the
[41:50] brightness of the lighting. I think
[41:52] we're we're getting um further and
[41:54] further away from your jurisdiction.
[41:57] >> Well, and also feels like if we're
[41:58] trying to do rural
[42:00] >> one that Yeah. Um, if you're if you're
[42:02] trying to preserve the rural character,
[42:05] >> if not, then make them do street lights.
[42:07] >> Yeah.
[42:08] If the if the concern is safety, you
[42:10] know, make them do street lights. Um
[42:12] >> because those we can control, right?
[42:15] >> Yep.
[42:17] >> Yeah. I there's not been any safety
[42:20] concerns raised. And in in all other
[42:22] developments around town like this,
[42:23] there are no street lights.
[42:25] >> Yeah. It just feels like
[42:27] >> But but do are there required other
[42:29] lights? I mean, why are we going to
[42:31] require them to put any particular
[42:33] light?
[42:36] You're saying why does our subdivision
[42:37] rules
[42:38] >> well the so they're asking for a waiver
[42:41] not to include street lights. This will
[42:43] help maintain the rural character. I
[42:44] don't know who wrote that part but um
[42:48] but then we're saying but we want lights
[42:50] on all our lots. I I just feel like we
[42:53] should not require lights. If you're a
[42:56] homeowner that wants a light, then you
[42:58] put one. If you don't want one, then you
[43:00] don't. I mean, some people will put them
[43:03] on their garage. Some people will, you
[43:05] know, everyone will have an opinion
[43:08] about where the light should be, whether
[43:09] it's on a pole or on a
[43:12] >> landscape walkway or
[43:14] >> So, is this written more as just a
[43:17] reference that in the lighting for the
[43:20] area will be provided by an individual
[43:23] watch just the lights that comes off the
[43:25] light? Was that the intention of this
[43:27] and we're misinterpreting what that was
[43:29] intended to be?
[43:31] >> Right. So we can't actually strike
[43:33] lighting will be provided via individual
[43:35] lots because that's the language that
[43:36] came from the applicant.
[43:38] >> You can
[43:39] >> that explains it a little better.
[43:40] >> Yeah, you can just delete that language.
[43:42] >> Oh, we can.
[43:43] >> You can.
[43:44] >> So do you guys want to leave that
[43:47] sentence that the applicant provided
[43:49] about lights or do you just want to take
[43:51] that sentence that sentence about
[43:53] lighting out
[43:54] >> or say I I mean I don't want them to
[43:56] feel like they can't put lighting. So it
[43:58] could be lighting will be provided via
[44:00] individual lots if desired or you know
[44:03] some legal word.
[44:04] >> I would leave that on. Yeah.
[44:05] >> Yeah. Lighting may be lighting.
[44:07] >> Yeah. So exactly. Let's just change it
[44:09] to May. And do we want to include lamp
[44:12] post or not say lamp post so that we
[44:14] allow for other
[44:16] >> Yeah. Whatever they want
[44:17] >> of lighting like landscape lighting.
[44:19] Okay.
[44:20] >> So we're not saying lamp post. Sorry
[44:22] Val.
[44:23] >> Sorry Val. And we're saying lighting may
[44:25] be provided via individual lots. So
[44:28] that's what we're we're changing the
[44:30] language there. And we can change their
[44:33] waiver language.
[44:33] >> Oh yeah.
[44:35] >> Apparently we can.
[44:36] >> Yes. Yes. The the waiver that they're
[44:38] asking for is not include street
[44:40] lighting. The rest of it is is is dicta
[44:43] on their part.
[44:44] >> Okay.
[44:49] » So at the end of the day, what 7.1?
[44:52] >> Yes.
[44:54] So, waiver number six now reads not
[44:56] include street lighting. This will help
[44:57] maintain the rural character of the
[44:59] proposed neighborhoods. Lighting may be
[45:01] provided via individual lots.
[45:04] Moving on, waiver 7 um 7.2.2F
[45:09] intersect Essex Park Road at 59 degrees
[45:11] instead of 60° minimum. The slight
[45:14] modification of the angle allows for a
[45:16] straighter road section with less
[45:17] wetland alteration than required. So,
[45:20] um, we haven't had any objection to
[45:23] this. Just to clarify again, the
[45:25] intersection with Essex Park Road isn't
[45:27] a conventional intersection in the usual
[45:30] sense. And so, that 60deree is
[45:32] considered more for cross streets. And
[45:34] this what is technically an intersection
[45:36] here is really a bend in the road to go
[45:39] um up into Essex Park Road. So, we had
[45:42] um in the past not had an issue with
[45:44] this
[45:47] section 7.2.2 2 allow for a dead end
[45:51] length greater than 1,200 foot length
[45:53] and emergency access roadway is
[45:55] provided. Um this has already been
[45:59] granted both in our um preliminary
[46:01] decision and it is um memorialized in
[46:04] the special permit for the OSRD. So this
[46:07] um pretty much has to stay as is. And we
[46:10] do have the access road and that access
[46:12] road has been reviewed by public safety
[46:14] and DPW and they're all on board with
[46:16] that.
[46:19] Section 7.2.4.8.4
[46:24] allow a 5% slope within 50 ft of
[46:26] intersections where 3% is required.
[46:29] Increasing to a 5% allows for a
[46:31] reduction in the cut and fill
[46:32] requirement.
[46:38] The clarification we've added here. This
[46:40] waiver is granted for the condition that
[46:42] includes road A where it intersects road
[46:44] B and for road A where it intersects
[46:46] road C and for road A where it joins
[46:49] Essex Park Road. So each of these
[46:52] locations deserves a little bit more
[46:54] investigation and discussion just so
[46:56] everyone understands what I have learned
[46:59] in the recent couple of days regarding
[47:01] this. Um Jesse um has provided feedback
[47:05] on this and again something that we'll
[47:08] probably look at later in our own
[47:10] subdivision rules and regulations is
[47:12] that limiting um the angle at an
[47:15] intersection is typically intended for a
[47:19] road tying in where you need to stop. So
[47:22] that would mean in this subdivision as
[47:24] road A passes both road B and road C
[47:28] coming off of it. Um, road A is the road
[47:32] in question that is at 5% slope. Road B
[47:36] and C where it ties in. Those roads that
[47:38] have to stop before they enter road A
[47:41] are both at less than 2% slope. So the
[47:43] roads that need to stop are at an
[47:46] allowable slope. It's the road that goes
[47:48] past them that's a five degree slope. Um
[47:52] so the intent of that kind of regulation
[47:57] um has been met but because our by
[48:00] because our rules and regulations don't
[48:02] distinguish between the road that goes
[48:04] straight and a road that intersects like
[48:07] if you had a four-way intersection that
[48:09] would be different where everyone
[48:10] stopped it would be different but here
[48:11] road A goes past and road C and B and C
[48:14] stop. So the criteria isn't as important
[48:18] for road A since that traffic is
[48:20] continuing and not actually stopping.
[48:23] So that's why this should be reasonable
[48:27] for those conditions. So the other
[48:29] situation is where Essex Park Road at
[48:32] that intersection we just talked about
[48:35] where Essex where road A joins um Essex
[48:39] Park Road. What you have there is um the
[48:43] road is coming down the hill at a curve.
[48:45] So it goes from a 4% grade at 50 ft
[48:49] quickly down to 3% and then flattens out
[48:52] by the time it gets to the intersection.
[48:53] So um technically within that 50 ft
[48:56] there is a portion of it that's within
[48:58] 4%. Jesse has pined in an email earlier
[49:02] today that is in the folder of all our
[49:05] materials that says that 4% grade is not
[49:08] really a significant change from 3% if
[49:11] you consider over that 50 foot length. A
[49:14] 3% rise is a foot and a half and a 4%
[49:17] rise is 2 feet. So we're talking about
[49:19] the difference of 6 in over that 50 ft.
[49:23] Um, and therefore it seemed reasonable
[49:25] for a sort of dead-end residential road
[49:28] where your speeds wouldn't exceed 25
[49:29] miles an hour.
[49:32] So that was the the logic there. On
[49:34] this, I have also spoken to both the
[49:37] fire chief and the police chief today
[49:39] and went through all of this with the
[49:41] drawings and everything and they were both fine with it. Um, and
[49:45] again, just as a point of reference, the
[49:47] maximum slope that's allowed in our
[49:49] rules and regulations is 8%.
[49:52] So there are parts of road A that are 8%
[49:55] but they're not near um
[49:57] >> intersections
[49:58] >> not near any intersections.
[50:00] So um I don't know if anyone has
[50:02] thoughts on that.
[50:05] It seems reasonable.
[50:08] Um
[50:09] >> and the purpose of that waiver is just
[50:10] to reduce the cut and fill. It's to
[50:14] reduce cut and fill, but also if you
[50:16] look at the profile of road A, what the profile achieves is there's sort of
[50:21] a leveling out over the wetlands
[50:24] crossing. So what what that does is
[50:26] manage like if we if we flattened out
[50:30] the 8% and raised the 3% that actually
[50:32] widens the area of wetlands that's
[50:35] affected by the crossing. So it's also
[50:37] intended to sort of minimize the impact
[50:39] to the wetlands at the crossing
[50:42] which is theoretically a desirable goal
[50:45] of working around wet lines wetlands not
[50:47] to impact them.
[50:55] Are we set with that or any other
[50:56] questions?
[51:00] Section 7.2.4 Four, use of highdensity
[51:03] polyethylene HDPE drainage pipe instead
[51:06] of using a reinforced concrete pipe RCP.
[51:09] HDP is an industry standard pipe
[51:11] material used for drainage pipes. We did
[51:13] get feedback from both the department of
[51:16] public works and the board of public
[51:18] works who discussed this at their last
[51:19] meeting and they are entirely fine with
[51:21] it and um in fact our storm water
[51:25] management regulations uh specify HDP
[51:28] for handling storm water.
[51:34] And then last but not least, allow tree
[51:38] locations as shown instead of tree
[51:40] spacing at approximately 75 ft. The OSRD
[51:44] does not allow for typical spacing of 75
[51:46] ft. Instead, the proposed development
[51:47] calculate the total frontage and
[51:49] proposes a total amount of trees equal
[51:51] to one tree per 75 linear feet of
[51:54] frontage. So the intent here was to
[51:57] provide the same number of trees if they
[51:59] met the requirement exactly, but I know
[52:01] we did have some discussion about this.
[52:03] So um I don't know if we want to talk
[52:05] about that again.
[52:10] » Excuse me.
[52:10] >> I think this is a better design feature.
[52:13] The yards are small and there's open
[52:16] gaps where there can be groups of trees
[52:18] where they grow better instead of formal
[52:21] spacing.
[52:21] >> Yeah. Just every
[52:22] >> Yeah.
[52:25] Um, Madam Chair, is the plan defined
[52:29] earlier in the decision?
[52:31] Um,
[52:33] if it's not, I think I think it should
[52:35] say allow tree location as shown on the
[52:38] plan instead of just as shown.
[52:40] >> Okay. So, we're adding as shown
[52:42] >> on the plan.
[52:43] >> It's plans.
[52:44] >> Yeah.
[52:48] » Yes. The plan is it is capitalized. So
[52:51] capital the the and then capital P plan.
[52:53] >> Okay.
[52:56] >> So we'll add that in.
[53:06] Any other discussion on those trees?
[53:10] We are getting the same number of trees
[53:11] as we would otherwise.
[53:20] I, you know, I live in the tree hugger
[53:22] house, so I'm
[53:27] I feel like the um the requirement is
[53:32] not a minimum. It's a I mean, it's not a
[53:35] maximum. It's a minimum. And if we could
[53:38] include
[53:40] um trees to meet the requirement that we
[53:43] would then have more trees.
[53:46] Uh but I I hear what Beth is saying
[53:49] about the
[53:52] uh layout
[53:54] >> more of an irregular
[53:55] >> better so you know.
[53:58] >> Okay.
[54:00] >> All right. So we are through the
[54:02] waiverss.
[54:04] >> Imagine that.
[54:08] And look, we have here
[54:10] >> and I know one just I know Matt um had
[54:14] raised questions about the road, but he
[54:17] read everything and um
[54:19] >> Right. And and that that's what prompted
[54:21] a lot of the conversation about the
[54:23] intersection and and that is also a
[54:26] revision in the drainage because he was
[54:27] worried about water coming down to that
[54:30] intersection. So they've regraded the
[54:32] road and there's the foxhole drainage
[54:34] manhole. So that I think is because Matt
[54:36] did talk to both Jesse and Will or Matt
[54:38] talked to Jesse and Jesse talked to Will
[54:40] about this and they made some changes
[54:42] >> to account for Matt's concerns.
[54:45] >> Yeah. And I read those emails. I just
[54:46] wanted to make sure Matt.
[54:49] >> Yeah.
[54:49] >> Okay.
[54:52] >> And his daughter graduated from fifth
[54:54] grade tonight, which is pretty amazing.
[54:57] >> Mine did too.
[54:59] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[55:04] Well, the ceremony's over, so they're
[55:06] all at Woodman's now.
[55:11] » All right. So, we have been through the
[55:14] waiverss.
[55:16] I will take a motion to grant a waiver
[55:18] of strict compliance with the
[55:20] requirements of the section of town of
[55:21] Essex rules and regulations relative to
[55:23] subdivision control in accordance with
[55:25] Massachusetts general laws chapter 41
[55:28] section 81R and town of Essex rules and
[55:30] regulations relative to subdivision
[55:32] control 1.3 and after finding that is in
[55:35] the public interest and not inconsistent
[55:37] with the intent and purpose of the
[55:38] subdivision control law as written in
[55:41] the definitive subdivision plan
[55:42] decision. Take a motion.
[55:47] » So moved.
[55:48] >> Thank you, Beth. Second.
[55:51] >> Second.
[55:52] >> Thank you, Shelley. This is a roll call
[55:54] vote.
[55:57] >> Ser.
[55:59] >> Beth Walsh. I.
[56:01] >> Simone Early. I.
[56:03] >> Shelley Bradbury. I
[56:04] >> Ariel Brain Day.
[56:07] >> Lisa O'Donnell. I
[56:12] the motion passes 52 one.
[56:19] All right. So now we move into
[56:24] Sorry, I have too much paper here.
[56:35] Now we move into a review of the
[56:38] decision itself. So the waiverss were
[56:42] listed on I'm I'm again going to the big
[56:45] version here. Um
[56:50] and then on page five here the um
[56:54] conditions start.
[57:01] So um
[57:04] I don't know how much detail you guys
[57:06] want to go through these. I'm willing to
[57:09] talk through anything
[57:12] um that you have questions on. What I
[57:14] will do is just sort of um bounce
[57:17] through them and if we get to something
[57:18] that you want to talk about um
[57:23] we will stop and do that.
[57:26] So uh the first condition just
[57:30] references a special permit which is
[57:33] sort of a formality.
[57:34] >> Can we start before that line?
[57:37] >> I'm sorry.
[57:37] >> Can we start before that line? So, where
[57:40] it says the planning board approves the
[57:41] definitive plan dated blah blah blah
[57:43] subject to the following conditions. Um,
[57:47] who's going to verify the conditions are
[57:50] met?
[57:52] Bill, can we say as verified or in some
[57:56] language that says the building
[57:58] inspector will verify it?
[58:05] » I mean, right now it's has no
[58:08] person signed
[58:11] >> doesn't it?
[58:13] >> Madame Chair,
[58:16] >> the um you're going to have both the
[58:19] building inspector who enforces the
[58:21] zoning and your you're going to have
[58:24] like a clerk or the works person that's
[58:26] inspecting on behalf of the planning
[58:28] board. So, it's not just Bill because
[58:30] he's doing the zoning. um it's going to
[58:33] be the unit personal inspector whoever
[58:36] that might be
[58:38] >> but I don't think it's necessary to
[58:40] specify it in the decision
[58:44] but if so in all decisions right there I
[58:48] feel there should be one person who is
[58:51] the control that says okay verified you
[58:54] know if it's the building and the clerk
[58:57] of the works if it's bill and it's DPW I
[59:01] mean who's who's in charge.
