[0:02] Good evening. I would like to call
tonight's planning board meeting to
[0:05] order. Uh first uh order of business
this evening is to review and approve
[0:11] the minutes of August 6, 2026. Does
everyone have the opportunity to review
[0:16] these minutes? [snorts]
>> Yes.
[0:19] » Any questions, comments, concerns?
>> Make a motion to approve.
[0:23] » Is there a second?
>> Second.
[0:25] » All those in favor?
>> I opposed. eyes have it. Um, actually
[0:31] before we go any further, I would like
to just take a moment to welcome our
[0:36] newest board member, Penny Ionelli. Is
that correct?
[0:39] » That's correct.
>> Thank you so much for joining us.
[0:42] » Um, so Penny will be catching up to
speed on everything.
[0:47] » That's right. That's right.
>> But we're very happy to have you. So,
[0:49] thank you and welcome.
>> Thank you.
[0:51] Um,
next, not so much fun order of business,
[0:56] but um, review and sign bills. We do
have three bills in front of us this
[1:00] evening. One for Graves Engineering for
335 Maple A. Um, this was the site plan
[1:07] peer review um, in the amount of
$2,55.50.
[1:12] Another one for Graves Engineering 335
Maple Lab
[1:17] um in the amount of $1,828.25
[1:21] and Graves Engineering for 957 Boston
Turnpike in the amount of $865.75
[1:28] for a total of $5,199.50.
[1:33] Can I get a motion to approve these
bills for payment?
[1:38] » I move that we authorize the
expenditures as read by the chair.
[1:41] Second.
>> All those in favor?
[1:44] » I opposed. Eyes have it.
>> Next up, uh, board member comments.
[1:52] Penny, I I I won't make you
>> say anything to [laughter]
[1:57] » do you know anything?
>> No comments.
[1:58] » I just want to welcome any as well.
>> Thank you, Tim.
[2:02] » No comments.
>> And I am all set. Uh, staff report.
[2:07] » Uh, thank you. Uh, one uh, brief update.
So, uh, we do have our master plan
[2:11] kickoff, uh, meeting which is scheduled,
uh, September 16th, um, at it was 6:30,
[2:18] uh, p.m. Um, so excited to have that,
uh, or sorry, 7 7 p.m. Um, so really
[2:25] excited to have that, uh, underway, uh,
and moving along. Um, again, we've been
[2:30] working with the consultant on some of
the background research and stuff, but,
[2:34] um, having the ste theing committee uh,
in place will be a important next step
[2:37] to really moving that along. And um you
know we'll be beginning in the public
[2:42] engagement soon after that. So really
excited for the next steps on that. Uh
[2:46] in addition we're hiring. So we did have
an assistant planner that left uh for a
[2:50] new job new job opportunity. Um so if
you're interested in the position feel
[2:56] free to reach out.
>> Great. Wonderful.
[3:01] Uh next up we will move to our meetings
and hearings. First item this evening is
[3:07] the proposed mixeduse development site
plan approval and special permit for the
[3:12] Virginia Kluke irrevocable trust. This
is continued public hearing for 525
[3:18] Hartford Turnpike.
>> Good evening.
[3:21] » Good evening. Hello. How are you all
tonight?
[3:23] » Great. How are [snorts] you?
>> Excellent. Just going to pull up
[3:34] » [snorts]
[3:41] » Just pulling up the plan so we can just
have a visual while we talk through I
[3:44] guess.
>> Uh so
[3:47] uh Tom Corbett for the record, Tom
Corbett, Go Venture Capital Group. Uh
[3:50] here with me tonight is Brendan Gove,
president of Go Venture Capital Group.
[3:55] Um so since we last met, so I guess at
the last meeting we had some takeaways.
[4:00] Um, one being uh get a sewer memo from
Weston and Samson in regard to the sewer
[4:06] flows. Um, and as and we had uh
outstanding traffic stuff going on as
[4:13] well. Um, so I guess since the last time
we met, we've received that Weston and
[4:18] Samson memo um, pretty much stating that
the Clue Streets up um, pump station is
[4:24] has adequate capacity um, and the
increased flows uh, don't pose any
[4:30] issues with future planning um, and it
would not require any infrastructure
[4:34] upgrades at this time. Um, so you all
have that memo um, that's been uploaded
[4:39] to the portal and shared with staff. Um
we also um worked with the planning
[4:46] department on our um school bus ascent
agreement. So we have a draft of that as
[4:51] well prepared uh that's been submitted.
Um I think order of business-wise that
[4:57] would be uh conditional uh prior to
occupancy uh that we run that up and
[5:03] just fill in the blanks. Uh as you could
probably see they were highlighted. Uh
[5:07] so really just the entity name um and
then really honing in on like the
[5:11] preferred path for the bus to take um
for that exhibit plan. Um the bus stops
[5:16] already identified on the plan um but
we'd like to tidy that all up prior to
[5:20] occupancy um and ahead of any school
children getting on a bus. Um
[5:26] uh since the last time we met also we've
been working back and forth with Bowman
[5:30] on the revised plan revisions um as it
relates to the traffic. Uh so we've been
[5:36] a back and forth a couple times since
the last time we met and uh Bowman
[5:40] issued their response earlier yesterday
um I believe or maybe even this morning.
[5:44] Um so that was pretty much an all clear.
Uh there was a condition or a comment
[5:50] number two uh that addressed um some of
the parking out front which we would
[5:57] like to kind of handle ahead of a
building permit uh to show that on the
[6:00] plan uh easily done and we can provide
the four spaces that they were
[6:04] recommending. So we just need to
reconfigure that front lot and uh
[6:09] figured touch the plans ahead of a
building permit. So um that would be the
[6:13] ask there to make that a condition. Um,
and just to kind of recap, Graves has
[6:18] been reviewed uh and signed off on.
They've acknowledged everything as far
[6:23] as the changes that we made previously
to the plan. Um, and right now the
[6:28] project is still under MEEPA as well.
So, we're working through that process.
[6:33] Um, there's a comment period that is
open until the end of this month and we
[6:38] expect a certificate in the first second
week of October for that. Um,
[6:43] and I guess that's just about it. I'd
open it up to any further comments,
[6:50] anything that you want to review. I've
got architectural plans and site plans
[6:55] at my fingertips. So, um, I guess I'll
put it back to you.
[7:00] » Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I'll open it
up to the board if there are any, um,
[7:07] additional questions.
>> I don't have any.
[7:10] » Tim, do you have anything? No additional
questions. No.
[7:13] » Um I I do have a couple of quick
questions. Um at the last meeting, one
[7:18] of the other um outstanding items that
we had talked about that I just want to
[7:21] confirm and we can capture this and any
um other documentation that's that's
[7:26] done for this pro project. Um but in
terms of um where the sewer is going to
[7:33] be coming from, I know as we had talked
about at the last meeting, there's three
[7:36] different options, three different
options on the table. Um and you had all
[7:41] kind of decided that the option that you
were going to pursue is through the the
[7:48] church property. Correct.
>> That is correct. Yes.
[7:50] » So I think that that's something that I
I think we'd just like to kind of
[7:54] solidify.
>> Yeah. I think that's a solid um that
[7:58] that is solidified at this point in time
as far as what we have on our plan. It's
[8:02] shown connecting to the church. Um I
would just ask that we provide you the
[8:06] agreement ahead of a building permit for
that.
[8:09] um because we just have final details to
work out with the church. It's a slow
[8:14] process and that could drag on, but
ahead of a building permit would be um
[8:19] most appropriate, I feel. Um and then
>> you're close with an agreement with the
[8:23] church though in terms of getting that.
So there's no
[8:27] » That's right.