[59:03] >> It's going to vary depending on the
[59:05] condition. So, I I don't think you can
[59:07] have one individual person that's
[59:10] responsible. You could say that um
[59:13] you're going to have the, you know, uh
[59:16] you yourselves are going to verify some
[59:18] of it. So, but then we're going to have each one have who's associated
[59:23] with the verification. I feel I mean
[59:26] otherwise
[59:27] >> there's like there are several on here
[59:30] that I'm like who is checking this? Is
[59:32] it us? Is it Bill?
[59:33] >> That's not a normal part of a of a
[59:35] decision. And so I I uh respectfully
[59:38] disagree.
[59:43] » I know I'm going to be sorry for saying
[59:45] this,
[59:46] but the ultimate decision comes with me.
[59:50] So you hire a clerk of works who's going
[59:52] to go out and monitor this. he has a
[59:54] question whether something needs
[59:56] answering, it's going to come back to me
[59:58] to make that decision.
[59:59] >> I mean that's I agree with
[1:00:01] >> the reality is there a lot of people who
[1:00:03] are going to be through this and they're
[1:00:04] just going to do their job and assure
[1:00:06] that everything's correct.
[1:00:08] >> Right.
[1:00:09] >> Which is different than being the person
[1:00:11] who is responsible to say yes it was
[1:00:15] done no matter who checked it. Right.
[1:00:18] >> Right. So ultimately that would be me
[1:00:20] because that falls onto my job
[1:00:22] >> to assure that everything was done
[1:00:24] correctly.
[1:00:25] >> And you're saying that's just
[1:00:26] understood?
[1:00:28] >> Yeah, I think it's understood and I
[1:00:30] think
[1:00:30] >> understood. Yeah. Okay. So we're going
[1:00:32] to look to you to say yes, it was all
[1:00:34] verified.
[1:00:34] >> Yes.
[1:00:35] >> Okay. Um
[1:00:43] and then
[1:00:45] I also feel that the conditions should
[1:00:49] be submitted with any request
[1:00:53] uh regarding the subdivision. So that
[1:00:56] say there is a zoning request that the
[1:01:00] list of conditions is part of every
[1:01:02] request that comes out of the
[1:01:03] subdivision.
[1:01:05] Uh I don't know where we put something
[1:01:07] like that in so that there isn't this
[1:01:10] backend
[1:01:14] where is it who had it you know there's
[1:01:18] going to be let's say in 15 years
[1:01:20] they're making changes you're not here
[1:01:23] you don't know you know whoever is
[1:01:28] » so this will be recorded and you know it
[1:01:32] will be in the chain of title of each
[1:01:34] lot that's sold out. Um
[1:01:36] >> so whenever they're submitting something
[1:01:38] to zoning, it'll go with it.
[1:01:40] >> Oh, definitely. Okay.
[1:01:41] >> Yep.
[1:01:43] >> Particularly because it's an Oh, I'm
[1:01:45] sorry.
[1:01:45] >> You're talking about this decision gets
[1:01:47] recorded, right?
[1:01:48] >> Particularly because it's an OSRD which
[1:01:50] allows for reduced lots, you know,
[1:01:53] allows for some zoning um relaxation of
[1:01:56] zoning.
[1:01:57] >> So, it would definitely be um
[1:02:01] >> later. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thanks.
[1:02:11] So the second condition talks about the
[1:02:15] water resource protection overlay
[1:02:17] district and the first two conditions
[1:02:20] define um and mo most of the language
[1:02:24] here is is explaining and um
[1:02:28] memorializing what is and is not allowed
[1:02:31] for each lot. So that there's a table on
[1:02:33] um sheet 27 that has um an imperous
[1:02:38] cover percentage of 10 that meets the
[1:02:41] 10% of the whole lot and that's the
[1:02:43] basis of the storm water management
[1:02:44] system. So the language in here says
[1:02:46] that you are allowed uh a property owner
[1:02:49] is allowed up to it's not 10% of his lot
[1:02:52] because it's a number that relates to
[1:02:54] the 10% coverage of the total lot is
[1:02:57] allowed by right that number because
[1:02:59] that's what the storm water management
[1:03:01] system has been designed for. There's
[1:03:04] also a 15% maximum cap um that is given
[1:03:08] in the wetland
[1:03:11] water resource protection overlay
[1:03:12] district. And if anyone were ever to
[1:03:16] exceed that 15% cap, that's a special
[1:03:18] permit that comes before this board. So
[1:03:21] the other set of numbers is a 15% cap.
[1:03:24] And both of these numbers will be
[1:03:26] recorded on the deed of each property.
[1:03:28] It's recorded in these drawings and it's
[1:03:30] recorded on the um it's recorded in this
[1:03:33] decision and recorded on the drawings um
[1:03:36] on sheet 27.
[1:03:38] Uh, and it's the language in here spells
[1:03:42] out that if someone um
[1:03:47] exceeds the 10%, so there's somewhere
[1:03:50] between 10 and 15% of the lot coverage,
[1:03:53] they need to provide additional storm
[1:03:54] water mitigation because that additional
[1:03:57] coverage is not supported by the storm
[1:03:59] water mitigation
[1:04:01] uh design of the subdivision.
[1:04:04] And that that language will carry with
[1:04:06] the deeds as well. and each there's a
[1:04:09] condition that requires each plot plan
[1:04:13] each site plan to have those two areas
[1:04:16] listed on the site plan. Then that that
[1:04:19] comes in with any kind of a building
[1:04:20] permit. There's also a condition in
[1:04:23] here. The last one says the homeowner
[1:04:27] document shall include requirements that
[1:04:28] any new impervious surface not subject
[1:04:31] to a building permit which would be a
[1:04:33] shed, patio, acc grade, deck or walkway
[1:04:36] which are things that don't trigger
[1:04:38] building permit but are impervious is
[1:04:41] subject to prior approval by the HOA. So
[1:04:44] for those things that aren't controlled
[1:04:45] by a building permit, we still have a
[1:04:47] condition in here that would require the
[1:04:49] HOA to approve that and submit that to
[1:04:51] the building department that they have
[1:04:53] not exceeded their 10% of coverage. And
[1:04:58] then if they do exceed the 10% of
[1:04:59] coverage, they're um coming back with
[1:05:01] additional storm water mitigation
[1:05:03] measures on their property.
[1:05:06] >> I just have one question that I just
[1:05:09] need clarifying because I don't
[1:05:10] understand it. Um
[1:05:14] the facility is built for 10%.
[1:05:16] >> Correct. Yep.
[1:05:18] >> Any extra of an individual lot they have
[1:05:22] to mitigate.
[1:05:23] This is the point where I don't
[1:05:25] understand in the mitigation of that
[1:05:27] particular lot storm water where or
[1:05:29] runoff won't it just all
[1:05:33] go towards
[1:05:35] it's it's how fast it runs off because
[1:05:38] yes all the storm water someday is going
[1:05:40] to flow down the hill but what
[1:05:42] impervious surfaces do is increase how
[1:05:44] fast it sheds. So, if you add a patio
[1:05:48] that's going to shed the rain faster,
[1:05:50] then you may need to go add a rain
[1:05:51] garden at the edge of your property
[1:05:53] that's going to capture that before it
[1:05:55] gets to the storm water management
[1:05:57] system of the whole subdivision.
[1:05:59] >> Right. But where does that rainwater
[1:06:02] then water go?
[1:06:03] >> It still goes into the ground because it
[1:06:05] would do that
[1:06:05] >> property. But it all the rain water is
[1:06:08] going to all go into the ground. Sure.
[1:06:10] >> Everywhere anyway, but it's just the
[1:06:12] rate at which it flows.
[1:06:13] >> Okay. Okay. And so those those rain
[1:06:15] gardens that we see from time to time
[1:06:16] when we're doing properties in the
[1:06:18] wetland protection, it's just a it's a big sponge that's going to sit
[1:06:21] there and hold things so that they seep
[1:06:23] out at a slower rate that's more. So if you picture the an undeveloped parcel
[1:06:29] and it rains on it, there's a rate that
[1:06:30] the storm water soaks into the ground
[1:06:32] and they're just basically trying to
[1:06:34] mimic that by an area that sheds storm
[1:06:37] water. Somehow it's captured so that it
[1:06:39] is diffused into the ground at the same
[1:06:41] rate and you're not getting runoff or
[1:06:42] erosion, that kind of thing.
[1:06:44] >> Understood. Thank you.
[1:06:48] >> Did that make sense, Bill?
[1:06:50] >> Yes.
[1:06:51] >> Was very well experience,
[1:06:52] >> right?
[1:06:53] >> I think it was a very good job
[1:06:54] explaining it.
[1:06:56] >> So that's that's what someone would have
[1:06:58] to do on their property. You know, we
[1:06:59] we've seen we we did that house down on
[1:07:01] um Redgate Road or something. I forget
[1:07:03] where where they had to put in that
[1:07:04] little storm water swale around because
[1:07:06] they were adding a garage or something.
[1:07:08] So, they just basically had to slow the
[1:07:11] water down that came off of the garage
[1:07:12] before it could leave the
[1:07:13] >> Yeah, I understand all that. It was just
[1:07:15] like 36 houses and everyone's adjusting
[1:07:18] and everything's going down. I just
[1:07:20] didn't understand
[1:07:21] >> that. That's what the whole storm water
[1:07:22] system is is for and that's why we have
[1:07:24] all these drainage basins and all that
[1:07:26] stuff on the property just to retain it.
[1:07:29] It's a retention basin that actually
[1:07:31] holds it long enough to allow it to seep
[1:07:33] at a natural rate instead of a runoff
[1:07:35] rate.
[1:07:36] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:38] >> So, does anyone have questions on any of
[1:07:41] the pieces parts in section two?
[1:07:43] Condition two.
[1:07:50] So condition three is the one that we
[1:07:52] touched on earlier
[1:07:54] that basically says um don't mess up the
[1:07:58] wetlands protection overlay district as
[1:08:00] long as that lives. So typically work in
[1:08:02] or near wetlands is governed by the
[1:08:04] wetland protection act. So
[1:08:06] um it should be noted that any
[1:08:08] activities restricted by this overlay
[1:08:10] district or future encroachments into
[1:08:12] areas denoted on the reference map shall
[1:08:14] be prohibited. So that's really just
[1:08:15] sort of um
[1:08:19] addressing the fact that there are
[1:08:22] basic what what shows up on the 1974
[1:08:25] maps is the area of Alwife Brook that's
[1:08:27] on the sort of southwest corner of the
[1:08:29] property that's in the open space
[1:08:31] anyway. So this is just in case
[1:08:33] nothing's going to happen there anyway
[1:08:35] but this is just in case.
[1:08:40] Then there's several conditions in item
[1:08:42] four which include things that are going
[1:08:45] to be updated on the set of drawings. So
[1:08:47] we have a set of drawings right now
[1:08:49] that's been submitted. It is the record
[1:08:50] drawings. The process from here out
[1:08:54] assuming that we um vote in favor of
[1:08:58] this decision which puts the
[1:09:01] restrictions on the the next steps of
[1:09:03] the development. um they come back with
[1:09:06] a set of myars that we look like with
[1:09:10] it's like what we usually use for the
[1:09:12] ANRS and that that's the record set
[1:09:14] that's the endorsed set that's the sign
[1:09:16] set we'll sign
[1:09:18] so between now and when they come back
[1:09:20] with the they won't be back with the
[1:09:22] endorsed plans until the appeal period
[1:09:24] has expired and or if there are any
[1:09:27] appeals until those are resolved and
[1:09:29] then when the either the appeal period
[1:09:30] has expired or any appeals have been
[1:09:33] resolved D, they will come back to us
[1:09:35] with a set of plans to be endorsed. And
[1:09:38] at that point, we check these additional
[1:09:40] conditions which are listed here to make
[1:09:42] sure that those are being incorporated
[1:09:43] into the plans you're going to endorse.
[1:09:48] And so some of these are just these
[1:09:50] actually came mostly out of the Weston
[1:09:51] and Samson review for some details that
[1:09:53] need to be filled in.
[1:09:56] And the question we had here, and this
[1:09:58] is for Val and or Amy, this talks about
[1:10:00] the planning board covenant, and the
[1:10:01] covenant should be recorded with the
[1:10:03] plans. So, I'm just looking for someone
[1:10:05] to explain other than me what the
[1:10:08] covenant is and how that gets recorded
[1:10:10] with the plans.
[1:10:12] >> Where are you reading this
[1:10:13] >> now? Sure. Um, under subdivision control
[1:10:18] law, there's a thing called a planning
[1:10:20] board covenant, which is where the
[1:10:22] future developer promises not to sell
[1:10:24] individual lots unless and until they
[1:10:28] have built enough of the roadway that you're allowing them to release the
[1:10:34] lots from the the um covenant. So,
[1:10:37] they're um the covenant is is a standard
[1:10:41] sub subdivision control.
[1:10:44] um paper or agreement that's part of
[1:10:48] subdivision rules and regulations and
[1:10:51] this um guidance. It's the same for
[1:10:55] every town and you normally would enter
[1:10:58] into that covenant prior to endorsing
[1:10:59] the plans and you would do that here and
[1:11:03] then have that be recorded with the
[1:11:05] plans. And the reason why is that if it
[1:11:07] isn't noted on the loting sheet, um it's
[1:11:11] easier for someone to try to sell an
[1:11:13] individual lot to a buyer who would then
[1:11:16] not be protected in terms of having um
[1:11:19] adequate ways and facilities constructed
[1:11:21] to support the home.
[1:11:24] >> Okay. So that's something that we'll be
[1:11:26] working on between now and when the
[1:11:29] endorsed plans surface that we would
[1:11:33] prepare with you and Amy and get that
[1:11:35] squared away.
[1:11:36] >> Okay.
[1:11:36] >> Yeah. It's like a a simple two or three
[1:11:38] page document that um is standard and uh
[1:11:42] we would provide that to the applicant
[1:11:45] to uh sign before they come in and then
[1:11:48] um before they came in for endorsement
[1:11:51] and then at the same night you would
[1:11:54] vote to um enter into the covenant and
[1:11:57] then you would vote to um endorse the
[1:12:00] plants.
[1:12:02] >> Okay. Do you guys have any questions on
[1:12:04] that?
[1:12:06] What number are you on?
[1:12:07] >> You have anything to add?
[1:12:09] >> Okay.
[1:12:09] It is 4 A. All right.
[1:12:11] >> I'm sorry.
[1:12:13] >> Who writes that? Does Amy write that or
[1:12:15] does the
[1:12:16] >> It's standard language, so we're just
[1:12:18] going to adapt it. We your town planner
[1:12:20] will do it and we can vet it with Amy.
[1:12:23] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:12:28] » Um planning lists will be updated to
[1:12:32] exclude invasives.
[1:12:35] Um,
[1:12:37] >> of course I have comments on that.
[1:12:39] >> I'm sorry.
[1:12:39] >> I have a comment on that. I was supposed
[1:12:41] to email you some other language, but I
[1:12:44] did not. Um, I don't I don't think that is quite accurate. I think it
[1:12:50] should say street trees because there's
[1:12:53] no other planting identified on this
[1:12:55] plan shall be modified to exclude
[1:12:59] species listed as invasive or likely
[1:13:03] invasive as determined by
[1:13:06] MIP a which is meag which is the
[1:13:09] Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory
[1:13:11] Group. Um,
[1:13:14] I would like to add that they should be
[1:13:18] native to the northeast, but that gets
[1:13:21] into sort of our discussion on lamposts.
[1:13:24] And I don't know what travels over to
[1:13:27] allowable recommendations versus design
[1:13:30] choices.
[1:13:32] So, whatever you're requiring here is
[1:13:34] going to be within the infrastructure.