>> There's no potential that they say,
[8:29] "Well, we changed our mind on it." Uh,
no, no. We Steve and I, Steve is the
[8:34] manager or the grounds manager anyway up
there at the church and we meet well
[8:38] almost weekly sometimes, but uh, yeah,
we're we're just working out kind of how
[8:43] that's all going to work um, on the back
end.
[8:45] » So, the agreement they've agreed to let
us do that. Um, so it's just a matter of
[8:49] the final agreement uh, language.
>> Okay. Um and then while not necessarily
[8:56] under our purview but um in terms of
MEPA um you said it's open till the end
[9:02] of this month um what is some of the
preliminary feedback that you're getting
[9:07] as specifically as it relates to the um
the signalization. So right now HSH is
[9:14] working through so the comment right now
is that we work through and iron out
[9:18] what that signalization is going to
actually look like and that's the the
[9:22] process in which we're going through
right now with MASDOT. So the district 3
[9:27] team um has been reviewing this under
their intersection control evaluation
[9:32] program. Uh so the engineers have been
working back and forth with HSH on what
[9:36] that cross-section of road needs to look
like. um future planning of MADOT's been
[9:41] taken into consideration. So, they have
that final revised traffic study um and
[9:47] warrant analysis in front of them. Um
just reviewing and and it's really just
[9:52] a masto kind of determining how they
want to see that. Um but other than
[9:56] that, um really not a whole lot of other
comments. Um the meeting was pretty
[10:02] quiet. We had some comments from um D
that are just pretty much comments that
[10:07] are in our file number anyhow. Um so
just making sure that it's talked about
[10:11] during the meeting. Um there's been some
discussion about animals and traffic. Um
[10:17] but I think that's just something that
we've addressed already.
[10:21] » Sure. Okay. All right. Um do you have
any comments?
[10:27] » Oh, and I guess if I may.
>> Yes.
[10:29] » Um the conservation restriction. Um, so
that's probably the bigger subject
[10:33] matter in in the Meepbook conversation
or was that day. Um, just how we're
[10:38] gonna convey that land, who's going to
hold that land. Uh, so that's something
[10:43] that we're working through now. We
initially supplied, uh, your board, the
[10:47] commission, and MEPA, um, as well as the
ZBA with draft language. Um, so that
[10:52] draft language in the eyes of MEPA,
they'd like to see that aligned with the
[10:57] EA model language, which we are now kind
of going through that process right now.
[11:02] Um, ahead of the 29th, we'll have that
submitted and, uh, back to them because
[11:06] the EA ultimately has to approve that
language and approve for the CR. Um, so
[11:12] we're working I'm working with two
different holders right now. um the
[11:16] Sudbury Valley trustees. Um I have
conversations with them going on right
[11:20] now and I have um the Greater Worester
Land Trust as well, which we've worked
[11:25] with in the past and just a slow process
as well.
[11:28] » Yeah.
>> Conservation restrictions are
[11:30] » Yeah. [laughter] Yeah.
>> Okay. Great. Um this is a public
[11:36] hearing. Is there any member of the
public wishing to speak on this item
[11:39] this evening?
Yes, sir.
[11:47] I'm in SMA 102 Stunnh Hill Road. Um so I
want to bring the attention this time
[11:52] like um I did the more study regarding
the site they are building the apartment
[11:58] there. I noticed uh that site has like a
lot of core heavy tent like a diversity
[12:05] for animals or other
uh wildlife and uh I can show you that
[12:11] map also.
[12:15] So as for the state as per the state
biome map uh there you can put the site
[12:20] name and they will tell you which site
is that has the mostly the core habitant
[12:25] and this is the site like and the I
print out from the state biom maps site.
[12:29] Uh you can see there the site is
completely uh has the core habitant
[12:34] there like so many different kind of any
kind of major development can uh disturb
[12:40] their ecosystem and can town could have
the issue is also that so I would like
[12:46] to bring your attention of the all the
board members before taking any decision
[12:50] you have to consider uh that scenario
also because it's there on the site and
[12:56] we can see that
Okay. Thank you.
[13:00] » Thank you.
>> Any other member?
[13:04] » Could I com is that an NHSP map? I guess
I'm unclear as to what that is.
[13:09] » Yes. So, it is from it is from its mass
GIS and what it's showing on here it's
[13:17] um the biomap the future of conservation
in Massachusetts. This is showing the
[13:22] critical natural landscape.
So,
[13:26] » okay.
>> So, if you go just provide a map you can
[13:29] get for put the town name.
>> No, I'm I'm familiar with it. So, the
[13:33] reason why that is a mapped property
they've they've increased the maps this
[13:37] year.
>> Um, so they just did a huge map update
[13:40] uh that got released probably about 3
four weeks ago now. Um, and now so if
[13:45] there's any GSP markings on the
property, they extended it all to the
[13:49] property lines. This project's well
ahead and already in conversations with
[13:54] certifying this vernal pool uh through
the um conservation commission as well
[14:00] um and with the CR restriction. So I
understand that the map may have updated
[14:04] but this project's in um with the
understanding of what the previous map
[14:09] was.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other member of the
[14:15] public wishing to speak on this this
evening?
[14:19] Okay. Um I did finally just get my notes
here. My apologies. I did have two other
[14:25] um minor not minor items um
about the infrastructure specifically
[14:32] again the um the traffic signal. Um and
I just want to make sure you know if we
[14:39] are to close this um this hearing this
evening in terms of any conditions that
[14:46] are placed into a decision. Um, one of
them specifically related to the um,
[14:53] signalization, understanding that the
town has um, an application pending
[14:57] before the state um, for some
infrastructure work in this area. In the
[15:02] event that those grant dollars do not
come through and or if the grant dollars
[15:10] are not enough to cover the cost of this
infrastructure upgrades, what is
[15:16] what would what would the plan be?
>> Uh so we would be if you wanted to speak
[15:21] on it, but uh we would be happy to have
it as a condition uh that we're
[15:25] responsible for any costs that aren't
covered by the grant um to implement the
[15:31] traffic signal. So, I think we've kind
of touched on this a little bit
[15:34] throughout time, but maybe not
explicitly. Um, so I think we're okay
[15:38] moving forward and having a condition
that um regardless of um the grant
[15:44] funding or funding that comes from
elsewhere, um we would be on the hook
[15:49] for it and that that would be okay with
us at this point u today.
[15:55] » Okay. Um and this is perhaps a bit of a
shot. Um, but I has there been any
[16:05] have you looked at the finances for this
project in terms of the potential
[16:11] of considering
um a reduction of any of the unit
[16:16] counts?
>> Yeah, we definitely have. Um Brendan
[16:20] could probably speak better to the
finances part of uh the buildout, but as
[16:24] far as kind of how we're looking at it
today, um with
[16:29] the cost of site work uh being pretty
exorbitant to get everything where it
[16:34] needs to be. Um, and if we're going to
be on the hook for the traffic signal,
[16:39] if that's going to be a condition of
approval, um, and that incurred cost
[16:44] comes along, um, we really need to be at
the 250 unit mark. Um, the the the
[16:52] square footage out front for the
commercial, we've maximized to the most
[16:56] we possibly can uh, to try to supplement
um, what we might be able to do. But I
[17:01] think as far as um
we stand uh I think the project as
[17:08] proposed here is really what we need uh
to move forward financially in order to
[17:14] incur costs with everything involved
including the traffic signal.
[17:19] » I'm happy to elaborate on on that. Um
yes so for the record uh Brendan Go um
[17:23] president of Capital Group resident of
Shbury 166 South. Um so just to um
[17:30] elaborate on that a little bit further.