[1:13:36] So, for example, it would be um anything
[1:13:40] in the right of way of the street. It
[1:13:42] would be anything in the um in the
[1:13:44] drainage facilities, anything like that.
[1:13:46] I don't see any problem with your with
[1:13:48] your proposed condition.
[1:13:50] >> Great.
[1:13:50] >> But I didn't get it. So I maybe you can
[1:13:53] write it down.
[1:13:54] >> Yeah, I I actually emailed you and
[1:13:56] Teresa something, but I've already
[1:13:57] revised it because I didn't include
[1:13:58] MEPAG, but I think they're the legal
[1:14:01] source for invasive plants in
[1:14:03] Massachusetts. So,
[1:14:04] >> but Beth, would you don't you think
[1:14:06] plantings would be more a broader
[1:14:09] not just the trees because we're talking
[1:14:11] about areas where the you know any
[1:14:14] essentially infrastructure area. So,
[1:14:16] there could be
[1:14:16] >> tension ponds.
[1:14:18] >> I guess it could say we could keep
[1:14:20] landscape planting, but none of that is
[1:14:23] shown on this on our plan that we're
[1:14:25] approving now. So, I'm not clear on what
[1:14:28] >> I I would keep it broad. I would say
[1:14:29] landscape planting and I would say
[1:14:31] landscape planting and street trees.
[1:14:33] >> Exactly. Yep.
[1:14:34] >> And if there is no landscape planning,
[1:14:36] so what?
[1:14:36] >> Right.
[1:14:37] >> Okay.
[1:14:39] >> Um, so will you
[1:14:42] >> I'm sending it right now.
[1:14:43] >> Will that carry over to landscape
[1:14:45] planting that's done on the property?
[1:14:47] >> No.
[1:14:48] We can't control
[1:14:49] >> street zone,
[1:14:51] >> but I thought we talked about the
[1:14:52] retention ponds having plantings sort of
[1:14:55] around it that
[1:14:58] >> you can monitor those.
[1:15:00] >> That would be
[1:15:00] >> great because those
[1:15:02] are in easements. Yeah,
[1:15:03] >> that's that's infrastructure.
[1:15:05] >> So, we're not putting fragmitees out in
[1:15:06] the
[1:15:07] >> No. So, I I think we should include the
[1:15:09] retention ponds like
[1:15:10] >> Right.
[1:15:11] >> And that would fall under landscape
[1:15:12] plantings.
[1:15:13] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:15:14] >> Yeah. That's why I want to keep
[1:15:15] landscape.
[1:15:15] >> When do we review those?
[1:15:17] >> I'm sorry.
[1:15:18] >> When do they when do we see those or
[1:15:21] review those
[1:15:23] >> the plans?
[1:15:24] >> Prior to endorsement.
[1:15:27] >> What's that?
[1:15:28] >> Prior to endorsement.
[1:15:28] of the plans. Yeah.
[1:15:43] So, will you just read that out loud for
[1:15:44] us again, please? I'm not going to try
[1:15:46] and write it down because you're going
[1:15:47] to send it, but when we vote on this, we
[1:15:49] have to
[1:15:50] >> landscape reference. Land, it should say
[1:15:52] landscape plantings shall be modified to
[1:15:55] exclude planting.
[1:15:56] >> Oh, Beth, I'm so sorry.
[1:15:58] >> It should landscape plantings and street
[1:16:00] trees. Yeah.
[1:16:01] >> Landscape plantings and street trees
[1:16:03] shall be modified to exclude plants
[1:16:06] listed as invasive or likely invasive as
[1:16:09] identified by MIP. I call it my PAG, but
[1:16:14] I don't know. Anyway, and should be
[1:16:16] native to the Northeast United States
[1:16:24] » and you are emailing that
[1:16:27] >> right this minute.
[1:16:28] >> Okay.
[1:16:30] Does that sound reasonable?
[1:16:31] >> Yes.
[1:16:32] >> Okay.
[1:16:33] >> Board members.
[1:16:34] >> Yep.
[1:16:38] » Um, drainage easements shall be updated
[1:16:40] and accurately shown on the loting
[1:16:42] plans. That's just a final detail that
[1:16:45] the applicant needs to take care of,
[1:16:47] which they're aware of. Um, rip wrap
[1:16:49] shall be added to FES8 was a comment
[1:16:52] from the peer reviewer.
[1:16:55] >> What's FES8
[1:16:57] >> plan?
[1:17:02] Is it is it a page number?
[1:17:03] >> Yeah, it's a page.
[1:17:04] >> No, it's
[1:17:05] >> I mean it's not a on the title block.
[1:17:08] So,
[1:17:08] >> wouldn't it be
[1:17:09] >> Isn't it a plan?
[1:17:11] >> Because they want it shown on Oh, added
[1:17:14] is that might be
[1:17:16] >> Can we just add Can we just add the page
[1:17:19] number to go with it?
[1:17:20] >> Fing.
[1:17:24] » Yeah, this was a comment eight. This was
[1:17:26] a comment from the peer reviewer that
[1:17:29] frankly I just translated because it was
[1:17:32] just an omission on the plans. So um
[1:17:37] » be down at the end if it's anywhere.
[1:17:41] >> Do you know where FE8 is?
[1:17:42] >> It's
[1:17:47] what plan are we looking at? We really
[1:17:49] can't on two.
[1:17:54] » If the applicant knows where this is, a comment that came from the
[1:17:57] peer review and I just copied it down
[1:17:59] because it's one thing that
[1:18:00] >> Yeah. No, I get it. I just think we
[1:18:02] should, you know, know where it is so
[1:18:05] that
[1:18:07] >> whoever helps reviewing it can
[1:18:10] >> What? Jesse's here. Jesse's going to
[1:18:12] weigh in for us. Thank you, Jesse.
[1:18:14] >> Sure. For the record, Jesse Johnson,
[1:18:16] Weston, and Samson. So I believe that's
[1:18:18] pond 2P that is shown on sheet 30 of 58.
[1:18:25] It's an outlet the drainage outlet that
[1:18:27] discharges into that pond that just did
[1:18:30] not show rip wrap like all the other
[1:18:33] FPS's or outlet pipes did show it. That
[1:18:36] was just one that um was missed. We're
[1:18:38] suggesting it comment is fine. I just
[1:18:41] want to locate it. That's all
[1:18:44] comment.
[1:18:49] Thank you, Jesse.
[1:18:59] » Is it this right here?
[1:19:01] >> Is that panto?
[1:19:03] >> F2.
[1:19:04] >> F8.
[1:19:08] I think that we can leave the comment as
[1:19:10] it is and Bill can work with um Jesse or
[1:19:14] the applicant afterwards to confirm
[1:19:16] exactly where he needs to check.
[1:19:18] >> Yeah. I mean, even if we just put on
[1:19:20] sheet
[1:19:21] >> 30 and 58.
[1:19:22] >> Yeah,
[1:19:23] >> that's what I have. F8.
[1:19:26] >> Yeah.
[1:19:31] » Okay. So it would be rip wrap shall be
[1:19:32] added to fees8 on sheets 30 and 58.
[1:19:37] >> 30 of 58.
[1:19:38] >> Oh 30 of 58. Sorry. Okay.
[1:19:48] F E S8 and then on sheet on sheet 30 of
[1:19:52] 58
[1:19:54] and then
[1:20:01] 30 of 58.
[1:20:02] >> Y okay.
[1:20:07] » And that was pond two.
[1:20:10] >> Yes.
[1:20:14] So that will be read rip wrap shall be
[1:20:17] added to fees8
[1:20:19] in pond two on sheet 30 of it's actually
[1:20:23] 57 sheets now one was deleted
[1:20:26] >> just do page 30 sheet 30
[1:20:28] >> just do sheet 30
[1:20:29] >> okay so just sheet 30 period
[1:20:35] » number
[1:20:39] » yeah
[1:20:42] the the the
[1:20:43] >> Yeah, the page numbers.
[1:20:46] >> Yeah, it was a
[1:20:50] » Okay,
[1:20:55] » we have sheet 30 pine two on sheet 30.
[1:20:59] >> I just want to ask this question. I
[1:21:01] guess sheet sheet 35 is a tree planting
[1:21:04] plan
[1:21:05] >> is what
[1:21:06] >> tree planting plan.
[1:21:09] Is there any other landscaping that's
[1:21:11] going to take place? Do we need to show
[1:21:13] landscaping on the
[1:21:15] >> hearing is closed? We can't talk to the
[1:21:16] applicant anymore. Really? I mean this
[1:21:18] is that
[1:21:19] >> No, I thought I was talking to you.
[1:21:20] Okay.
[1:21:20] >> Yeah. We determined that there's no
[1:21:22] other landscaping shown in the set.
[1:21:24] >> So in the drainage ponds and all that
[1:21:26] there's no landscaping shown.
[1:21:28] >> No.
[1:21:30] So that will be shown prior to
[1:21:31] endorsement.
[1:21:33] >> Okay, that's what I was
[1:21:34] >> That's what we added.
[1:21:34] >> That's what I want to make sure.
[1:21:35] >> So that's what we just added under um
[1:21:39] under 4B.
[1:21:41] >> So we are going to see a tree we're
[1:21:42] going to see a planting plan, not a tree
[1:21:45] planting plan,
[1:21:48] >> landscape plantings.
[1:21:50] >> So did but did we say that we want
[1:21:52] >> No. If you want a if you actually want a
[1:21:54] landscaping
[1:21:56] >> a landscape planting plan for all of the
[1:21:59] infrastructure that needs to be a
[1:22:01] condition because you do not necessarily
[1:22:03] have that right now.
[1:22:05] >> All we have is landscape planting shall
[1:22:07] be modified
[1:22:09] >> you know to exclude planting. So I think
[1:22:11] that actually assumes there will be a
[1:22:13] plan because where else would they be
[1:22:14] showing it? that I think you can put.
[1:22:17] So, going back to 4B
[1:22:19] >> landscaping plan,
[1:22:19] >> you can put um a landscaping plan shall
[1:22:22] be provided
[1:22:24] to show and then Beth's condition.
[1:22:35] » So, did you
[1:22:35] >> I'm not clear that my condition
[1:22:38] identifies the drainage infrastructure
[1:22:41] at all.
[1:22:42] >> Right. So we
[1:22:43] >> I mean are are you planning to plant
[1:22:45] that? I mean it's likely they could just
[1:22:47] Sorry. They could just be seeding that
[1:22:49] with a with a seed mix. I mean we
[1:22:54] haven't we haven't discussed it. We
[1:22:56] haven't identified that infrastructure.
[1:22:58] So we could
[1:23:00] >> we should know what they're planting it
[1:23:02] with.
[1:23:02] >> We really should. Yeah. So,
[1:23:06] a landscaping plan shall be provided to
[1:23:10] um designate
[1:23:14] um landscape plantings and street trees
[1:23:19] uh to and to exclude.
[1:23:22] So what I sent hold on sorry I can just
[1:23:25] pull just sent you.
[1:23:29] >> So what I sent the language says
[1:23:31] landscape plantings in street trees
[1:23:32] shall be modified to exclude plants
[1:23:35] listed as invasive or likely invasive as
[1:23:38] identified by my all selected plants and
[1:23:41] street trees shall be native to the
[1:23:43] northeast United States. Right. So we
[1:23:45] need to add before that that a
[1:23:46] landscaping plan shall be provided
[1:23:49] >> for all infrastructure areas.
[1:23:51] >> Yes.
[1:23:54] And if they're just seating those areas,
[1:23:57] they just show seated areas.
[1:23:58] >> Correct. I mean, ideally they'd share a
[1:24:00] seed mix.
[1:24:02] >> Yes.
[1:24:02] >> Yeah. I think it's good to get the seed
[1:24:03] mixing plant shall be provided for all
[1:24:08] infrastructure,
[1:24:09] >> but is there a certain percentage
[1:24:13] of landscaping that should be met?
[1:24:18] >> You don't have any requirements of it. I
[1:24:21] mean,
[1:24:22] >> could we request that?
[1:24:23] >> It's just how about if it's just like
[1:24:26] >> it could be the bare minimum. Like would
[1:24:30] shouldn't there be a percentage that
[1:24:32] they have to at least have
[1:24:35] >> have what?
[1:24:37] >> Plantings,
[1:24:39] trees.
[1:24:39] >> We don't have any requirement in our
[1:24:41] rules and regulations that talk about
[1:24:43] that. We can't
[1:24:44] >> we can't request like for example a
[1:24:47] landscape architect be involved in the
[1:24:49] certain
[1:24:50] >> we could but not not a week before the
[1:24:53] deadline
[1:24:55] I mean this is you know if that if that
[1:24:58] would have been something to talk about
[1:25:00] really at the preliminary plan stage
[1:25:01] when we were
[1:25:03] >> why can't we why can't we
[1:25:06] add it
[1:25:08] >> we have six days before they get a
[1:25:10] constructive approval
[1:25:11] >> no I Can I
[1:25:14] >> It's Go ahead, Bill.
[1:25:17] >> I was just going to offer that a lot of
[1:25:19] times what we'll say is the landscape
[1:25:21] plan shall be um
[1:25:25] shall be provided by a landscape
[1:25:27] architect or other qualified
[1:25:29] professional. And then that that just
[1:25:32] indicates that it's not going to be um
[1:25:38] an unqualified plan and that it would
[1:25:40] show you for all infrastructure areas.
[1:25:44] That way you're getting if they have a
[1:25:46] landscape architect on board, that
[1:25:48] person would be doing it. If if they
[1:25:50] don't, they'd have somebody who's
[1:25:52] qualified and knowledgeable about plants
[1:25:54] putting it together.
[1:25:56] You know, if you saw that it was being
[1:25:58] prepared by a a sewer professional, you
[1:26:01] could say, "I I object to this sewer
[1:26:04] professional's landscape plan."
[1:26:09] » Amy,
[1:26:11] >> yeah, I I agree with Val. Um there I
[1:26:13] don't think that at this stage we could
[1:26:16] require certain areas be planted,
[1:26:19] certain areas not be planted. Um or
[1:26:23] percentage. I don't know how we can
[1:26:25] calculate that
[1:26:26] >> but we can request we we can require an
[1:26:29] architect landscape design
[1:26:33] >> uh a yeah submitted by a landscape
[1:26:35] architect or qualified individual is
[1:26:37] fine.
[1:26:37] >> Yeah.
[1:26:38] >> Okay. So we can add that
[1:26:39] >> a landscaping plan prepared by a
[1:26:41] qualified professional should be
[1:26:43] provided
[1:26:45] to
[1:26:46] >> for all in for all infrastructure areas.
[1:26:53] Then she'll designate landscape
[1:26:55] plantings and street trees.
[1:26:58] >> And then best sentence about the
[1:27:01] invasive
[1:27:04] » you say by a qualified landscape
[1:27:08] professional,
[1:27:10] >> right? Could prepare by a qualified
[1:27:12] landscape professional.
[1:27:15] >> Why don't we say landscape architect or
[1:27:17] qualified landscape professional?
[1:27:26] by a landscape architect or qualified
[1:27:31] landscape professional.
[1:27:44] » So, it's going to say a landscaping
[1:27:46] plan.
[1:27:48] >> Landscaped plan. Landscape
[1:27:51] >> plan.
[1:27:52] >> Yeah, landscape, not landscape.
[1:27:54] >> Okay.
[1:27:54] >> A landscape plan.
[1:27:56] >> They're always called landscaping plans.
[1:27:58] >> No,
[1:28:00] >> it's landscape.
[1:28:01] >> That's a landscape architect. And I'm
[1:28:02] not going to argue.
[1:28:04] >> Maybe. I was going to say maybe by
[1:28:06] lawyers.
[1:28:07] >> I guess I'm always saying it wrong.
[1:28:09] >> Yes,
[1:28:10] >> that's how I always put it in my
[1:28:12] decision. Landscaping plan. So, it
[1:28:13] should be a landscape plan.
[1:28:16] prepared by a landscape
[1:28:19] architect or qualified professional
[1:28:23] shall be provided for all infrastructure
[1:28:26] areas and shall designate landscape
[1:28:29] plantings and street trees.
[1:28:32] And then we'll add Beth sentence about
[1:28:34] invasive species and native to the
[1:28:37] northeast.
[1:28:39] >> Oh yeah, qualified landscape
[1:28:41] professional, right?
[1:28:44] We don't want
[1:28:44] >> So be prepared by a landscape architect
[1:28:47] or qualified
[1:28:48] >> landscape professional.
[1:28:49] >> Qualified landscape. Okay. Yep. I have
[1:28:52] that. I just missed that because I have
[1:28:53] landscape twice. So landscape architect
[1:28:56] or a qualified landscape professional.
[1:29:00] >> Sounds good. All right.
[1:29:03] Moving on. At the top of the next page, six, um e monuments shall be shown
[1:29:08] on the loading plan. That's just another
[1:29:11] um detail that the applicant realizes
[1:29:13] they have to add. Um
[1:29:16] we took final signage plans and details
[1:29:21] out of prior to endorsement and had has
[1:29:25] added so we're still going to see them
[1:29:27] just not before endorsement. So we'll
[1:29:29] still have an opportunity to review
[1:29:30] those. And so um that has been added on
[1:29:35] the very last page under other
[1:29:37] conditions is number 30 says final
[1:29:39] signage plans in detail shall be shown
[1:29:41] on the construction plans rather than
[1:29:43] the endorsement plans.
[1:29:46] >> So they're still in there. It's just not
[1:29:47] prior to endorsement. I was just curious
[1:29:49] what the change was, why you decided,
[1:29:52] >> there's already signs shown in there and
[1:29:53] there's just just an opportunity to
[1:29:55] develop them and it's it's something
[1:29:56] we'll see before they go up and it's
[1:29:58] just more time to put them in the
[1:30:01] construction plans
[1:30:08] provide the third party testing
[1:30:10] reference from NJC technology referenced
[1:30:13] in the review spon. So there was just in
[1:30:17] the whole storm water discussion between
[1:30:19] the applicant and our peer reviewer,
[1:30:21] there was a reference to a testing
[1:30:23] standard that um the reply was based on
[1:30:27] and that just needs to be transmitted to
[1:30:29] the peer reviewer and we'll get a copy
[1:30:31] of that. Can we uh extend the initials
[1:30:35] for NJCAT
[1:30:37] uh to the long form you know the
[1:30:40] accessible
[1:30:41] the acceptable accessible standard for
[1:30:44] documents that will post
[1:30:47] recommend that you have the full
[1:30:50] language. So
[1:30:51] >> So you're saying you want what the the
[1:30:53] acronym stands for? Right.
[1:30:54] >> Okay. I will find that out and I will
[1:30:56] add that. Wherever there's an acronym
[1:30:58] that doesn't have that somewhere at le
[1:31:02] » Well, the one that
[1:31:04] >> Oh, that she's going to spell that out.
[1:31:07] Massachusetts invasive something advisory group.
[1:31:10] >> Yeah, but you'll be giving all of the
[1:31:13] words.
[1:31:13] >> I mean, that's the only one I
[1:31:17] » just in case
[1:31:18] >> and and I I will get that from either
[1:31:20] peer reviewer or um the applicant to add
[1:31:23] that language in. But you're correct,
[1:31:24] Simone.
[1:31:26] NJC cat.
[1:31:32] Um then condition five, the water man
[1:31:35] shall be looped and connected to the
[1:31:36] existing main on Turtleback. That was in
[1:31:38] our draft. We've taken that out because
[1:31:40] Weston and Samson has confirmed that
[1:31:42] that's on the plans. So there's no need
[1:31:44] to condition it.
[1:31:47] The emergency access road shall include
[1:31:49] an automated gate at the end of
[1:31:50] turtleback extension at the end of the
[1:31:52] culde-sac road A within the subdivision
[1:31:56] limiting access to the emergency road to
[1:31:58] emergency vehicles and emergency egress
[1:32:02] ingress of private residents during an
[1:32:04] emergency only. The surface and design
[1:32:06] of the emergency access road shall be
[1:32:08] verified to be acceptable to the Essex
[1:32:10] Fire Department, Police Department and
[1:32:12] Department of Public Works. So this just
[1:32:15] a condition that before things get
[1:32:17] constructed that will be um
[1:32:20] go through the construction plans will
[1:32:22] go before the DPW fire department and
[1:32:26] police departments to review that.
[1:32:27] >> What is the standard they're going to be
[1:32:28] using?
[1:32:31] My only question is is we leave three
[1:32:33] different departments for three
[1:32:35] different approvals on a type of road.
[1:32:39] I see a problem with that. I'm picking
[1:32:42] anybody. I see three different opinions.
[1:32:44] >> What do you mean? What standards?
[1:32:45] >> It says the surface and design of the
[1:32:47] emergency access road shall be verified.
[1:32:50] >> Oh, the the three departments are going
[1:32:52] to have to agree on it.
[1:32:54] >> Yeah. Wouldn't it be better if we just
[1:32:56] put it to a standard of the subdivision
[1:32:58] standard road of 3 in or whatever we
[1:33:00] require?
[1:33:01] >> So, it's we know it's a paved road.
[1:33:03] That's where the fire department has
[1:33:04] made that statement. They want a paved
[1:33:06] road
[1:33:08] >> where it ties into turtle back. It's not
[1:33:10] ti it's not paved because that's not
[1:33:12] paved. No,
[1:33:14] >> I thought it was
[1:33:15] >> Yeah, it was going to be paved.
[1:33:16] >> I thought it was going to be paved all
[1:33:17] the way to That was the request of the
[1:33:19] fire department. Pave it all the way to
[1:33:20] Turtle Back.
[1:33:24] >> This is
[1:33:26] why I asked now.
[1:33:27] >> That's why I'm asking now.
[1:33:29] >> The fire department wants it paved
[1:33:31] >> and you can leave this as it is because
[1:33:33] the police department and the department
[1:33:34] of public works aren't going to argue
[1:33:35] about it being paved. It's really only
[1:33:37] if it's not paid that they're going to
[1:33:39] have determined they have to determine
[1:33:41] what's acceptable.
[1:33:42] >> I mean, if you want if you want to bring
[1:33:44] it down to just one department, it would
[1:33:45] be the fire department,
[1:33:47] >> right? But there's no reason that the
[1:33:49] DPW can't have a say in it, too.
[1:33:51] >> Right. How it's
[1:33:52] >> I would prefer to let everyone have a
[1:33:54] say in it. And and all of these people
[1:33:57] work with each other all the time. And
[1:33:58] I'm sure we can come to a consensus.
[1:34:00] >> The more restrictive interpretation, the
[1:34:02] more restrictive desire will prevail,
[1:34:04] >> right? and and so the DPW could worry
[1:34:07] about one thing and the fire department
[1:34:09] could worry about another. We need to
[1:34:11] meet make all of them happy.
[1:34:14] >> Okay.
[1:34:17] >> But can't we just say the paved surface
[1:34:20] and design just put paved
[1:34:23] >> this
[1:34:25] with what?
[1:34:25] >> Concrete as
[1:34:26] >> what's
[1:34:29] >> I would be surprised it the emergency
[1:34:32] roads are usually not paved. This one is
[1:34:35] >> because it's longer.
[1:34:37] >> This one is paved because it's steep and
[1:34:39] long.
[1:34:39] >> Okay.
[1:34:40] >> And it's paved for most of the distance,
[1:34:41] but right where it comes out on Turtle
[1:34:43] Back Road, it's in people's driveways.
[1:34:44] They all have gravel driveways now. So,
[1:34:46] that part I don't think is getting paid.
[1:34:48] We can clarify that. But this is the
[1:34:51] police and fire have the applicant has
[1:34:53] taken the plans to police and fire
[1:34:55] already and talked about it. So, they're
[1:34:57] okay with what's on the plans. I know
[1:34:59] that. I mean, I talked to them today. So
[1:35:01] the police the fire department's
[1:35:03] requiring it to be paved even though
[1:35:05] they're coming up a gravel road to get
[1:35:07] to it.
[1:35:08] >> But it's not it's it's just the driveway
[1:35:10] >> because of the steep.
[1:35:11] >> Yeah. The the the part that comes off at
[1:35:13] Turtle Back is fairly flat right now.
[1:35:15] That's where we walked out.
[1:35:17] >> But the the pitch up to the subdivision
[1:35:19] is going to be part of it is at 8%.
[1:35:22] >> I see. Um
[1:35:24] >> yeah, as long as they have jurisdiction
[1:35:25] over it, right? Doesn't matter. Well,
[1:35:27] but I mean the way this is written
[1:35:29] >> back road or turtleback What? It says
[1:35:31] road on the plan. Is it turtle back road
[1:35:33] or turtleback extension? What's
[1:35:35] >> turtle extension? I I think of turtle
[1:35:37] back as the
[1:35:38] >> the whole thing is turtle but it's
[1:35:40] turtleback extension on the loop where
[1:35:42] it comes in.
[1:35:43] >> Okay.
[1:35:52] Then the sixth condition just addresses
[1:35:55] our clerk of the works construction
[1:35:57] inspector
[1:35:59] to review the work on our behalf.
[1:36:06] » Why do we have two names?
[1:36:10] Why is it why isn't it just called clerk
[1:36:11] of the works everywhere? Because
[1:36:12] sometimes it's called representative,
[1:36:14] sometimes it's called construction
[1:36:15] inspector.
[1:36:16] >> It should be a third party inspector.
[1:36:18] >> It should be what? third party inspector
[1:36:20] is what it should be. But
[1:36:21] >> okay,
[1:36:21] >> so we're taking those both out and being
[1:36:23] third party inspector.
[1:36:24] >> But then we'd have to change it
[1:36:25] everywhere.
[1:36:26] >> Yeah,
[1:36:26] >> that's okay. That's what word searches
[1:36:28] for.
[1:36:28] >> And then the other thing is um Madam
[1:36:31] Chair, do we want to put in that um that
[1:36:34] it at the applicant's expense? Do we
[1:36:36] want to put in that it will be pursuant
[1:36:38] to um 4453G,
[1:36:41] which is the peer review account, and
[1:36:43] then if it gets down to a certain
[1:36:44] amount, they have to replenish it.
[1:36:46] That's in So that here. I thought I
[1:36:49] >> No, we haven't mentioned that anywhere.
[1:36:51] >> Okay.
[1:36:52] >> So, that um that's MGL.
[1:36:55] >> I can get this to you. Yes. So, it's um
[1:36:58] Yeah, it's MGL chapter 44 section 56 53
[1:37:03] G. And then
[1:37:04] >> right
[1:37:05] >> what we do is we come up with a um an
[1:37:08] initial amount which is usually um
[1:37:12] >> it can be anywhere between 25 and
[1:37:14] $10,000 and then if it gets down to 2500
[1:37:18] or 1500 they have to replenish it by up
[1:37:21] to to have it up to 5,000 at all times.
[1:37:25] >> Yeah. I was going to recommend that it
[1:37:26] be kept at a minimum during construction
[1:37:28] at 5,000.
[1:37:30] >> Okay.
[1:37:31] and I can provide that language.
[1:37:34] >> Um, I have it for most of my decisions.
[1:37:37] >> Okay.
[1:37:43] » Any questions on that?
[1:37:45] >> And is that the same thing as the
[1:37:47] performance security?
[1:37:49] >> Where are you looking?
[1:37:50] >> Where's that?
[1:37:51] >> That's much later. Number 32 references
[1:37:54] the performance security. And I just had
[1:37:56] a comment that we don't have anything
[1:37:57] that says anything about the performance
[1:37:58] security. That's different. Um, what you
[1:38:01] do have is the covenant. The covenant
[1:38:03] serves as your security until they want
[1:38:06] to post a co u a performance guarantee.
[1:38:10] >> I don't even see it.
[1:38:11] >> Uh, the top. Well, sorry.
[1:38:14] It's on the old one. Um, number 32.
[1:38:19] >> Which version?
[1:38:23] >> Maybe different now.
[1:38:25] >> It's different. I think
[1:38:26] >> site. It's right above site maintenance.
[1:38:28] Where is that? There it is. Number 28.
[1:38:36] » Oh, that that's different. Yeah,
[1:38:37] >> it's totally different. Yep. Okay.
[1:38:47] So, we're just going to add to
[1:38:50] condition six.
[1:38:56] Um, language that references Mass
[1:38:59] General chapter 44
[1:39:02] and Amy will get us at its standard
[1:39:05] reference.
[1:39:06] >> Yes.
[1:39:06] >> Okay.
[1:39:07] send myself an email.
[1:39:09] >> Yep. So, prior to construction, moving
[1:39:12] on to the next section,
[1:39:15] the boilerplate about being registered.
[1:39:21] Um,
[1:39:28] » I think that should say recorded.
[1:39:31] >> I'm sorry.
[1:39:33] >> I think the word there should be
[1:39:35] recorded.
[1:39:37] on on seven
[1:39:39] >> recorded or registered.
[1:39:42] >> Oh,
[1:39:43] >> there.
[1:39:46] » Um I'm not clear. Oh, you're talking on
[1:39:49] seven. It says recorded or registered.
[1:39:51] >> Yeah.
[1:39:56] » So, what what needs to change there?
[1:40:00] >> I would just say reported
[1:40:02] >> and not registered.
[1:40:05] Yeah,
[1:40:06] >> recorded.
[1:40:32] Okay, the next
[1:40:34] Um,
[1:40:37] for the next couple ones, we need to
[1:40:40] look at the final document because the
[1:40:42] edits here are really confusing. So,
[1:40:45] after that one, um, where we're taking
[1:40:47] out registered, just recorded instead.
[1:40:57] Then number eight, we'll read.
[1:41:01] Okay. So, so eight
[1:41:04] jumps. So, nine, there's a nine in the
[1:41:09] um the draft. That's confusing because
[1:41:11] that's deleted. And then eight is prior
[1:41:14] to construction,
[1:41:16] which comes from the paragraph above.
[1:41:18] But prior to construction, a storm water
[1:41:19] pollution prevention plan
[1:41:22] SWPP shall be submitted to the planning
[1:41:24] board and shall include a storm water
[1:41:26] management controls, dust suppression
[1:41:28] plan, and all construction phase
[1:41:30] dewatering and should be made available
[1:41:32] to the town's construction inspector for
[1:41:34] review.
[1:41:39] And that if we change construction
[1:41:41] inspector to third party inspector, that
[1:41:44] change will be made throughout.
[1:41:47] Any questions on that?
[1:41:50] >> Uh I
[1:41:52] the um I didn't know we had a inspection
[1:41:57] construction inspector. Is that Bill?
[1:42:00] >> No, that's third party.
[1:42:01] >> That's why it's a third party.
[1:42:02] >> That's a clerk of the works person. The
[1:42:04] person that we hire to oversee the
[1:42:07] project on our behalf because we don't
[1:42:09] have the qualifications or time to do
[1:42:11] that.
[1:42:13] Um, nine will be prior to construction
[1:42:17] activity of any kind
[1:42:20] and prior to any construction equipment
[1:42:22] being introduced into the site
[1:42:23] associated with the site plan. The
[1:42:25] developer shall submit to the planning
[1:42:26] board and the town's construction
[1:42:27] inspector a proposed phase construction
[1:42:30] sequence schedule, timetable, and bar
[1:42:32] chart. said schedule shall be to be used
[1:42:34] as a guide to activities within the
[1:42:36] development including construction of
[1:42:38] roadways utilities drainage system
[1:42:41] stabilization earth removal and
[1:42:42] stockpiling. The schedule once
[1:42:44] established it will not be deviated from
[1:42:46] and may only be modified in agreement
[1:42:48] between the developer and the planning
[1:42:50] board. When we change that from
[1:42:52] construction inspector to planning board
[1:42:54] because he's working at our disposal.