So
[17:34] um and just bear with me here. So in in
terms of uh capitalizing this project,
[17:40] there's a combination of funds that come
from debt and equity. So about 65 70% of
[17:45] the money comes from debt. The remaining
comes from equity. Um really two sources
[17:50] of equity being myself and a third party
investor. So the third-party um
[17:58] investors
in institutional investors um in today's
[18:02] market they've standardized their review
of the economic viability of multif
[18:08] family projects on this ratio called a
return on cost also a yield on cost and
[18:14] very simply what that is is the
project's stabilized NOI net operating
[18:19] income divided by the project budget.
So, you know, these people are looking
[18:23] at 30 deals a week and they need a way
to quickly determine whether or not a
[18:29] project's worth their time. So, this
return on cost metric is really like a
[18:34] go no-go for them to be able to flip the
page to the second second part of the
[18:38] book and be able to take a look deeper
into the project. So in today's market,
[18:43] we believe a project needs to show at
least a 6.5% return on cost in order to
[18:49] attract institutional investors for a
project like this. Um the project right
[18:54] now at 250 units is at a 6.51%
return on cost. Um so any reduction to
[19:01] the number of units would drop the
return on cost metric below what we
[19:05] believe to be a financiable threshold.
So the answer to your question is not an
[19:11] easy one. Um because
it is certainly possible that a project
[19:18] with economics below a 6 and a half%
return on cost could be financable. But
[19:24] the probability of of us being able to
capitalize the project to the extent
[19:28] that we drop below that threshold
becomes more and more intense and and
[19:34] the the probability of us being able to
get get the project capitalized is is
[19:37] under pressure as it is especially if we
were um in the position where we'd have
[19:43] to pay for the intersection light out of
pocket or in in portion or entirely.
[19:47] That's a risk we're willing to take. So,
I guess that would be um our ask to the
[19:53] board. Um could we earn your support for
this project as proposed if we agree to
[20:01] um be on the hook for the intersection
like cost regardless of its source of
[20:05] funding um in exchange for the the 250
unit density
[20:10] with the other you know compounding um
complexity is regarding traffic. So,
[20:19] we're dealing with a traffic problem
from the opposite side of the spectrum
[20:23] where we're trying to generate enough
traffic generated by the project in
[20:27] order to warrant the intersection light.
So, there's a pushpull here on on both
[20:33] regards with regards to financing and
with regards to generating enough
[20:37] traffic to warrant the intersection
light. So, I think that would be our ask
[20:41] is is, you know, can we earn your your
support if we were to if we were to make
[20:45] that commitment to to fund the
intersection light regardless of the
[20:48] source of funding.
>> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that
[20:53] explanation.
[20:56] » All right. Um I don't think is if
anybody has any other questions. Oh,
[21:03] yes, sir.
[21:13] Uh Richard Edwards, 80 Oak Street. Um
I've brought up this concern previously
[21:18] on this project, the fact that it um
scoped out to have five stories and I
[21:24] think five-story buildings, residential
buildings in Shbury is not in keeping
[21:30] with the charm of Shrewberry. And so I
would uh uh encourage the planning board
[21:37] not to um approve any type of special
permitting that would allow a five-story
[21:45] building to be built. Um certainly um
three-story buildings are certainly
[21:50] fine. Um um but I again I wanted to uh
reiterate that concern um that uh um
[21:59] five-story buildings here in Shrewsbury
is uh uh really not uh um the best for
[22:06] Shrewsbury and the image of Shrewberry.
Thank you.
[22:10] » Thank you.
[22:14] » All right. At this point um I What is
the will of the board? I I don't think
[22:20] that there is any additional information
that needs to be collected on this
[22:24] particular project. At this point, I am
rather inclined to close the hearing if
[22:31] anybody has any concerns about that.
>> All right.
[22:36] » No, no concerns about closing the public
hearing. No.
[22:39] » Okay. So, at this point, uh, can I
entertain a motion to close the public
[22:44] hearing for this?
>> That motion. Is there a second?
[22:49] » Second.
>> All those in favor?
[22:51] » I I
>> Do we have to call roll call on that,
[22:54] Chris? Because
>> yes, Matt is remote.
[22:57] » My apologies. And and Penny's not voting
on this. [clears throat] Correct.
[23:01] » Correct.
>> Okay. Um, so motion to close the hearing
[23:06] has been made and seconded. Um, so Dino,
>> yes.
[23:11] » Kim,
>> yes.
[23:12] » Matt,
>> yes.
[23:14] » And I am a yes. public hearing is
closed. So, we will work on putting
[23:18] together a decision, have that for you
at the next hearing, at the next
[23:22] meeting.
>> Okay.
[23:22] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[23:23] » Thank you.
>> Thank you all.
[23:28] » Next item this evening is the proposed
overhead canopy. This is a dimminimous
[23:33] change request for 20 Lake Lake Lake 20
LLC. This is a new public meeting um for
[23:40] 193 Hartford Turnpike.
[23:56] Good evening.
>> Um I can we just wait one second. I
[23:58] think we need to have Steve come back in
for a quorum. Is that right?
[24:05] » Oh, Steve can't because
>> he does have a [clears throat] conflict.
[24:09] Apologies. Go ahead. Dennis Daro Yatco
Energy 313 Boston Post Road West Marro
[24:16] Mass
here to request well we submitted our
[24:19] plans for building permit etc. Um and
one of the concerns that came up was
[24:24] with the original uh approval we have a
two canopies on the site. One is a gas
[24:30] canopy, one is a diesel canopy. They're
both shown on the plan but not depicted
[24:34] with words. Like the front canopy has a
dotted line that shows and it has words
[24:39] that say proposed canopy, gasoline
fueling canopy. The diesel canopy off to
[24:45] the side has the same dotted lines
around it, which is common, but it just
[24:49] didn't say proposed diesel canopy. So
now the new plan was submitted has the
[24:53] words that say proposed diesel canopy.
Same plan, just we put in proposed
[24:58] diesel canopy. [laughter]
So we were asked to come here just to
[25:02] clarify that.
>> Sure.
[25:03] » U so if you look at both before and
after plans, same plan, just we added
[25:07] those words. That was it.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you.
[25:10] » Yeah. So and just adding further
context. So although it's a seems like a
[25:14] minor uh adjustment on the plans, um we
did want to bring this before the board.
[25:19] Um it does as represented did show the
hatch mark of uh the diesel area but
[25:24] wanted to ensure that the board as the
canopy relates to massing on the
[25:28] structure um had the chance um to
reaffirm that that was uh the intent
[25:33] intention. So
>> Okay. All right. Great. That does that
[25:37] require a vote like a a roll call vote
to accept the dimminimous change? Yep.
[25:43] » Okay. All right. Um, so I guess is there
a motion to accept this dimminimous ch
[25:49] this as a dimminimous change for 193
Hartford turnpike?
[25:52] » Yes, I make that motion.
>> And is there a second?
[25:57] » Okay, so all those in favor, Penny,
>> I
[26:00] » Dino.
Um, I'm a Yes. And Matt.
[26:05] » Oh, he's
>> So you're all you're all set.
[26:08] » Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[26:14] Next item this evening, proposed leased
parking special permit for Thomas Fury.
[26:19] This is a new public hearing um for 882
Boston Turnpike.
[26:26] And before we get started, we just need
to read the um public hearing notice.
[26:31] So, if you'll just bear with us for a
moment.