[1:42:59] Madam Chair, can you add uh the building
[1:43:02] commissioner on to any submitts?
[1:43:06] >> So where where's any submitts?
[1:43:08] >> Yeah, all these that are required to go
[1:43:09] to the planning board and to the third
[1:43:11] party inspector that I get a copy of it
[1:43:14] to so I can keep it for records. So
[1:43:17] >> So
[1:43:19] you're where are you looking? um on any
[1:43:22] of these prior to construction and
[1:43:24] endurance stuff and they have to submit
[1:43:25] stuff prior to
[1:43:26] >> okay
[1:43:27] >> um that I get a copy of it be copied on
[1:43:29] them just added in
[1:43:32] >> who who who oversees the third party
[1:43:35] construction
[1:43:36] >> plan board
[1:43:37] >> we do
[1:43:38] >> yeah okay
[1:43:44] » the applicants expense
[1:43:46] >> I think that's you
[1:43:51] It's not you.
[1:43:52] >> Oh,
[1:43:54] everything eventually I mean
[1:43:56] >> everything eventually comes down to me.
[1:43:59] >> It flows.
[1:44:07] Okay. Number 10. Prior to construction,
[1:44:10] an order of conditions must be received
[1:44:14] from the conservation commission for the
[1:44:16] work as proposed on the plans. Any
[1:44:17] significant changes to the proposed
[1:44:19] roads and or drainage are subject to
[1:44:23] further review by the planning board.
[1:44:26] >> Madam chair, I would just add that I
[1:44:28] would just um prior to construction a
[1:44:32] final order of conditions. So if an
[1:44:36] order of conditions has been appealed,
[1:44:37] it's not final.
[1:44:39] >> Okay. Prior to construction,
[1:44:42] >> and that is a term that D uses, final
[1:44:44] order conditions. So, we're adding prior
[1:44:46] to construction, a final order of
[1:44:48] conditions must be received from the
[1:44:50] conservation commission for the work
[1:44:52] list. Okay.
[1:44:53] >> And the F is capital.
[1:44:54] >> Hm.
[1:44:55] >> F is capital on final.
[1:44:56] >> Oh, okay. So, it's capital F1.
[1:44:58] >> Would we want to review it if they
[1:45:00] change septic anything?
[1:45:05] >> H
[1:45:06] >> the location.
[1:45:08] >> They have to.
[1:45:08] >> Do you have a separate condition?
[1:45:10] >> They they'll have to come back to us.
[1:45:12] >> Yeah. because it's limited to roads and
[1:45:15] drainage in this statement,
[1:45:17] >> right? If if there's a change to the
[1:45:19] roads and if there's a change to the
[1:45:21] infrastructure, they have to come back
[1:45:22] to you.
[1:45:22] >> Okay. Can we then add the word
[1:45:24] infrastructure
[1:45:27] >> instead of roads and drainage?
[1:45:30] >> It's you're saying the same thing in two
[1:45:32] different ways. So, what do you
[1:45:34] >> Well, infrastructure you're saying
[1:45:35] covers septic roads and drainage.
[1:45:37] >> No, it No, it doesn't. No,
[1:45:39] infrastructure is roads and drainage.
[1:45:41] Septic is se is is separate.
[1:45:43] >> Septic as an infrastructure.
[1:45:44] >> Would we review septic in this condition
[1:45:47] order of conditions come back and moves
[1:45:48] the septic?
[1:45:50] >> You have excuse me if I may. You have a
[1:45:52] separate condition that addresses when
[1:45:55] the board of health reviews
[1:45:57] >> the u shared septic systems if there's a
[1:46:00] change in the roads and drainage that it
[1:46:02] will come back to you for further
[1:46:04] review. It's a separate condition. It's
[1:46:06] yeah on 12 we talk about that it says
[1:46:08] any significant changes proposed to the
[1:46:10] proposed roads and or drainage are
[1:46:12] subject to further review by the
[1:46:14] planning board
[1:46:16] >> right that's the one we're reading right
[1:46:18] >> no
[1:46:19] >> aren't we reading 12 I'm sorry
[1:46:21] >> 12th yeah that that's on 12
[1:46:23] >> I'm I'm number 10 same thing I'm call
[1:46:25] I'm talking about number 10 I have
[1:46:28] number 12 the old one but
[1:46:30] >> but what what Amy is saying is if you
[1:46:32] say
[1:46:32] >> it's somewhere else
[1:46:34] >> the septic review would be somewhere
[1:46:36] else.
[1:46:36] >> It's in item 12,
[1:46:38] >> right?
[1:46:38] >> Yeah.
[1:46:38] >> Okay.
[1:46:41] » Um 11 is prior to construction. There
[1:46:44] should be an on-site walkover and
[1:46:46] construction preview meeting to include
[1:46:48] the town's construction inspector, the
[1:46:50] fire chief, the police chief, the
[1:46:52] department of public works,
[1:46:53] superintendent.
[1:46:55] All limits of work shall be marked in
[1:46:56] advance. So, we'll be adding building
[1:46:58] inspector to that list.
[1:47:01] Can we revise the first sentence to say
[1:47:04] instead of there will shall be an
[1:47:05] on-site walkover that there shall be a
[1:47:08] mandatory preconstruction site meeting
[1:47:10] and walkthrough shall be conducted.
[1:47:14] I mean the language is a little funky.
[1:47:18] >> So say that again slowly.
[1:47:22] >> Prior to construction, a mandatory
[1:47:26] preconstruction site meeting
[1:47:32] and walk through
[1:47:35] shall be conducted.
[1:47:37] Period.
[1:47:42] The town
[1:47:45] third party inspector, the building
[1:47:48] commissioner, the fire chief, blah blah blah.
[1:47:52] Or attendees must include the town, blah blah blah blah.
[1:47:57] >> Okay. attendee shall include.
[1:48:07] » Okay. So, prior to construction, a
[1:48:08] mandatory pre-construction site meeting
[1:48:11] and walkth through shall be conducted.
[1:48:14] Period.
[1:48:17] Attendees
[1:48:21] shall include the town's construction
[1:48:24] inspector, the fire chief, the police
[1:48:25] chief, the department of public works,
[1:48:28] >> no police chief, but
[1:48:31] the building commissioner.
[1:48:33] >> H
[1:48:33] >> the building commissioner,
[1:48:34] >> right? And the building inspector is is
[1:48:36] added there.
[1:48:37] >> Yeah.
[1:48:38] >> But that the police chief isn't on this
[1:48:40] list. Do we want the police chief?
[1:48:42] >> He's on the list.
[1:48:43] >> You're on the wrong You're on the wrong
[1:48:45] document. We're on the We're on the
[1:48:47] >> Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I just got this
[1:48:49] one. I I reviewed it.
[1:48:52] >> Okay.
[1:48:53] >> Yeah. So, prior to construction, a
[1:48:56] mandatory preconstruction site meeting
[1:48:58] and walkthrough shall be conducted.
[1:49:01] Period. Attendees shall include the
[1:49:04] town's construction consultant,
[1:49:05] inspector,
[1:49:08] the fire chief, the police chief, the
[1:49:09] department of public works
[1:49:10] superintendent, and the building
[1:49:12] inspector.
[1:49:15] All limits of work shall be marked in
[1:49:16] advance of this meeting. During this
[1:49:18] meeting, there will be a video recording
[1:49:19] made of the existing condition of Essex
[1:49:21] Park Road up to and including the
[1:49:24] intersection curbing with Route 13.
[1:49:26] That's Route 22.
[1:49:30] Um,
[1:49:31] >> yeah, I was wondering how that video was
[1:49:32] going to be made.
[1:49:34] >> Who's doing the video then? Who would do
[1:49:36] the video?
[1:49:38] >> The town inspector.
[1:49:42] » Who who does the video? So either the
[1:49:44] applicant can do the video or pay our
[1:49:46] town inspector to do it, but it's it
[1:49:48] it's
[1:49:51] » Yeah. I
[1:49:57] » I don't know. It just seems vague there.
[1:49:58] I just That's why I was wondering.
[1:50:02] >> I don't know who would do that, but it
[1:50:04] >> I think it'll be a group decision at the
[1:50:06] time. Whoever has the equipment can make
[1:50:08] the video as and they'll it'll be made
[1:50:11] as a group and then everybody will have
[1:50:13] a copy of it.
[1:50:15] >> Who's do who's going to have the
[1:50:16] equipment,
[1:50:17] >> right? Like who has equipment? Just put
[1:50:19] the applicant
[1:50:20] >> phone whoever
[1:50:22] >> just say applicants.
[1:50:24] >> Yeah, just make the applicant do it
[1:50:25] during this meeting. The applicant will
[1:50:28] uh video will will make a video
[1:50:32] recording.
[1:50:33] >> Okay. Thanks. So
[1:50:36] the applicant
[1:50:42] » during this meeting the applicant will
[1:50:45] make a video recording of
[1:50:48] >> made of the exist and then just keep
[1:50:49] going. Yeah.
[1:50:50] >> Yeah. Of the existing condition of Essex
[1:50:52] Park Road up to including the
[1:50:53] intersection curving route 22 and
[1:50:56] including the culvert that crosses
[1:50:58] underneath the roadway which should be
[1:51:00] used to document existing conditions.
[1:51:02] the Department of Public Works or its
[1:51:04] representative and the developer shall
[1:51:06] walk the area every six months during
[1:51:07] construction to determine if any damage
[1:51:09] has occurred as a result of construction
[1:51:11] and the developer shall make repairs
[1:51:14] promptly when damage pursuant to
[1:51:17] construction has occurred. A final
[1:51:19] release of performance guarantee or lot
[1:51:22] from the planning board covenant shall
[1:51:23] not be granted until a final walkthrough
[1:51:25] is taken place and such repairs are
[1:51:26] made. Do we want the third party
[1:51:29] consultant to go to that sixmonth walk
[1:51:33] through?
[1:51:34] >> I don't think you need it. That's all
[1:51:36] belongs to DPW. It's their
[1:51:38] responsibility.
[1:51:39] >> Okay.
[1:51:41] >> Number 12. Prior to construction, the
[1:51:43] wastewater treatment design must be
[1:51:45] approved by the board of health. Any
[1:51:46] significant changes to the proposed
[1:51:48] roads or drainage are subject to further
[1:51:50] review by the planning board.
[1:51:58] Prior to the final construction of the
[1:52:00] roadways, road name shall be submitted
[1:52:01] to and agreed upon with the planning
[1:52:03] board, the Essex Police Department, and
[1:52:05] the Essex Fire Department.
[1:52:06] >> So, when is that?
[1:52:08] >> I'm sorry.
[1:52:10] >> When is final to construction of the
[1:52:12] roadways? The final construction. Can we
[1:52:14] either say
[1:52:17] at the end of the construction or at the
[1:52:19] beginning of the construction? I mean
[1:52:21] right now it's
[1:52:22] >> I believe at the end of the process of
[1:52:23] the subdivision they come back and file
[1:52:25] all the documents
[1:52:27] >> and the plane board is a final sign off.
[1:52:29] >> So prior to con to the construction of
[1:52:31] the roadways and take out
[1:52:33] >> prior prior to the final wearing course
[1:52:36] being applied.
[1:52:37] >> Yeah cuz they because sometimes they
[1:52:39] build them as they go. So they need the
[1:52:41] road name
[1:52:43] >> before the final.
[1:52:45] >> So I'm just saying when is that? So, can
[1:52:47] we just indicate when it is prior to
[1:52:50] construction?
[1:52:50] >> It says prior to construction up above.
[1:52:52] So, let's just do prior to construction.
[1:52:54] >> Yeah,
[1:52:55] >> I I would recommend going to prior to
[1:52:57] endorsement.
[1:52:59] >> Prior to what?
[1:53:01] >> Endorsement.
[1:53:02] >> So, move this move this to prior to
[1:53:03] endorsement.
[1:53:07] » So, that would be prior prior to
[1:53:10] endorsement of the plan and then go road
[1:53:12] names blah blah blah. So, you're going
[1:53:14] to move this to the other section.
[1:53:15] >> That's going to get moved to prior to
[1:53:17] endorsement.
[1:53:22] » That way, the plan goes on record with
[1:53:23] the right road name.
[1:53:32] Pressure is on for that one.
[1:53:34] >> Did your um assessor weigh in on road
[1:53:36] names?
[1:53:38] >> Bill, do you know?
[1:53:40] >> I don't know. Um I'm I'm not sure
[1:53:43] exactly who weighs in on their names.
[1:53:44] >> I think we can add the assessors here in
[1:53:46] case they want to. Um and if they don't
[1:53:49] want to, they can just say no. Thank
[1:53:51] you.
[1:53:51] >> The assessors.
[1:53:54] Okay.
[1:53:59] In case there's any reason that they
[1:54:00] would have
[1:54:01] >> some towns
[1:54:05] equipment for the automated gates. So
[1:54:07] that that section is actually that that
[1:54:09] condition is moving to the section where
[1:54:11] we have earlier it was um number four
[1:54:16] that had um the plan should be modified
[1:54:20] to include the following prior to
[1:54:21] endorsement. So that condition is coming
[1:54:24] out and going as a subcondition to
[1:54:26] condition number four.
[1:54:29] >> Yeah, that makes sense.
[1:54:35] The equipment for the automated gates at
[1:54:37] each end of the emergency access road
[1:54:39] shall be selected and verified to be
[1:54:41] acceptable to the Essex Fire Department,
[1:54:42] Essex Police Department, and Department
[1:54:45] of Public Works and shall be verified
[1:54:46] with Kinder Morgan for gas line access
[1:54:48] as well.
[1:54:54] Additional geotechnical work andor test
[1:54:57] pits or soil expiration shall be
[1:54:58] completed for the following purposes.
[1:55:01] And a geotechnical engineer shall be
[1:55:03] retained to engage in pre-construction
[1:55:04] planning steps and to oversee earthwork
[1:55:06] and retaining structures during
[1:55:08] construction, including the following
[1:55:10] steps and duties. And these all um come
[1:55:14] from the peer review. Test pits for
[1:55:16] basin 6P which haven't been completed
[1:55:19] yet. Test pits to address bylaw
[1:55:21] requirement 6-4.3.8.14
[1:55:25] 8.14 regarding earth removal to within
[1:55:27] 4t of historical high groundwater to be
[1:55:30] coordinated by a geotechnical engineer
[1:55:32] retained for this purpose.
[1:55:35] soil test as required to be conducted by
[1:55:38] the town of Essex storm water management
[1:55:40] regulation section six section 7-d11
[1:55:46] and during construction to provide
[1:55:48] certification from the geotechnical
[1:55:49] engineer that all built embankments on
[1:55:52] the site have been adequately
[1:55:53] constructed in accordance with their
[1:55:55] recommendations the geotechnical
[1:55:57] engineer shall be retained to oversee
[1:55:58] the work to ensure compliance with their
[1:56:00] recommendations
[1:56:02] all of these
[1:56:03] >> retains I'm Sorry. Who retains the
[1:56:06] geotechnical engineer?
[1:56:08] >> The applicant.
[1:56:11] >> Okay, that I don't think that's clear
[1:56:13] because in other when we're
[1:56:15] >> so then we'll add it to the first
[1:56:17] sentence that not any of the bullets yet
[1:56:20] shall be retained by the applicant.
[1:56:23] >> Um this is we we went over a lot of this
[1:56:26] in our last meeting when we were walking
[1:56:28] through um the peerreview comments and
[1:56:32] >> Right. So, I wasn't sure if it's like
[1:56:34] the clerk of the works where the
[1:56:37] applicant pays for someone that we pick
[1:56:39] or they pick the person
[1:56:41] >> they pick they'll hire a geotechnical
[1:56:42] engineer
[1:56:50] » and that's the same way when they did
[1:56:51] all the test pits for septic they hired
[1:56:53] the geotechnical engineer and then we
[1:56:55] get the information from that. So that's
[1:56:56] theirs their their personal
[1:57:02] prior to the start of construction the
[1:57:04] limit of work shall be established in
[1:57:05] the field and certified by the engineer
[1:57:08] survey of record applicants engineer
[1:57:10] shall demonstrate and or coordinate
[1:57:12] methods to ensure work stays within the
[1:57:14] limit of work.