[26:35] The Shrewsbury Planning Board will hold
a public hearing on Thursday evening,
[26:38] September 3rd, 2026 at 7 PM in the
select board's hearing room at the
[26:42] Richard D. Carney Municipal Office
Building, 100 Maple Avenue to hear the
[26:47] application of Thomas Fiori, PO Box 248,
Shoesby, Mass 01545, as required by the
[26:53] town of Shbury zoning bylaws section
7D3A5
[26:58] for a special permit by the planning
board to allow for unenclosed parking
[27:02] spaces located remote from the site but
within 200 ft of their from. The
[27:07] proposed site plan is shown on a plan
accompanied by the application titled
[27:11] quote site plan metro west motorcars end
quote prepared by Land Planning Inc. 167
[27:17] Hartford Avenue Bellingham Mass 02019
dated June 12th 2026 revive revised June
[27:25] 26 2026 and stamped by Norman G. Hill
professional engineer. The subject
[27:30] project is located at 882 Boston
Turnpike, southerntherly of Boston
[27:34] Turnpike and east of Commons Drive and
consists in whole or in part of Husby's
[27:40] assessor's tax plate 36 plot 032000
0. A copy of the application and plans
[27:47] may be seen in the office of the
planning and economic development
[27:50] department at the Richard D. County
Municipal Office Building 100 Maple
[27:54] Avenue Shbury Mass and on the planning
board website at www.shburymma.gov
[28:01] ongoing projects.
>> Welcome.
[28:06] » Thank you.
>> So what what what do we have this
[28:10] morning or this evening? Uh this is uh
regarding the property at 882 Boston
[28:15] Turnpike which I've had for uh operated
a auto dealership and repair shop there
[28:20] for quite a long time. I've leased the
property out to Metro West Moto Cars and
[28:27] uh we've already been through or they
have already been through the selectment
[28:30] and zoning board uh for approvals on the
site plan, garage license and dealers's
[28:35] license. And this is hopefully the last
stop along the way. Uh regarding the
[28:42] small leased area that I have um
adjacent to the property that I own that
[28:48] is a uh it's owned by the Shrewsbury
Commons apartment building behind me.
[28:53] There's a water mane underneath there
that they have an easement uh for and
[28:57] like I say, I have a long-term lease on
that particular parcel from them for
[29:02] parking purpose only. And part of the
site plan for Metro West Moars did
[29:07] include parking spots uh on that leased
piece of property. And I was notified
[29:13] that that would require coming before
your board for approval uh because they
[29:17] consider it offsite, I guess. So there's
three display car parking and four
[29:24] employee parking spaces on that
particular parcel that's in question.
[29:28] » Okay, great. Thank you. Um Chris, do you
have anything that you want to
[29:34] » No, as represented, so this is something
that came up um out of the review of the
[29:38] transfer of the license uh or the the
license and permitting uh for the
[29:42] transfer of the business. Um again, uh
so this is leased area, so it's not
[29:46] owned by um the property owner. And so
therefore, um we do require off-site um
[29:53] parking. We do require that the uh um uh
space be deed have a deed uh
[30:01] acknowledgement of uh and be secured for
the business um as well. So
[30:06] » okay. All right. Um any members any
board members with questions or comments
[30:13] on this?
>> I don't no I think it's kind of hyper
[30:17] technical that you have to do this but
uh given that it is adjacent but you
[30:21] know
been Tom's been operating that way for a
[30:25] long time. Former selectman if anybody
remembers
[30:31] maybe not [laughter]
out as they say. I get it. I know. I
[30:36] know how that feels. Um but no, I I I
have no issue with this. And
[30:42] » this is a parking area that you've for
How long have you used this?
[30:47] » I've been using it for parking I've been
there for 35 years. The business has
[30:51] been there over 60 and this has been
parking for that long for this business.
[30:59] » He's selling the business. So, it came
up in conjunction with the sale.
[31:02] » Okay.
>> So, the use remains the same. It's a
[31:06] it's a parking.
>> It It essentially reestablishes the
[31:09] rights for the new
>> Yeah. No problem.
[31:11] » Okay.
>> Understood.
[31:14] All right. Um, this is a public hearing.
Is there any member of the public
[31:19] wishing to speak on this item this
evening?
[31:23] [snorts]
>> All right, seeing none, this seems
[31:26] relatively straightforward. Um, I would
like to see if the board would entertain
[31:31] a motion to close this public hearing
tonight.
[31:33] » I move that we close the public hearing
on the special permit for 882 Boston
[31:37] Turnpike
uh for the special permit for off-site
[31:42] parking.
>> Is there a second?
[31:44] » Second.
>> All those in favor? All right.
[31:47] » Do we have a decision?
>> Opposed?
[31:50] » Um, no, but I'll have one for the next
meeting.
[31:55] » You're all set.
>> All set. Thank you.
[31:56] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[32:00] » Uh, next item that is printed on the
agenda this evening is the proposed car
[32:04] dealership site plan approval for WJC
Enterprises. This was a continued public
[32:09] hearing for 957 Boston Turnpike and 269
Walnut Street. they have submitted a
[32:15] request to continue this public hearing.
So, is there a motion to um continue
[32:21] this public hearing to the next meeting
which is
[32:26] » October 2nd? So, October 1st,
>> October 1st at 7 p.m.,
[32:32] » I move that we continue the public
hearing on the uh site plan approval for
[32:38] 957 Boston Turnpike and 269 Walnut
Street until Thursday, October 1st at 7
[32:45] p.m.
>> Is there a second?
[32:47] » Second.
>> All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have
[32:51] it.
>> [clears throat]
[32:53] » So that hearing that hearing will be
continued to the October 1st meeting. Uh
[33:00] next hearing this evening is the
proposed mixeduse development site plan
[33:04] approval and special permit for
Specttacular LLC. This is a continued
[33:09] public hearing for 335 Maple A.
>> Good evening.
[33:14] » Good evening.
>> Hello. [cough]
[33:21] Get my slide deck up here. For the
record, Mark Borenstein,
[33:24] attorney Prince Lebell, representing the
applicant. To my right, it's Tim um
[33:29] Hayes of Bor Engineering and Tim Adams
of Spectacular LLC.
[33:34] Seeing my photo on the camera, that's
distracting.
[33:37] Um so, uh we've got a short slide deck
for you. Um so, presumably, uh the board
[33:44] has seen some of the revisions we've
made to the plan since the last meeting.
[33:48] Um the development teams have been
working diligently to refine the design
[33:52] but also address a lot of the comments
that we've received from the board from
[33:56] the from the public and through staff.
Um so with that I will turn over to Sam
[34:02] Adams to kind of walk through some of
the recent changes but first I have to
[34:07] share my screen.
[34:15] Come on
[34:25] window.
[34:37] » This is going to be real high level,
right? Because this was just kind of
[34:41] dumped on us.
>> Yes, very high level.
[34:45] high level like elevation or
>> well you could get plenty of that. You
[34:49] have plenty of elevation such a hard
time with this system here.
[34:56] » High level meaning you've been quick or
>> no what we don't you just submitted this
[35:01] and we're going to
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. All right.
[35:04] » review.
>> Yeah. I just want to make sure that
[35:06] everyone
>> don't have a problem.
[35:09] » Yeah. Is there any way I can like turn
that maybe so you can see it and the
[35:14] audience can see it?
>> We have one right here.
[35:17] » Yeah.
>> Okay. But I mean to point at it
[35:21] » up there
>> to go do it over there.
[35:23] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[35:24] » I can toggle the mouse too maybe.
[35:36] So this is the previous plan. I don't
think we need to go over it.
[35:40] » Right. Okay. And we we went back and
based on all the comments from the board
[35:48] and uh from the audience uh the
attendees
[35:53] um we went back and said well how can we
look at it fresh and try to incorporate
[36:00] uh those changes into the plan
and the revised plan.
[36:07] » Go over the request.
>> Sorry.