[1:57:18] Provide field verification that the
[1:57:20] inverts of the proposed replacement
[1:57:21] sections of pipe sheet 32 or 57 will
[1:57:24] match the existing inverts at the time
[1:57:26] of construction. That's just a an
[1:57:30] asbuilt verify and field kind of thing.
[1:57:34] Earth removal in excess of 5,000 cubic
[1:57:36] yards is subject to an earth removal
[1:57:39] permit from the board of selectman. See
[1:57:41] September 3rd, 2025. Special permit
[1:57:43] decision decision item number 10, page
[1:57:45] five. So that's just
[1:57:49] reminding that because we do have this
[1:57:52] permit from the board of selectment
[1:57:53] required. Do
[1:57:54] >> you still have a select board of select
[1:57:56] not board?
[1:57:58] >> Um I think we say board of selectman.
[1:58:01] >> I don't think we haven't changed that.
[1:58:03] No, we haven't changed it. I know we
[1:58:05] haven't changed it before. Yeah.
[1:58:08] >> Prior to the issuance of building permit
[1:58:11] for any and all lots.
[1:58:14] Um,
[1:58:25] » do do we review the homeowners
[1:58:27] association?
[1:58:29] >> Don't we review this as well?
[1:58:31] >> 19.
[1:58:33] >> Where are you? Which?
[1:58:34] >> Prior to the issuance of building permit
[1:58:36] for any and all lots. Prior to the
[1:58:38] issuance of a building permit, a
[1:58:40] homeowners association subject to review
[1:58:42] by town council. Is it
[1:58:50] » school that they
[1:58:52] >> So you're my question is should it just
[1:58:56] be town council or is it also us?
[1:58:59] >> We review it.
[1:59:00] >> Yes. So, okay. Can we
[1:59:02] >> So, you're saying
[1:59:03] >> says subject to review by town council
[1:59:07] and the planning board.
[1:59:09] >> Okay. Yep.
[1:59:12] >> So,
[1:59:13] >> sorry. Number 19.
[1:59:14] >> Yeah. I've never had that happen before.
[1:59:17] So, I guess are you going to review it
[1:59:19] before I review it or you going to
[1:59:21] review it after I review it? Because
[1:59:23] >> after.
[1:59:24] >> You're going to review it after. But
[1:59:25] what if there's
[1:59:26] >> No, we would review it first because
[1:59:28] we're reviewing it.
[1:59:28] >> It's like we're doing this, right? We're
[1:59:30] reviewing it for making sure that
[1:59:33] everything we care about is captured in
[1:59:36] it. And then we would make those
[1:59:37] modifications if there aren't any. And
[1:59:39] then Amy will make sure they're legally
[1:59:42] >> accurate and defensible
[1:59:44] >> because we were not going we're not
[1:59:46] going to stick our paws into any
[1:59:48] document that Amy's okay because after
[1:59:50] she's done with it, then that is the
[1:59:53] version and we shall not mess with it.
[1:59:56] So we do our messing ahead of that and
[1:59:57] then she'll tell us whether we can make
[1:59:59] those changes that we wanted to.
[2:00:01] >> Yeah, that was my point. So subject to
[2:00:03] review by the planning board and then
[2:00:04] town council.
[2:00:06] >> Sure.
[2:00:33] So, looking at the the working draft
[2:00:36] there, um bullets that were numbered 22,
[2:00:40] 21, 22, and 23, they've all been moved
[2:00:42] to instead of prior to the issuance of
[2:00:45] building permit, they've been moved to
[2:00:47] general condition. So, they aren't
[2:00:48] struck, they're moved
[2:01:00] Then 20 is prior to the construction of the mail
[2:01:06] kiosk and associated structure. The
[2:01:08] location shall be confirmed with the
[2:01:09] Essex branch of the post office and this
[2:01:12] confirmation be should be submitted to
[2:01:14] the planning board and building
[2:01:16] inspector. And there was another comment
[2:01:19] based on our last meeting that the bus
[2:01:21] stop will also be verified with um
[2:01:23] Manchester Essex Regional School
[2:01:25] District.
[2:01:30] And then we're on to other conditions.
[2:01:34] 22.
[2:01:37] All construction access shall be from
[2:01:39] Essex Park Road and emergency access to
[2:01:42] Turtleback Road shall not be used as an
[2:01:44] access during construction.
[2:01:47] Private drinking water wells are not and
[2:01:50] should not be planned as part of the
[2:01:51] development without additional
[2:01:52] groundwater evaluation. And that's not
[2:01:55] the intent, but that's just to
[2:01:56] memorialize that.
[2:01:58] Other soil management.
[2:02:01] Um, and this just addresses how soil is
[2:02:04] handled during the earthwork. Surplus
[2:02:06] soil that requires off-site transport
[2:02:07] and disposal, if any, is subject to
[2:02:09] state and federal regulations for proper
[2:02:11] handling, which may include disposal
[2:02:14] characterization and soil profiling.
[2:02:17] The applicant may import soil to the
[2:02:19] site. Imported materials shall be
[2:02:22] managed in accordance with the ma
[2:02:24] applicable mass D soil handling
[2:02:26] requirements and other applicable
[2:02:28] federal, state, and local requirements.
[2:02:31] Soil analytical testing or
[2:02:33] certifications from suppliers of
[2:02:34] non-impacted sources of imported
[2:02:36] material are to be provided during
[2:02:38] construction.
[2:02:40] Soil stockpiles, if any, should be noted
[2:02:42] on the storm water management plan
[2:02:44] sheets and shall be managed in
[2:02:47] accordance with SWPP.
[2:02:50] The septic system area
[2:02:53] as closest to the seven Essex Drive Road
[2:02:56] MC MCP site will require special care
[2:02:59] during soil handling.
[2:03:05] Construction phase dewatering may be
[2:03:06] required for some operations in some
[2:03:08] areas near wetland areas and or
[2:03:10] low-lying areas. Dewatering fluids
[2:03:12] management plan shall be addressed as
[2:03:14] part of the storm water pollution
[2:03:16] prevention plan required under
[2:03:18] construction general permit and
[2:03:19] coordinated with the town's construction
[2:03:22] inspector.
[2:03:24] >> Could I just go back to D? Just I just
[2:03:26] have a question. Yep.
[2:03:27] >> Will require special care.
[2:03:30] What what does that mean?
[2:03:35] When do you break that down? Like what
[2:03:37] does that
[2:03:38] >> because it's I in handling soil if if
[2:03:42] they encounter any hazardous materials
[2:03:45] then they'll need to deal with it. Then
[2:03:47] this is just acknowledging the fact that
[2:03:49] the abuing property has that
[2:03:51] contaminated area.
[2:03:53] >> Okay.
[2:03:55] I just didn't know if that was
[2:03:57] >> this is a recommended depends on what
[2:03:59] they find. If they find something
[2:04:00] anything it depends on the concentration
[2:04:02] of it. So it's it's hard to really
[2:04:04] quantify it here. This is just noting
[2:04:06] that that's this this kind of thing is
[2:04:08] more also for our construction inspector
[2:04:10] to be aware of the fact that that exists
[2:04:11] and when work's going on there that they
[2:04:14] can pay attention to what you know how
[2:04:17] it's handled in that area.
[2:04:19] >> Did you want you could put will require
[2:04:21] special care in accordance with the MCP
[2:04:24] during soil handling something like
[2:04:26] that. The MCP the mass contingency plan
[2:04:29] >> right.
[2:04:30] >> So
[2:04:33] I'm sorry. So, you're saying we'll
[2:04:35] require special care during handling in
[2:04:37] accordance with
[2:04:38] >> it's it's a there's a concern for
[2:04:39] contamination, right?
[2:04:41] >> Right.
[2:04:41] >> So, um special care in accordance with
[2:04:48] the Massachusetts contingency plan,
[2:04:51] >> which should be spelled out.
[2:04:52] >> Yeah. Because we're not going to use it
[2:04:53] any other time. So, um mass contingency
[2:04:57] plan during soil handling and that that
[2:05:00] will cover it.
[2:05:06] I guess I I guess the word special just
[2:05:09] seems so wrong there. Like it could it
[2:05:13] be restricted or like will require
[2:05:16] restrict or specific or special just
[2:05:20] seems I don't know if that's regular
[2:05:22] language but
[2:05:23] >> change it to specific.
[2:05:26] That's fine.
[2:05:36] So specific instead of special
[2:05:38] >> will require specific care in accordance
[2:05:40] with the mass contingency plan during
[2:05:42] soil handling.
[2:05:43] >> Okay.
[2:05:51] So that will read the septic system area
[2:05:53] as closest to the seven Essex drive road
[2:05:56] M Massachusetts MCP site which is going
[2:06:00] to be defined as the Massachusetts
[2:06:01] contingency plan spelled out there will
[2:06:04] require specific care in accordance with
[2:06:06] the MCP during soil handling.
[2:06:09] >> Thank you.
[2:06:11] >> Construction phase. Oh, we did that one.
[2:06:13] The planning board hereby reserves the
[2:06:15] right to serve notice on applicant of a
[2:06:18] cease and desist work order on all
[2:06:20] roadway and or utility construction
[2:06:21] should a violation of the endorsement,
[2:06:23] the approval, the conditions or the
[2:06:26] restrictions be found to exist. Such
[2:06:28] cease and desist work order may be
[2:06:30] issued by the planning board and or the
[2:06:32] building in building department and when
[2:06:36] served in writing directing itself to
[2:06:37] the violation occurring shall act to
[2:06:40] prohibit any and all work on the areas
[2:06:42] as mentioned in such order
[2:06:45] within 5 days of the transfer of
[2:06:47] ownership of the subdivision in whole or
[2:06:49] in part. The developer shall notify the
[2:06:51] planning board of the name and address
[2:06:52] of the new owners. The developer shall
[2:06:54] provide the new owner with a copy of
[2:06:56] these conditions.
[2:06:58] Prior to the release of the performance
[2:07:00] security held for this project, the
[2:07:02] board must determine that the
[2:07:03] construction or installation has been
[2:07:05] completed in accordance with the
[2:07:06] approved plan and decision. Upon such
[2:07:09] determination, it shall release the
[2:07:11] interest of the town on the bond deposit
[2:07:14] or covenant and return the bond or
[2:07:16] deposit to the person who furnished it
[2:07:18] or issue a release of covenant in form
[2:07:22] for in a form for recording.
[2:07:26] So I'm looking at you, Amy.
[2:07:29] >> Sure. So that's because under under
[2:07:30] >> No, I mean is that all legit?
[2:07:32] >> It's all legit because under 41 section
[2:07:34] 81U, the developer has the option to
[2:07:36] either do a bond, a deposit, or a
[2:07:38] covenant. So that's why if they do a
[2:07:40] bond, the bond gets
[2:07:41] >> the amount gets t taken down
[2:07:44] >> as it goes,
[2:07:45] >> right?
[2:07:45] >> So that's what that's for.
[2:07:47] >> Okay.
[2:07:48] >> Can we also ask our third party
[2:07:51] consultant to review it? I mean, how are
[2:07:53] we going to know if it's done?
[2:07:56] >> That's what our construction inspector
[2:07:58] >> Oh, sorry. I got
[2:07:59] >> by the board. That's That's what you
[2:08:00] guys will send it out to your
[2:08:02] >> We decide, but our construction
[2:08:04] inspector is the one who tells us how
[2:08:05] much has been done.
[2:08:06] >> Correct.
[2:08:07] >> Okay.
[2:08:07] >> So, we don't have to say.
[2:08:08] >> Will this bond also
[2:08:11] will or will there be a bond that goes
[2:08:13] after construction's final but for 18
[2:08:16] months or so?
[2:08:17] >> No.
[2:08:18] >> That's going to be
[2:08:19] >> No. As soon as it's final and it's
[2:08:20] signed off on, they get their they get
[2:08:22] whatever's left.
[2:08:24] >> So, do we want a bond to assure that
[2:08:26] road doesn't just fall apart in 18
[2:08:28] months or
[2:08:28] >> Unfortunately, there's no statutory
[2:08:30] provision to provide to require that.
[2:08:34] >> Okay.
[2:08:34] >> Yeah. The bond is to cover construction.
[2:08:39] >> Do we have in here that this is always
[2:08:41] going to remain private?
[2:08:42] >> Yes.
[2:08:42] So, that would be on that would be
[2:08:45] on them.
[2:08:46] >> Okay.
[2:08:47] And this this order this um decision has
[2:08:50] to be given to each homeowner.
[2:08:52] >> Yeah.
[2:08:52] >> So they will then know that it's going
[2:08:53] to be a private road and they're going
[2:08:54] to be responsible for it.
[2:08:57] >> Yeah. That's down here on 31.
[2:09:04] » Site maintenance and control. It should
[2:09:07] be control of work.
[2:09:11] Site m site maintenance and control of
[2:09:13] work during construction. Construction
[2:09:15] equipment and materials should not be
[2:09:16] parked, stored, or placed in any area
[2:09:18] directly adjacent to or upgradient of
[2:09:21] any drainage channel or wetland area,
[2:09:23] nor any culde-sac island. Repairs and
[2:09:25] maintenance to equipment shall be
[2:09:27] conducted in areas where no spills or
[2:09:28] leakage of fuels or other fluids could
[2:09:30] pose a pollution hazard.
[2:09:33] >> And we also say nor on Turtleback Road
[2:09:37] >> that there's no construction access
[2:09:38] there, so they can't can't Essex Park.
[2:09:41] It's Essex Park, right? Road.
[2:09:45] >> Do we want to say there's no storage or
[2:09:46] materials or equipment on that road?
[2:09:48] Parking on that road to convenience the
[2:09:50] neighbors or do we not? Just ask
[2:09:53] >> and and we say there's no access on
[2:09:55] Turtle Back Road. But
[2:09:57] >> that's not their we already said that
[2:09:58] about no construction.
[2:10:00] >> But that's different than storage of
[2:10:03] >> but Essex Park Road is town property. So
[2:10:05] they can't just store stuff there.
[2:10:07] >> Yeah. Correct.
[2:10:09] But they can park there, right?
[2:10:10] >> Huh?
[2:10:10] >> They can park.
[2:10:11] >> No.
[2:10:18] » How do we know? No.
[2:10:20] >> Yeah.
[2:10:21] >> But you have bylaws wouldn't allow the
[2:10:24] police would ask them to be towed or
[2:10:26] remove them from our public way.
[2:10:32] » I didn't catch that, Val. Sorry. the
[2:10:34] police are
[2:10:36] >> normally all cities and towns have rules
[2:10:39] that govern that you can't um if you
[2:10:41] have no parking on public way the police
[2:10:44] can have them towed.
[2:10:49] » So the police would control that and we
[2:10:51] wouldn't need to put it in here.
[2:10:53] >> Can neighbors park there? Can neighbors
[2:10:56] park there
[2:10:57] >> on Essex Park Road on the when people
[2:11:00] visit?
[2:11:00] >> I don't know. Whatever standards apply
[2:11:02] to Essex Park Road now would continue to
[2:11:05] apply. And I don't think it's in our
[2:11:07] purview in this decision to talk about
[2:11:10] what can and can't happen on Essex Park
[2:11:11] Road. I'm just saying because that's
[2:11:15] there's some parking regulation that's
[2:11:18] in effect now and I don't know what it
[2:11:19] is, but that would continue to be in
[2:11:21] effect
[2:11:21] >> and that's a police matter.
[2:11:23] >> Yeah. Okay. Do you want to do you want
[2:11:25] to just maybe change it to say under a
[2:11:28] construction equipment andor materials
[2:11:30] shall
[2:11:32] be parked shall be parked and stored on
[2:11:36] site shall be parked and stored
[2:11:40] on site only
[2:11:43] and then say and shall not be
[2:11:47] and then keep going on with parked
[2:11:49] stored placed in any area directly blah blah blah blah. So you're just
[2:11:52] adding shall be parked and stored on
[2:11:54] site only. Correct.
[2:11:55] >> And shall not be Yeah, that's fine. That
[2:11:58] covers that.
[2:12:00] >> That covers everybody.
[2:12:04] >> Turtle back in Essex Park
[2:12:05] >> just has to be on site. Yep.
[2:12:08] >> Earth disturbed by activities associated
[2:12:10] with the roadway or easement such as
[2:12:12] tree cutting, stump grubbing, cutting,
[2:12:15] filling, and regrading shall be
[2:12:16] appropriately stabilized in accordance
[2:12:19] with SWPP.
[2:12:22] We're going to spell that out.
[2:12:24] >> I'm sorry.
[2:12:25] >> It's already spelled out.
[2:12:26] >> She wanted to spell it out, but it's
[2:12:27] already
[2:12:28] >> That's We've already That's was spelled
[2:12:30] out
[2:12:31] >> earlier.
[2:12:31] >> Yep.
[2:12:34] >> Um
[2:12:35] >> page before
[2:12:44] page.
[2:12:48] Sorry, I didn't turn the page. I'm
[2:12:49] getting confused. I'm like, what? We
[2:12:52] talked about that already.
[2:12:54] Oh, look. Last page.
[2:12:58] Um,
[2:13:09] so items there C that was crossed out
[2:13:13] and D was crossed out were rewritten
[2:13:17] together to say all earthwork, soil
[2:13:19] stockpiling, erosion control, and site
[2:13:21] matements shall be addressed in the SWPP
[2:13:24] and work shall be coordinated with the
[2:13:25] town's construction inspector.
[2:13:30] that really just combined the
[2:13:32] information in those and in F. So those
[2:13:36] three that are um crossed out are
[2:13:38] covered by the SWPP.
[2:13:44] The location of earth material stockpile
[2:13:47] should be designated on a plan which
[2:13:49] should be submitted to the town's
[2:13:50] representative. said location to to be
[2:13:52] determined by the developer and the town
[2:13:55] in accordance with local regulations.
[2:13:58] >> So is the town representative the town
[2:14:00] in construction inspector?
[2:14:03] >> I mean
[2:14:05] >> if it is then we should keep that word
[2:14:07] >> but yeah we'll keep that same reference.
[2:14:10] >> Okay.
[2:14:28] Burial or burning of vegetation, stumps,
[2:14:31] or construction debris is strictly
[2:14:32] prohibited anywhere within the
[2:14:33] subdivision. Such materials should be
[2:14:35] removed and properly disposed of
[2:14:37] offsite.
[2:14:40] Any
[2:14:42] blasting operation shall obtain proper
[2:14:44] permits and should not be undertaken on
[2:14:46] any Sunday or holiday.
[2:14:48] Should that also um have specific times
[2:14:53] >> like
[2:14:55] >> Yeah.
[2:14:56] >> 7 to 5? I mean, you know, like not in
[2:15:00] the middle of the I mean, I just think
[2:15:02] you should have
[2:15:03] >> standard times for
[2:15:04] >> no
[2:15:06] >> never
[2:15:07] >> uh you don't have standard times for
[2:15:08] construction and bylaw. So, you can put
[2:15:10] it
[2:15:11] >> under the police might have something
[2:15:12] but I don't know.
[2:15:13] >> Okay.
[2:15:15] Um holiday
[2:15:17] >> should say legal holidays.
[2:15:19] >> Okay.
[2:15:20] >> On any Sunday. Yeah. On any Sunday or
[2:15:22] legal holiday.
[2:15:23] >> Or legal holiday.
[2:15:24] >> I don't know. What's a legal holiday?
[2:15:25] Federal or
[2:15:26] >> so. Not on your birthday.
[2:15:27] >> Yeah. I can uh list them if you want me
[2:15:29] to.
[2:15:30] >> I think I should because I get that call
[2:15:32] constantly. Somebody don't want work
[2:15:34] going on on Veterans Day when everybody
[2:15:36] else in the world is working.
[2:15:37] >> So it's it's essentially
[2:15:39] >> I think it should be included.
[2:15:40] >> It's essentially federal.
[2:15:41] >> Federal.
[2:15:41] >> Okay. because it's like it doesn't
[2:15:43] include um
[2:15:45] >> Patriots Day
[2:15:47] >> um things like that.
[2:15:48] >> So that's that should be maybe we could
[2:15:50] attach a list that can be attached to
[2:15:51] it.
[2:15:52] >> I can we can just put them in. I can I
[2:15:53] can send them over.
[2:15:54] >> That'd be perfect.
[2:15:55] >> I keep sending myself emails. I'm going
[2:15:57] to have I'm going to wake up to 10
[2:15:58] million emails for myself.
[2:16:01] >> If I don't, I forget. So
[2:16:02] >> just be careful what you say about that
[2:16:04] person sending emails.
[2:16:05] >> I know, right?
[2:16:07] >> I keep forwarding the same email, adding
[2:16:09] to it.
[2:16:11] Yeah. Who's this crazy person?
[2:16:14] >> Um, any blasting operation shall obtain
[2:16:16] proper pay perance and should not be
[2:16:18] taken on any Sunday or legal holiday nor
[2:16:22] outside of an 8:00 a.m. to 400 p.m.
[2:16:25] window?
[2:16:27] >> Yeah.
[2:16:27] But we can't do that, can we?
[2:16:29] >> Huh?
[2:16:30] >> Yeah. For blasting you can. Yeah, sure.
[2:16:32] Blasting.
[2:16:33] >> Yeah, that's very reasonable.
[2:16:34] >> But you can't for we can't for
[2:16:36] construction, right?
[2:16:36] >> Not if you don't have something.
[2:16:39] >> We don't have it already. But blessing
[2:16:40] is
[2:16:42] >> if the police have
[2:16:43] >> the police have it then they can. But
[2:16:45] >> can we check with that?
[2:16:46] >> The only reason why you would have it is
[2:16:47] if you had a noise by
[2:16:48] >> a noise. That's
[2:16:49] >> we don't have it. We have no noise
[2:16:51] ordinance.
[2:16:51] >> Police has no noise.
[2:16:53] >> We have nothing. This is Essex.
[2:16:57] >> Pretend like they do.
[2:17:02] your kids.
[2:17:03] >> No construction equipment or materials
[2:17:05] may be parked, stored, or placed within
[2:17:07] the drainage easement as shown on the
[2:17:09] plan except as may be required to
[2:17:11] install the detention basin.
[2:17:16] » Placed within
[2:17:19] sorry.
[2:17:20] >> Once paved, the street shall be kept
[2:17:22] clear and passable at all times. No
[2:17:24] equipment shall be parked in such a
[2:17:25] manner as to render the street
[2:17:26] impassible.
[2:17:28] and no refues, containers, trailers, or
[2:17:30] construction materials of any kind
[2:17:32] should be placed or stored on the street
[2:17:33] nor within the culde-sac island.
[2:17:37] Construction activities on individual
[2:17:38] lot should be conducted in a workmanlike
[2:17:40] manner at all times. Blowing duster
[2:17:42] debris should be controlled by the
[2:17:44] developer of lots through stabilization,
[2:17:46] wetting down, or other proper storage
[2:17:48] and disposal methods.
[2:17:50] Isn't there
[2:17:52] clear guidelines in the building code
[2:17:55] for dust and things like that? I mean,
[2:17:58] what does work workmanlike manner
[2:18:02] mean?
[2:18:03] >> Clear definitions. No,
[2:18:06] >> but there are terms and there are we
[2:18:08] there are regulations we can go to to
[2:18:11] control stuff and it's a problem.
[2:18:13] >> So, can we just
[2:18:14] >> if you feel like this is adequate,
[2:18:16] that's fine with me.
[2:18:18] It it covers us for to be able to
[2:18:19] >> go look for we've included dust dust
[2:18:22] control in the storm water pollution
[2:18:24] prevention plan. So that that whole plan
[2:18:26] is part of just maintaining the site,
[2:18:29] >> right? But this is specifically that's
[2:18:31] for the roads, isn't it? And then once
[2:18:33] we get into individual lots, that's a
[2:18:35] different construction. But I it's fine
[2:18:37] if Bill feels like this is
[2:18:39] >> things when it becomes a problem. The
[2:18:41] things we can use to control that.
[2:18:43] >> Great.
[2:18:44] >> My one question though was unpaved
[2:18:47] Yes.
[2:18:47] >> What paved is that?
[2:18:49] >> Yes.
[2:18:49] >> That final paving or is that rough pave?
[2:18:53] >> Where it says just once paved like
[2:18:56] >> I would say that means binder.
[2:18:58] >> Yeah.
[2:18:59] >> Binder.
[2:18:59] >> I agree. It's binder.
[2:19:02] >> Okay.
[2:19:04] >> I'm sorry about final or
[2:19:05] >> she agreed.
[2:19:06] >> Binder.
[2:19:07] >> That's binder.
[2:19:08] But I would I would say because once it
[2:19:12] once the binder is down the road, it's
[2:19:13] passable and that's when you want to
[2:19:15] keep it clear because I want to make
[2:19:16] sure
[2:19:17] >> because of safety equipment just when
[2:19:20] there's construction work going on,
[2:19:22] ambulances need to be able to get down
[2:19:23] there. So once there's binder down, I
[2:19:26] think this applies.
[2:19:28] >> So binder is the same.
[2:19:30] >> Binder is the first coat you put down.
[2:19:32] Should
[2:19:34] are we going to put on one's binder or
[2:19:36] >> then add binder onto this? Right.
[2:19:38] >> Once paved with binder.
[2:19:40] >> Oh, with binder. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[2:19:41] >> Yeah. So, when that first layer goes
[2:19:43] down then
[2:19:44] >> Okay.
[2:19:50] Down to 30 final signage. This came from
[2:19:53] earlier. We removed it out of prior to
[2:19:55] endorsement or prior to constru prior to
[2:19:58] we took it out of prior to endorsement.
[2:20:00] Final signage plans and details should
[2:20:02] be shown on the construction plans. So,
[2:20:05] we'll still see those, but not prior to
[2:20:07] endorsement.
[2:20:09] The roadways shall forever remain
[2:20:11] private, which will be clearly noted on
[2:20:13] the subdivision plans as well as on each
[2:20:15] individual deed. However, there shall be
[2:20:17] a conveyance of the right for public
[2:20:19] travel on the roadway in order to access
[2:20:21] the open space for recreational purposes
[2:20:23] and open space and water main
[2:20:25] maintenance purposes.
[2:20:31] And this these were the reason they're
[2:20:33] green highlighted is because they were
[2:20:35] moved from other conditions. Well, they
[2:20:38] were moved into other conditions from
[2:20:40] another section that was earlier where
[2:20:43] they were struck in struck out
[2:20:46] that that was in the prior to the
[2:20:48] building permit section. So, they just
[2:20:49] got moved but not changed.
[2:20:53] The OSRD subdivision will comply with
[2:20:56] all Department of Public Works
[2:20:57] requirements with respect to water flow
[2:20:59] and pressure. The alignment of the water
[2:21:00] line may be allowed to cross through the
[2:21:02] open space shown on the OSRD plan.
[2:21:07] 33 is prior to the issuance of a
[2:21:09] building permit, the open space
[2:21:10] maintenance and ownership shall be
[2:21:12] established consistent with bylaw
[2:21:14] section 6-8.9.6.
[2:21:16] So that is our caveat there regarding
[2:21:20] the open space which isn't going to be
[2:21:22] decided now but is a condition here it
[2:21:24] needs to be determined.
[2:21:26] >> So why isn't that under prior to the
[2:21:28] issuance of a building permit
[2:21:32] >> section?
[2:21:33] Why did it get down?
[2:21:37] >> Did it just get lost got got hung up to
[2:21:39] dry?
[2:21:40] >> Yeah. So we'll move that over to prior
[2:21:42] to issuance of a building permit.
[2:21:44] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:21:54] Public access to open space. The
[2:21:57] definitive subdivision plan prepared by
[2:21:59] the applicant includes six parking
[2:22:01] spaces at the end of road A, access
[2:22:03] before the gate at the end of the
[2:22:05] emergency access road and contiguous to
[2:22:08] the gas line easement. C proposed
[2:22:10] parking easement on sheet 27, proposed
[2:22:14] open space parking six and proposed
[2:22:17] trail map kiosk on sheet 32. These
[2:22:20] parking spots shall be for the exclusive
[2:22:23] use of any persons accessing the open
[2:22:25] space portions of the property at the
[2:22:27] gas line easement and from there the
[2:22:30] informal but established trail network
[2:22:32] shown on the existing conditions
[2:22:34] drawings sheets 3 through 13. On street
[2:22:37] parking shall not be used for accessing
[2:22:40] the open space. Pedestrians may traverse
[2:22:43] the subdivision roads to access the open
[2:22:45] space and or may do so through other
[2:22:48] accessible points of entry from abuing
[2:22:50] roads and/or properties as allowed
[2:22:53] thereon.
[2:22:55] This condition is made based on the
[2:22:57] offer by the applicant during the public
[2:22:59] hearing process to provide public access
[2:23:01] to the open space and the planning
[2:23:02] board's agreement to include it as a
[2:23:05] condition of approval.
[2:23:07] And that um has captured the intent of
[2:23:10] the conversation that I had with the
[2:23:12] applicant regarding we we had gotten
[2:23:14] their email after one of our last
[2:23:15] meetings that said the intent had always
[2:23:17] been to and so this went over to try and
[2:23:20] just memorialize that intent that those
[2:23:23] parking spots are for the public um and
[2:23:26] public has the right away to access the
[2:23:28] spots. So and then I think everyone was
[2:23:32] okay with it.
[2:23:33] >> Amy's nodding her head.
[2:23:34] >> I'm okay with it.
[2:23:37] 35. Expiration work must begin and
[2:23:39] continue within two years from the
[2:23:41] issuance of this decision.
[2:23:43] >> I have a change there if I may.
[2:23:46] >> What's it?
[2:23:48] >> Val has a change.
[2:23:50] >> Okay.
[2:23:51] >> Um the issuance of the decision could be
[2:23:54] appealed and I think that this is should
[2:23:57] be um maybe uh from the date of plan
[2:24:01] endorsement or
[2:24:02] >> Yeah, from the date of plan endorsement.
[2:24:04] Does that make sense? Because if there's
[2:24:05] an appeal, that's just burning time.
[2:24:09] >> So, we're change to the date of
[2:24:11] endorsement.
[2:24:13] >> Yeah. The other place this could go
[2:24:14] would be in the covenant. Um
[2:24:19] » we could also in both places, correct?
[2:24:22] >> Yes.
[2:24:23] >> Y
[2:24:23] >> that's a good idea.
[2:24:24] >> Also, um explain continue.
[2:24:28] >> What's that?
[2:24:28] >> Continue. The work must begin and
[2:24:31] continue. Always a question when be
[2:24:34] stopped for so long. How long is
[2:24:36] acceptable?
[2:24:37] >> What do you think? 30 days, 60 days, 120
[2:24:40] days?
[2:24:40] >> Say six months.
[2:24:42] >> What's that?
[2:24:42] >> That's 120, right?
[2:24:45] >> That's why I say six months.
[2:24:46] >> I'm not good at math.
[2:24:47] >> Yeah. Okay. So, let's do six months. So,
[2:24:49] >> six months. That's what the building
[2:24:50] code does with
[2:24:51] >> and
[2:24:53] uh continue
[2:24:56] >> any stoppage for over six months.