[36:09] » You want to go over the
>> Yeah. So what the the the items that we
[36:12] had listed just to review them quickly
uh increase the ratio between the
[36:18] commercial and residential uses uh
improve connectivity between the upper
[36:23] and lower portions of the site of the
development. uh integr in increase the
[36:29] integration of the units uh modify roof
lines and I'll come back to the
[36:35] architectural because we're we're
flexible on the architectural so I don't
[36:39] want to get hung up on the architectural
so I you know I'm happy to meet with
[36:44] whoever we need to meet with and hear
some suggestions and propose something
[36:50] but you know everyone has sort of has a
different opinion but we can make it
[36:54] look uh you know village colonial
some version of that. Um, reduce the
[37:00] massing adjacent to the residential
properties along Oak Street. So, it was
[37:06] mentioned a few times people even though
we showed the crosssections that they
[37:11] there were people didn't want, you know,
the top floor looking in their windows,
[37:15] which is physically impossible, but I I
understand the concern. uh and then uh
[37:22] reduce the massing adjacent to the uh
along Maple, which I had we had heard
[37:28] through planning that that was a concern
um from uh from the board. Uh address
[37:34] traffic along Oak Street, reduce the
number of curb cuts along Oak Street,
[37:39] and improve efficiency of parking.
So, we addressed all those items, and I
[37:46] I'm not sure I can do it in that order.
>> So, yeah. We're going to go individual.
[37:51] » I'm going to do it and if I leave
something out, you tell me.
[37:53] » All right. Well, we So, just just to
orient the board. So, this is the
[37:57] recently submitted rendered plan. This
is the new design. And so, we're going
[38:02] to go through each of the requests that
Sam um highlighted before and just
[38:09] provides some additional context. High
level.
[38:11] » Yeah. It's not really a new design. It's
just, you know, a a modified fine
[38:16] » trying to trying to accomplish uh what
everyone was looking for or we
[38:21] understood what was verbalized at
previous meetings.
[38:25] » Okay. So, uh the increase the uh the the
the ratio between the commercial and
[38:32] residential uses. Uh we did that. We
took the supermarket building and
[38:38] mirrored it. So receiving goes to the
other side which also works out well
[38:42] because it keeps any of that noise and
visibly away from Maple Street for you
[38:48] know reduces the exposure. And then uh I
added uh commercial space, small shop,
[38:55] what I would call small shop shop space,
8,000 square feet um on the side of that
[39:01] uh a portion of it would face out to the
main lot and the rema the other uh would
[39:07] face out to the street. So this is sort
of you know with this is a this building
[39:13] support building is a bit of more mass.
Uh with this with this um we're showing
[39:20] uh three and a uh three and a half or
two and a half floors there. So it would
[39:24] be um commercial on the first floor,
small shop space and uh uh right now
[39:30] we're saying there'd be some residential
above that for two floors. And that
[39:36] could also depending on where we went up
with unit count that could also be some
[39:41] office space because that's a very
that's a strong what we call retail very
[39:45] strong corner. So you'd have windows,
you know, out to maple, exposure to
[39:49] maple and to the front lot, and that
could be made to look very colonial with
[39:54] a slope roof, maybe some dormers, maybe
no dormers. We're we're open to, you
[40:00] know, what what the what people want to
see architecturally, but that can start
[40:05] to give you sort of a village concept.
And what we tried to do with this whole
[40:09] uh uh when we modified it was okay we
have the residential and the way now the
[40:15] way we look at it is instead of sort of
the residential being you know up top we
[40:21] look at it is now we're sort of facing
Maple and we have you come in you've got
[40:26] you know Arborview
Shrewsbury residences
[40:31] and we've got Arborview View shops. Um
so this this starts the line. So this is
[40:38] another 8,000 or possibly more if we do
commercial space um uh offices on the
[40:43] second and third floor. And we did that
and we stepped them because it
[40:49] transitions us over to what was building
five historically now it's building
[40:54] three. This again this is building one,
building two, building three and we are
[41:00] showing first floor small shop space. So
facing out onto uh Maple Avenue would be
[41:07] small shop space with the uh park
associated parking in front of it. And
[41:12] then on top of that uh residential and
from the street side before we had a
[41:18] fourstory building there. Now we're
showing um a threetory building with a
[41:23] slope roof that it can again help us
accomplish the whole villagy feel. Um
[41:29] you know a village mixeduse feel for
that. And um then we're we're bringing
[41:36] well that so that so that and that's
residential above and then we're going
[41:40] to bring the driveway as we start to
climb because we figured out how to get
[41:44] up to the upper area driving uh
internally. Um this is actually climbs
[41:51] up and then from this side it's just a
residential building three floors and
[41:57] that parking is behind the building. So
we've we've some given some separation
[42:03] to the actual uses um and the parking
associated with with those uses.
[42:11] Um so we uh site connectivity. Okay,
we're on to the next one. Improve
[42:16] connectiv connectivity between the upper
and lower portions of the mixed use. So
[42:21] before we had we had come up every time
we came back we were trying to get more
[42:26] residential in more residential
connectivity and you know it was said
[42:31] repeatedly that well there should be
vehicular connectivity. So once you're
[42:36] on the site you can stop and do your
shopping and then go up to your
[42:40] apartment. So in this case, as I just
mentioned, there'll be some residential
[42:45] here, residential in this building, but
then in your car, you can drive up and
[42:50] all of this is ADA compliant. So you can
go up in a wheelchair, it's 6% or less,
[42:55] » four and a half%
>> 4 and a.5%. It's a very shallow slope.
[42:59] And we accomplished that by um taking
what was building five, now building
[43:04] three.
>> Next one. So it's easier to see.
[43:06] » And u rotating it. So we we extended the
toe of the slope because the problem
[43:12] before was this it sto slope was just
too steep. So we kept this corner we
[43:18] rotated this building so we could have
parking and the proper uh setbacks and
[43:22] green space in the front of it. Um but
it moved our toe the the slope toe out
[43:29] which softened the entire slope. So that
start that helped us sort of start
[43:35] getting up it. And then when we we did
some calculations and we said, "Well, I
[43:41] didn't do them, but Tim did them." And
uh said, "Well, we're not quite there
[43:45] yet and we need more. We need the slope
to be shallower in order to get the
[43:51] slope that we want for vehicular and
pedestrian." Um and we accomplished that
[43:56] by taking the parking lot that was here
and we moved it over to this side and
[44:03] that brought that extended the the top
of the slope up. So, we took it from a
[44:07] slope that was like this that really you
couldn't get up with a vehicle to like
[44:11] this and now uh it can be done with a
car with a we you know we put a nice
[44:18] winding sort of road in there. Um and
additionally that road we extended it
[44:23] down so you can also come out to this
side of the supermarket and be at uh
[44:29] different different development but the
three pads the three lower pads on lot
[44:34] one. And from an access standpoint that
lets you you know come in off Route 9
[44:40] now and come in and sort of go up the
back way up here or the back way and get
[44:45] over here. It allows you to come in uh
this entry on Maple and do some uh hit
[44:52] the commercial space, the retail space
and come up this way or this way and
[44:58] then the uh the farther curb cut that
was for just an isolated building. five
[45:05] before. Now that brings you in and you
sort of you drive in and here there'll
[45:11] be, you know, uh probably a stone wall
with a sign that says, you know, the
[45:15] shops,
you know, our review of the shops and
[45:20] our review the residences. One way is
your your decision making side. Um and
[45:26] then additionally at the top you still
have the uh the what was proposed before
[45:32] was the uh main entry to the upper
residential but now it's all connect
[45:37] connected and that that actually we we
traffic has looked at it. I don't have
[45:42] the the letter, but he said that
actually reduces traffic, the
[45:47] residential traffic onto Oakw
uh because now there's other ways to go
[45:54] out and to come in. Um, also when as
soon as we looked at doing this and uh
[46:02] Tim said, "Well, then we don't need the
uh the driveway that's coming uh in this
[46:09] in uh the second driveway on Oak."
Um, which we originally started as full
[46:15] access and then we because of concern
from the neighbor, we had agreed to make
[46:19] it emergency access only, but now we're
actually able to completely completely
[46:24] eliminate it. So, we've removed that
curb cut from Oak and that and that
[46:29] driveway because we have so many
multiple points of access now and it's
[46:34] all integrated on that on on that
property.