[2:24:58] >> Yeah. Without stoppage.
[2:25:01] Over six. Without stoppage over six
[2:25:04] months.
[2:25:04] >> Yeah.
[2:25:06] >> Okay.
[2:25:07] >> Without any stoppage
[2:25:08] >> over six months. Sending myself another
[2:25:10] email here.
[2:25:12] >> Without any without stoppage that
[2:25:15] extends six months.
[2:25:16] >> Yeah.
[2:25:17] There you go.
[2:25:20] >> What was that?
[2:25:22] >> Without stoppage that extends over six
[2:25:24] months.
[2:25:32] That was good. Okay. So, that's going to
[2:25:34] read expiration work must begin and
[2:25:36] continue
[2:25:40] without any stoppage that extends over 6
[2:25:44] months
[2:25:46] within two years from the date of
[2:25:48] endorsement.
[2:25:54] How about I don't mean to be a problem.
[2:25:56] How about work must begin
[2:26:00] within two years from the date of plan
[2:26:03] endorsement and must
[2:26:05] continue without stoppage
[2:26:08] for over 6 months
[2:26:11] >> without any stoppage that extends over
[2:26:13] six months.
[2:26:14] >> Yeah. I mean we can work on
[2:26:15] >> a stoppage of six months any a stoppage
[2:26:18] longer than six months qualifies as
[2:26:22] expiration after two years. Yes, we can work on this. But that's the
[2:26:27] >> that's the gist of it is it has to go
[2:26:29] continuously for two continuously and it
[2:26:33] can't stop for over six months.
[2:26:34] >> Right. It has to start within two years
[2:26:36] and can't stop for
[2:26:37] >> more than six months.
[2:26:38] Yeah.
[2:26:40] >> So that's that's what we're trying to
[2:26:40] get at. Yeah. We'll work on that.
[2:26:42] >> Okay.
[2:26:42] >> I've got it here. Okay.
[2:26:44] >> My other comment is substantial change.
[2:26:49] » Who determines substantial change? Where are you talking about substantial
[2:26:54] change in here at all?
[2:26:55] >> Oh, that's that's in the statute under
[2:26:57] 81W.
[2:26:58] >> So, they come in with a small little
[2:27:01] change. Everything that's planning book,
[2:27:03] >> uh, it has to be it has to be a plan
[2:27:05] change like a significant. So, um,
[2:27:08] >> right. So, usually in the past
[2:27:10] decisions, they put in that the building
[2:27:12] inspector determines what's a
[2:27:14] substantial change.
[2:27:16] So that minor little changes that don't
[2:27:18] really affect a whole lot don't have to
[2:27:20] come back to the board.
[2:27:22] >> Well, like a lot line adjustment has to
[2:27:24] come to the planning board.
[2:27:26] >> That wouldn't be a minor change.
[2:27:28] >> That would be an ANR plan,
[2:27:30] >> right?
[2:27:30] >> Yeah.
[2:27:31] >> Yep.
[2:27:31] >> Oh, I'm talking just like construction
[2:27:33] when things come out and happen. I can't
[2:27:35] think of anything off the top of my
[2:27:36] head, but something that wouldn't be
[2:27:37] considered a major change, but it does
[2:27:39] change the plans.
[2:27:41] I would say if it doesn't change the
[2:27:43] conditions,
[2:27:45] >> if it doesn't change anything in this
[2:27:47] decision, whether it be the findings,
[2:27:49] the waiverss, or the conditions,
[2:27:53] um, but it's a small change on the plan,
[2:27:56] then,
[2:27:57] for example, if they're going to,
[2:28:00] let's say they're going to change a
[2:28:02] corner of a of a drainage basin, but the
[2:28:04] drainage basin will still um comply with
[2:28:08] the storm water,
[2:28:10] >> then
[2:28:11] that change can happen on that that
[2:28:13] could happen,
[2:28:13] >> right? I think I'm getting more towards
[2:28:15] somebody's got to make that decision and
[2:28:17] I think it should just state that the
[2:28:19] build inspector should be making that
[2:28:20] decision whether something has to come.
[2:28:22] >> So you want a condition here that says
[2:28:24] the building inspector is in charge of
[2:28:26] everything that happens.
[2:28:31] » I tried to put that beginning, didn't I?
[2:28:34] >> You told me that earlier.
[2:28:36] >> I told you. Let's put it in at the
[2:28:38] beginning. I'm just saying who makes a
[2:28:41] decision.
[2:28:41] >> I often make that call by talking when I'm doing the planning board work
[2:28:47] in my communities. Any change, I usually
[2:28:49] will run past at least the planning
[2:28:51] board chairman to make sure that they
[2:28:53] agree that it's a minor change.
[2:28:55] >> I think it's like a
[2:28:56] >> Well, that's fine. I'm not saying I
[2:28:58] wouldn't do any of that. I just think we
[2:28:59] need to say who either the somebody has
[2:29:02] to make the original decision when they
[2:29:04] say we're changing this and who is that
[2:29:07] person. I just think that it should stay
[2:29:09] in here that person is
[2:29:11] >> should it be the planning board's
[2:29:13] representative or should it be the
[2:29:14] building commissioner? It's
[2:29:16] >> I suggest
[2:29:16] >> and every time I've been involved in
[2:29:18] them before it's been the building
[2:29:20] commissioner a lot actually it was the
[2:29:22] building commissioner and the planning director because I was planning
[2:29:26] director
[2:29:27] >> right
[2:29:27] >> but
[2:29:29] without saying anything here so that
[2:29:31] means every time the minor change comes
[2:29:32] up they need to move a basin 6 in it's
[2:29:37] got to come back to the plum board for
[2:29:38] their approval I don't think board wants
[2:29:41] to be coming here to make that decision
[2:29:42] on everyone
[2:29:44] >> that's want to Wait two weeks till we
[2:29:46] meet again.
[2:29:46] >> Wait two weeks to find it either. Right.
[2:29:48] So I'm just saying who is going to make
[2:29:50] that decision.
[2:29:52] >> You are so
[2:29:54] >> I just need to say something.
[2:29:57] >> I think you could say something like I I
[2:29:58] can come up with something something
[2:29:59] like minor changes that do not impact
[2:30:02] the um this decision shall be made by
[2:30:05] the building department.
[2:30:06] >> Perfect.
[2:30:08] >> Just somewhere where we know where to
[2:30:09] stop.
[2:30:10] >> Yeah.
[2:30:11] >> Minor changes.
[2:30:12] >> Minor plan changes. Minor plan changes
[2:30:16] >> that do not
[2:30:19] impact this decision
[2:30:25] » or the or the recorded plans.
[2:30:30] » Well, moving a drainage basin 6 in does
[2:30:34] affect the recorded plans, but you're
[2:30:36] going to get an asbuilt plan at the end
[2:30:38] that tells you where everything is.
[2:30:49] Are you going to read that back to us?
[2:30:52] I have minor plan changes that do not
[2:30:54] impact this decision shall be made by
[2:30:56] the building department
[2:30:58] because some minor changes will be will
[2:31:01] affect the plan, but we won't know that
[2:31:04] until the as is built is
[2:31:06] >> okay.
[2:31:06] >> So,
[2:31:08] >> yeah.
[2:31:09] >> I just have a question for Amy. Sorry,
[2:31:11] it's the fine.
[2:31:12] >> It's the line before
[2:31:15] the the stoppage of 6 months. My only
[2:31:20] >> just question is like what happens if
[2:31:23] there's like another COVID or another
[2:31:25] something like
[2:31:28] of course it's going to stop over 6
[2:31:30] month like what accounts for something
[2:31:33] like that?
[2:31:34] >> They would come in and request a change
[2:31:36] to that condition and you would grant
[2:31:37] it.
[2:31:38] >> Okay.
[2:31:38] >> Yeah. And also during co
[2:31:41] >> Yes, it is. But I just it happens.
[2:31:44] >> Yep. So
[2:31:45] >> the governor isued an extension of all
[2:31:47] permits when
[2:31:48] >> there are and then there are the
[2:31:49] extension per the permit extension act
[2:31:51] and all that stuff. So but I see what
[2:31:54] you're saying. So yeah, if worst case
[2:31:56] scenario they would have to come in and
[2:31:58] you would you would just revise that
[2:32:00] condition.
[2:32:05] So that will be condition 37
[2:32:08] 36 for bill. But we're moving
[2:32:12] the numbers are going to change a little
[2:32:15] because we we put one you're moving two
[2:32:17] of them.
[2:32:18] >> Yeah, we're moving but we're moving one
[2:32:20] number to a bullet under Yeah. to a sub
[2:32:22] bullet. So
[2:32:25] >> um are you guys okay with everything
[2:32:28] that we've walked through or do you want
[2:32:29] me to read back the changes?
[2:32:31] >> I think we're okay.
[2:32:35] Did you say please?
[2:32:36] >> Yes.
[2:32:37] >> No, we I've written them down. Maggie's
[2:32:41] been writing them down and Amy's been
[2:32:43] writing them down. So, we have them. We
[2:32:45] have them.
[2:32:45] >> And I have 10 million emails to myself.
[2:32:47] So,
[2:32:48] >> and it's recorded.
[2:32:49] >> Exactly. Yeah. It's been recorded by
[2:32:51] 1623. So um
[2:33:03] so definitive subdivision plan
[2:33:06] deliberation and vote deliberate and
[2:33:08] finalize all decision language including
[2:33:10] conditions which we have done.
[2:33:13] This says Lisa to list the amended
[2:33:16] language and read in the final form.
[2:33:18] >> We waved that. We did it as we did it as
[2:33:22] we went.
[2:33:24] >> So I will take a motion to approve with
[2:33:26] conditions
[2:33:28] >> with waivers and conditions and then
[2:33:30] waivers and conditions.
[2:33:32] >> Okay. But we we did the waiverss. We
[2:33:34] voted on the waivers already.
[2:33:37] >> Yeah. Okay. Fine. Yep. You're right.
[2:33:42] >> And they're in the in the decision that
[2:33:44] we're voting on, but we already took a
[2:33:46] separate vote on the waiverss.
[2:33:47] >> Okay. So take a motion to approve with
[2:33:50] conditions a definitive subdivision plan
[2:33:52] by applicant Bellpoint LLC for property
[2:33:54] at zero Essex Park Road and zero Pond
[2:33:56] Street rear map 147 lot 19 and map 142
[2:34:01] lots 30 and 31 to create a 36 lot open
[2:34:05] space residential development
[2:34:07] subdivision to be known as the preserve
[2:34:09] at Essex under the town of Essex rules
[2:34:10] and regulations relative to subdivision
[2:34:12] control and the Massachusetts general
[2:34:15] law chapter 41 sections 81K through 81 1
[2:34:18] GG known as the subdivision control law
[2:34:21] imper a special permit issued on
[2:34:23] September 3rd 2025 per town of Essex
[2:34:25] bylaws section 6-8
[2:34:28] open space residential development as
[2:34:30] shown in the definitive subdivision plan
[2:34:32] drawings sheets 1 through 57 dated June
[2:34:35] 3rd 2026 prepared by the Morren Cameron
[2:34:38] Group and submitted by applicant
[2:34:39] Bellpoint LLC subject to the conditions
[2:34:42] as written in the planning board
[2:34:43] decision. So take a motion.
[2:34:46] >> So moved. Thank you, Shelley. Second.
[2:34:50] >> Second.
[2:34:51] >> Thank you, Peter. This is a roll call
[2:34:53] vote.
[2:34:55] >> Peter loves I.
[2:34:57] >> Beth Walsh. I.
[2:34:59] Simone Early. I
[2:35:01] >> Shelley Bradberry. I
[2:35:03] >> Ariel Brain. I
[2:35:05] >> Lisa O'Donnell. I
[2:35:08] The motion passes.
[2:35:13] So, can can uh we all say thank you so
[2:35:18] much, Lisa,
[2:35:19] Valerie,
[2:35:21] Teresa,
[2:35:23] and Amy for doing this. Thank you
[2:35:26] >> Junior tonight
[2:35:27] >> and Teresa Jr. It's extraordinary work
[2:35:30] and all your time and just thank you.
[2:35:34] >> Well, thank you guys for bearing with
[2:35:35] all this, too. Um, we have other
[2:35:38] business.
[2:35:41] We have one other piece of other
[2:35:42] business.
[2:35:49] » Thank you.
[2:35:51] >> Um
[2:35:54] there is a genius
[2:35:56] >> a plot plan. Do you have a copy of
[2:35:59] >> I have Yeah, you have
[2:36:01] >> Yeah.
[2:36:02] >> Okay.
[2:36:03] >> And Bill is asking you're you're off.
[2:36:05] Okay. Thank Um, if if I may, you um I
[2:36:08] just wanted to let you guys you are a
[2:36:09] very very conscientious planning board.
[2:36:12] I
[2:36:13] >> I deal with a lot of planning boards and
[2:36:15] I was very very impressed with all of
[2:36:16] your preparation and questions and very good. Oh, well
[2:36:21] >> no, I mean it's but I know but everyone
[2:36:24] everybody engaged but um
[2:36:27] >> she's incredible but you guys also are.
[2:36:29] >> She's incredible. Yes.
[2:36:31] >> Thank you.
[2:36:31] >> I second that.
[2:36:32] >> Have a safe drive.
[2:36:33] >> Drive safely.
[2:36:36] it out.
[2:36:38] >> No, we're we're just doing um we're
[2:36:40] doing a a sighting of a building for a
[2:36:44] property. So, if you you don't have to
[2:36:46] hang out if you don't.
[2:36:48] >> Have a good night.
[2:36:51] >> No, B.
[2:36:52] >> Oh, okay.
[2:36:54] >> We're still on 1623. We're not going to
[2:36:56] reconvene down. We're not taking the
[2:36:58] whole road show downstairs to vote on
[2:37:00] this.
[2:37:00] >> I thought you were telling her she Okay.
[2:37:02] >> Oh, no. No. I was saying to Val that
[2:37:04] we're done with the subdivision and it's
[2:37:06] quarter to 10 at night. So, she wanted
[2:37:08] to
[2:37:10] >> um this one's
[2:37:12] >> good work.
[2:37:14] >> Oh, good night Valerie.
[2:37:15] >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you so much.
[2:37:18] >> Appreciate all your help.
[2:37:21] Um, so we have a sighting of a building at 100
[2:37:28] Belchure Street and a plot plan that was
[2:37:32] provided that shows the property
[2:37:34] setbacks.
[2:37:36] This is a second dwelling on a parcel,
[2:37:39] but this parcel is 5.2 acres. So, they
[2:37:42] have the acreage to have a second
[2:37:44] structure on this house, I mean second
[2:37:46] structure on this property. And you can
[2:37:49] see they have located it within the
[2:37:51] property setback which is the red dash
[2:37:53] line around the perimeter of the lot
[2:37:56] with our 25 20 and 30 foot setbacks.
[2:38:00] >> Right.
[2:38:01] >> And Bill, you're looking for us to agree
[2:38:03] that the sighting of this building is
[2:38:04] appropriate.
[2:38:05] >> Yes.
[2:38:07] >> Any questions?
[2:38:08] >> Motion to approve the sighting of 100
[2:38:11] Belture.
[2:38:12] >> Good idea. Second. Thank you Simone.
[2:38:15] moved and Beth second. All those
[2:38:18] in favor?
[2:38:18] >> I.
[2:38:21] >> No roll call vote. Okay, Simone.
[2:38:24] >> Motion to adjourn.
[2:38:26] >> Second.
[2:38:27] >> Oh, wait. Do we need minutes?
[2:38:30] >> We're not doing any minutes.
[2:38:32] >> Okay. It's quarter to 10.
[2:38:34] >> Yeah. All approved. So, who who motion?
[2:38:38] Simone motion.
[2:38:40] >> Who second? Beth second. All those in
[2:38:41] favor? I
[2:38:44] thank