[46:39] Um, you've kind of already touched upon
some of these, Sam, so we might be able
[46:42] to fly through them, but just a just a
highlight for the board. Um, as Sam
[46:47] mentioned before, now in buildings two
and three, there's vertical integration
[46:52] in the buildings. So there's ground
floor retail or commercial and there's
[46:57] residential units above which is very
much consistent with what the Lakeway
[47:00] overly district guidelines are asking
for. Um so just wanted to highlight that
[47:06] » sort of gives us three kinds of
residential product which is you know I
[47:10] think on this corner and this and this
is the parking for these units that
[47:15] would be gated so it's always available
to to those residents but it gives us
[47:19] you know that's a very urban feel to it.
um you know to be above uh the
[47:24] commercial. I once lived on top of a
Starbucks in California years ago and I
[47:30] used to walk out of my apartment, go
downstairs in my box or underpants, walk
[47:36] the counter, make [laughter]
make myself a coffee and walk out and
[47:41] now you can't do that. But
>> it was nice to have the coffee placeet.
[47:45] » He's getting overly personal now. So,
um, and Sam touched upon this previously
[47:49] as well, but just I think these images
really help underscore the efforts that
[47:54] have been undertaken by the development
team to reduce the the massing along
[47:58] Maple. So, this is if you're looking at
the side of or the front of the the
[48:03] retail grocery store.
>> I'll do this.
[48:05] » Okay.
>> This is if you're looking at, you know,
[48:07] this is a cross-section of these two
buildings. Um and you know I mean this
[48:13] height is you know unsure until it gets
designed at but it's more the
[48:18] composition that we're we're trying to
show you the proposed composition which
[48:22] is uh the brown is the commercial
commercial and then right now we're
[48:27] showing the residential and I don't
think this would be residential. Um we
[48:32] thought you because unless you put
dormers up here and that's sort of uh
[48:37] would be sort of up in the air as far as
I think if you don't want to the at
[48:41] night you might put dormers but you
wouldn't have units. They would be blank
[48:45] dormers. It would just be an
architectural thing and not actually
[48:49] functional. Um so that would reduce
that. And as far as you know maybe this
[48:54] roof even comes down here and then
they're active dormers sort of depends
[48:59] where we wind up architecturally. You
know again we'd be happy to work with
[49:03] the board come up with some uh
schematics questions.
[49:07] » Excuse me. Thank you.
Okay, let's go to the next one.
[49:14] Oh, building three. We're here. Okay, so
this is this building and a
[49:19] cross-section across it. And uh this is
the the ground level. So this goes out
[49:28] to the parking lot in front of the
commercial. So that that parking is
[49:32] right there in front of the small shop
space. and then two floors of
[49:37] residential above that and then some
kind of slope roof depending where we
[49:42] wind up architecturally but lower before
we had you know a fourstory building
[49:47] there uh the massing was very different
different feel to it. Um and then on the
[49:52] back side this is the parking lot level
in the back. So the first floor
[49:58] commercial the back of those units is
essentially like a retaining wall. It's
[50:03] like a like a basement in the back. Um,
and but you come around to the back side
[50:10] where this parking lot is and then we've
got three stories from that side and
[50:16] we're not looking at the back of a
commercial building because you're up
[50:20] above it. So from that side it just
looks like a threetory uh residential
[50:24] building.
[50:28] Any questions? Just jump in.
>> Okay. Um, and then these are uh the
[50:35] buildings up top that are behind
immediately behind the u Oak Street
[50:43] residents. The three Oak houses on Oak
Street were over here over here and uh
[50:49] what we did was uh we went three stories
on their side and that'll be a slope
[50:55] roof. So again something to match what
we're doing architecturally
[50:59] elsewhere. But then internal into the
project we kept the four we kept the
[51:05] four floors. Um and uh so you know
you've got a double loaded hallway on
[51:11] the first, second and third floor and
then on the fourth floor you've got a
[51:15] single loaded hallway
and again this you know might have
[51:19] dormers or again depends where you wind
up architecturally.
[51:22] Um and then we uh Tim was able to feed
this into where with the crosssections
[51:31] that we had previously um shown you. And
so this is uh these are the houses. I
[51:37] think we have one of these for each
house because they're all slightly
[51:40] different.
>> I think 112
[51:42] » this is 112
>> and most northerly
[51:45] » um and uh um so you know standing if
you're 5t tall you're looking believe me
[51:50] you can't see through there. I've been
up there. We just, you know, did some
[51:53] fence maintenance and put the slats in
the fence and it is, you can't see 5t
[51:58] into the jungle up there. But I
appreciate the concern. But again, you
[52:03] know, this this is this is if we were to
draw this accurately, you know, it would
[52:08] be super dense. You wouldn't see through
this at all because it's not all high
[52:12] canopy. It's actually low growth and
canopy.
[52:15] Um, and you'll see if you're looking out
here, you are um you're essentially
[52:22] looking at the top of the pitch roof
now,
[52:26] you know, and that's because we have
this building we're at, you know, we're
[52:30] we're moving material here. Um, so the
building is much lower
[52:35] than this. This is at 502 and this is at
533.
[52:45] I don't know if that's building
>> 538.
[52:47] » 538. I don't know if that was included
the 5T of the person shown.
[52:51] » So you're way above that's no different
than, you know, if this if you just had
[52:56] a subdivision back there, you'd be
looking at at rooms. And if you didn't
[53:00] excavate, you'd be looking at probably
the entire house, you know, instead of
[53:05] instead of just that. Um then efficiency
of parking. We meet all the
[53:09] requirements. Um and uh um
has improved efficiency. We did because
[53:18] of the increased commercial and the
difference in layout, we did remove or
[53:24] swept back some of the uh spaces that we
had said we would uh bank
[53:30] uh because we needed to because all of a
sudden we we didn't meet the threshold.
[53:35] So, if we can take out some and bank
them, we we're happy to do that. But for
[53:40] the exercise to get it done for
tonight's meeting, you know, we didn't
[53:44] fine-tune it to that degree. Um, and um
uh um and the number will also go down
[53:51] slightly because we have to factor in uh
trash. And I typically do more handicap
[53:58] than is required. And for small shops, I
usually do um pickup, you know, prior to
[54:03] pickup where like I did at marketplace
where there are some signs that are some
[54:07] spaces that are reserved people.
come in and uh they bring out the food
[54:13] or you know if it's shortterm you know
five 10 minute parking depending on the
[54:16] tenant. So the actual number will go
down a little
[54:21] but we we can we can meet um the what's
required by code. Um, so again this is
[54:28] that same list and you know we put a
check mark near everyone that we
[54:34] everyone that we every item that we
addressed
[54:40] and I don't think I need to go over
again.
[54:43] » No.
>> Okay. And I'm going to sit down.
[54:46] » So So I'll defer to the to the chair. Uh
we have uh additional slides going over
[54:50] the special permit and the site plan
criteria as we've done in previous
[54:54] meetings.
>> Oh. Oh, I I think we missed something
[54:56] though. Can we go back? Uh because on
buildings, we skipped over buildings um
[55:03] » four and five.
>> Sure.
[55:05] » Okay. So, buildings four different names
numbers on the buildings on the
[55:11] conceptual plan that you submitted.
>> Well, that's an old one. That's not the
[55:14] new one.
>> Well, it shows the loop road. Yeah.
[55:17] » Yeah. But we would that was like very
preliminary. So I think when I'm sure
[55:20] you'll get all the the new docs and
you'll see but because originally you
[55:25] were one and two up here and now it's
really mixed use so it makes more sense
[55:29] to be numbering it from
>> it wasn't mixed use before.
[55:32] » What's that?
>> It wasn't mixed use before.
[55:34] » No, it was mixed but but it it it now
you're diving between them all.
[55:38] » Got it.
>> So and we think it actually presents
[55:41] from maple because from from oak you're
sort of you know in the woods. Yeah.
[55:46] » Um so, uh we removed some of those like
those half floors that I mentioned. Um
[55:53] and then it was actually suggested to us
by through planning that I thought came
[55:58] from the board said, "We'll take off
some of the units on building five,
[56:04] which is the residential building on
Maple, and put them on the buildings on
[56:08] the top of the hill." So, so I wouldn't
have come up with that on my own, but
[56:13] that was that was what we heard as a
suggestion. So, that's what we did to
[56:18] maintain to maintain the count. And it
was only brought up for building for
[56:24] building three, formerly building five.
But I said, well, that's an that's
[56:29] really interesting because that would
let us do the same things to these two
[56:33] buildings. So now we're sort of tipping
down to the to the to the residential
[56:39] neighborhoods with those slope roofs and
less mass. Um um so I didn't want you to
[56:46] think that I was trying to slide that
one in. Um I missed it on the
[56:50] presentation. So we show we're still at
the 270 units. Um and that's what we're
[56:56] showing here. The the fivetory buildings
are internal in the project. So they
[57:02] don't face out. They're not you're not
over anyone's house. Um you know where
[57:07] we are uh close to a butters we've
actually [clears throat] reduced the
[57:12] height and gone with a slope roof.
>> Okay.
[57:16] » Okay. Thank you.
[57:22] » So just to go back to it, Madam Chair,
would the board like me to review the
[57:26] criteria?
>> I I don't think that's that that's a
[57:30] necessity. I appreciate that. put it out
there. I think
[57:33] » we got it. We got it ready for you guys.
>> We got it.
[57:36] » We got it. [laughter]
>> Oh, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, so
[57:40] I guess at this point I'd like to um
open it up to the board for any
[57:45] questions or comments.
>> Penny, do you have anything at start?
[57:51] Okay. Do you know?
>> Not right now.
[57:53] » Steve,
>> question for the engineer. I'm sorry. I
[57:57] forget Tim. Yeah.
>> How many how many linear feet is the
[58:01] bunny trail, the slope? Uh if if I were
a pedestrian
[58:08] taking that
walking along till I get to the culdeac
[58:13] till to the Aldi or whatever the small
supermarket.
[58:18] You want to go from
>> I want to go from say building from the
[58:21] upper apartments
[58:26] » down to the Aldi
>> down to the Aldi.
[58:28] » Yes. Yes.
>> Supermarket.
[58:29] » Yeah.
>> Um I don't have the exact number. It is
[58:33] over 1,000 ft. Um it it is at 4 and a
half% though. So it's no there's no
[58:39] ramps, handrails, all that to do
accessible. It's a sidewalk adjacent to
[58:43] the roadway. So that's we were able to
make the slope work to have a
[58:48] » well,000 ft and 2,000 ft is the big
difference.
[58:52] » Yeah. Like I don't have my scale in
front of me, but um it's a great
[58:56] question. I get you answer. It's it's
over 1,000 ft, though.
[58:58] » Okay.
>> And we provided I didn't point them out,
[59:01] but if I may, we we provided sub uh
stairs at different points all along
[59:06] there so you can do the shortcuts.
>> So I want to take the mogul. Huh.
[59:11] [laughter]
>> Stairs are good for you. I know
[59:14] » clearly got skiing on the mind.
[laughter]
[59:21] » That's my question.
>> Okay, Tim, do you have any questions?
[59:24] » Just a concern over the five stories,
the prominence and the scale when you're
[59:28] when you're coming east on nine that
those fivetory buildings going to be
[59:33] right on right on top of you and just
concerned in this district for the town
[59:38] that kind of scale and massing. Yeah, I
again I wouldn't have done it, but I
[59:42] thought that's what you were looking
for. So I'm I'm open to doing something
[59:46] else, but that's what we heard through
planning. That's why we did it.
[59:50] » They said reduce the number.
>> Yeah, I think it was I think it was
[59:53] reduce the number of units, not reduce
and put them elsewhere, but
[59:57] » Okay,
>> that's that was what I I thought we were
[1:00:01] originally going to be trying to pursue.
Um,
[1:00:07] » so, so would you pref So you I'm I'm you
all sort of I'm getting the vibe that
[1:00:13] we're not like in the fifth floor. Um,
and uh I think right
[1:00:21] » personally no.
>> Uh, so I mean we could take a look at
[1:00:27] that to to to eliminate that and see
where we, you know, we'll wind up. I
[1:00:33] think in that building you we've got uh
66 units. So divided by five is what? 13
[1:00:41] units per floor. So if you took off, you
know, I think you'd be down about 250
[1:00:47] units. Um if you took off the you cut
that fifth floor off and and there would
[1:00:53] be some distri, you know, possible
redistribution somewhere else. But I
[1:00:58] think that's that's basically, you know,
where you'd wind up. you'd wind up with
[1:01:03] uh 25 units less, something like that.
20 25 units less
[1:01:10] » if you were to make the old building
five all commercial. I know you're going
[1:01:14] to be competing against yourself, Sam,
across the street. Forgot about the
[1:01:18] residential units. It made it a smaller
project.
[1:01:22] Still doesn't integrate it, but it's
certainly more palatable in my mind.
[1:01:31] I I understand the challenges you're
working with. I I appreciate the efforts
[1:01:35] you've made. I'm not unsympathetic to
your plight, but it's it's still
[1:01:42] in my mind not an integrated site.
That's
[1:01:46] just one vote.
[1:01:51] » Can we talk about the four
um buildings on on top? Um, one of the,
[1:02:00] um, crosssections that you had shown,
um, shows the sloped roof towards the
[1:02:06] back. Um,
and then on the other side, the call it
[1:02:12] the Maple Maple Street side. Is that
fair to say? Um, I'm making an
[1:02:18] assumption, please correct me if I'm
wrong, that on that Maple Street side,
[1:02:23] you will still have you're these
buildings are going to have rooftop
[1:02:27] units. Correct.
>> Uh, probably that and you know that's
[1:02:31] sort of the standard. They'll be they
would be part of the unit would I think
[1:02:36] is typically inside and then the maybe a
condenser outside. The contentions are I
[1:02:41] mean I can go up on my roof at
marketplace and I I have to bend down to
[1:02:45] see if it's actually even on. Um but
they would be you know they can have
[1:02:51] they can have uh you know visual and an
acoustic pen or or on each unit
[1:02:58] depending how they're laid out. um that
would make it so you can't see them or
[1:03:03] you definitely I mean I don't think you
you're hearing it from anywhere in the
[1:03:06] neighborhood because I have to bend down
to listen to the ones if I'm standing in
[1:03:10] front of it. They're super quiet now.
>> And and I guess that's that the the
[1:03:17] noise is something that is in my mind.
But also I I'm thinking about in terms
[1:03:22] of um height the height of those
buildings with like does that account
[1:03:29] or any units that are going to be ont
like you're not going to see them unless
[1:03:35] you're standing on the roof?
>> Um
[1:03:38] » usually we with these types of
developments you put them in like the
[1:03:42] center of the building so that way
they'll be away from the public view.
[1:03:45] Okay.
[1:03:49] » Is building three any further away from
Maple?
[1:03:54] » Building three, that corner is the same
distance. So, um, somebody said
[1:03:58] something about the distance from Maple
and uh they were referring to that
[1:04:04] corner which was the closest corner. So,
there is nothing closer than what was
[1:04:09] the closer uh portion of the building
before. It was more skew before.
[1:04:14] » Okay. And in order to get, you know, up
the hill, we had to move out the tow
[1:04:17] slope. In order to move out the tow
slope, we had to uh pivot the building.
[1:04:22] » Okay.
>> On that corner, but it's no closer than
[1:04:25] it was.
>> Okay.
[1:04:30] All right. This this is a public
hearing. I'd like to open it up to
[1:04:33] members of the public wishing to speak
on this item this evening. Yes, sir.
[1:04:36] Please come up and just Yeah. Sorry.
[1:04:42] » [clears throat]
[1:04:53] » Let me just pull up my notes. Uh Richard
Edwards, 80 Oak Street.
[1:04:58] And uh first of all, I'd uh like to
thank you guys here. looks like you
[1:05:04] really put a lot of effort uh into uh uh
the revised plan that you uh um put
[1:05:11] together. I'm I'm I'm very impressed in
uh the fact that you were able to to do
[1:05:16] that. Um but
notwithstanding, I do have some
[1:05:21] concerns.
Um
[1:05:25] so one is even though um you've added
additional commercial square footage,
[1:05:30] there's still 270 residential units. Uh
this is way too many for this section of
[1:05:36] Shrewsbury. Uh the increased traffic to
Oak Maple Route 9 will create more
[1:05:42] potential for accidents and this is
especially true for Oak Street where two
[1:05:46] schools are located.
Uh they've introduced two five-story
[1:05:52] buildings. uh per their letter, this was
a recommendation from the planning
[1:05:56] department. So I'm wondering who in the
planning department would recommend
[1:06:03] fivetory buildings
when
[1:06:07] whoever it is and you got your hand
raised. You know that the public has
[1:06:11] specifically come out and said many many
times five stories and four stories is
[1:06:17] way too many.
>> I think he's looking to explain himself.
[1:06:19] So
>> what's that? just finish and Chris will
[1:06:22] address with any concern.
>> So, um and they have also introduced
[1:06:28] buildings that have a modified three and
fourtory configurations.
[1:06:32] Um so, I would say that I would
encourage special permits not be granted
[1:06:38] for buildings that exceed three stories.
Uh buildings taller than three three
[1:06:43] stories are not keeping with the charm
of Shrewsbury and the residents that are
[1:06:47] adjacent to this property.
uh they eliminated the emergency access
[1:06:52] on Oak Street, which is which is good.
Uh this certainly is a step in the right
[1:06:57] direction. However, what kind of
guarantees are there that there won't be
[1:07:03] some type of development later on
either from the developer or the town
[1:07:10] that would dictate that that access
point has to be opened up. Um so
[1:07:18] potentially an argument could be made in
the future for creating this access
[1:07:22] road. So in this particular plan now
you've taken it out but who's to say
[1:07:29] three years from now, five years from
now they come back to the planning board
[1:07:33] and say yeah we need to put this back
in. So are there going to be any
[1:07:39] guarantees
um to make sure that that can't be put
[1:07:42] in? Are we looking at making changes to
the property um
[1:07:49] um right of way changes to the right of
way that are set up on the property so
[1:07:54] that that can't be done? So that's a a
question that that I have out there. Um
[1:08:01] if you look at the whole design of the
project, the buildings and the parking
[1:08:06] lots, everything is too tightly packed
together.
[1:08:11] And the buildings in the parking lots
are built out right to the edge of the
[1:08:16] property. This makes it look like a
typical strip mall. And in this section
[1:08:21] of Shrewsbury, it detracts from the
charm of the neighborhood in the
[1:08:25] surrounding area. Um the buildings, uh
another item, the buildings do not have
[1:08:31] a colonial design, although you did
mention that. Um that's something that
[1:08:35] you were going to um take into
consideration. Um but um in keeping with
[1:08:40] Shrewsbury uh in the colonial aspect of
it uh the design should should
[1:08:47] incorporate those types of things. Uh
and finally in uh previous comments the
[1:08:53] developers have maintained in multiple
meetings multiple multiple meetings that
[1:09:00] they could not create an internal
driveway network on the property to
[1:09:05] connect the buildings due to the
property's steep grading. So this whole
[1:09:09] connection that they have all set up
here,
[1:09:13] I I think it's a good idea, but they've
maintained
[1:09:17] until September 1st, they couldn't do
it. Now all of a sudden they're able to
[1:09:24] do it. Which leads me to the question,
[1:09:32] what other things are in the project
that they say that they can't do or
[1:09:36] won't do? but they can actually be done
with a little encouragement.
[1:09:43] Um, such as multiple access points from
Oak Street as opposed to having a only
[1:09:50] one. When I say multiple, we're talking
for the um the commercial um the um the
[1:09:58] access points for um for the uh business
units here and then an access point for
[1:10:04] the apartments. So that's two axis
points onto Oak Street. So they're
[1:10:09] saying that they need those. So my
question is, you're able to put all this
[1:10:14] road in here.
[1:10:18] What's what's the need for having two
access points onto Oak Street, which
[1:10:23] generates more traffic onto Oak Street?
Also, they've maintained on Route Nine
[1:10:30] that they can only have a single entry
point on coming off of Route 9 into
[1:10:37] these shops.
>> So, to be to just let's try and keep it
[1:10:42] focused. Those the commercial spaces
have already been determined that that
[1:10:48] hearing is closed. This is a separate
project. Okay.
[1:10:50] » So, we just need to make sure that that
is
[1:10:53] » we're
>> all right. So,
[1:10:54] » keep it.
>> Okay. But my point then is for up here,
[1:10:59] you've got an access point for Oak
Street. Now that you've got everything
[1:11:03] in here, why do we need an access point
on Oak Street for that for the
[1:11:07] apartments? And then finally, you've got
um you've mentioned that you need to
[1:11:15] have 270 units, residential units to
make this as opposed to why why do we
[1:11:23] need that? Why can't that be changed as
well? Maybe make it something
[1:11:27] significantly less, meaning less
buildings and less units. So, and with
[1:11:33] that, um, I don't have any more
comments.
[1:11:36] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:11:37] » Appreciate that.
>> Chris, do you want to
[1:11:40] » Thank you. I'd like to clarify on the
the representation that the that myself
[1:11:45] made the recommendation for a fifth
story. So, I think that's a bit of a
[1:11:50] stretch. Um the applicant after the
meetings frequently will you know me and
[1:11:56] Mark will talk about the conversation.
Um it's I think know you know it's clear
[1:12:01] that this applicant has you know
struggled to work with redesigning the
[1:12:05] project to meet the the board's
recommendations. Um and so we
[1:12:09] consistently have conversations with
them. It did provide the suggestion
[1:12:14] that where we look at the terrace
design, the pitched roofs that were
[1:12:17] incorporated into this design to reduce
the massing of the structure related
[1:12:22] relevant to the residential structures
nearby. So that was primarily looking at
[1:12:28] massing and where that massing can be re
reallocated in the site. Um I think it's
[1:12:33] clear this board has said multiple times
that they'd like to see a reduction in
[1:12:36] units. I think a combination of the
reduction of units and the reduction of
[1:12:41] massing through that architectural
design, which I think was responsive,
[1:12:44] would be responsive to the board's
comments. That was the suggestion that
[1:12:48] was made. In terms of a five-story
recommendation, they're within their
[1:12:53] rights to propose that we don't design
these and we're not that prescriptive in
[1:12:56] our recommendations. So,
>> thank you.
[1:13:01] » Is there any other member of the public
wishing to speak on this? Yes, sir.
[1:13:11] Hello, my name is Jerry Simone. I'm at
330 Maple. Um,
[1:13:18] you've done quite a bit on Maple. Uh, I
think in the past there was a lot of
[1:13:23] addressing some of the issues on Oak.
And this is the first meeting I've been
[1:13:27] to where you've addressed some of the
issues, especially on [clears throat]
[1:13:31] the houses and the concerns that we have
on Maple. Um, I just have a couple
[1:13:36] questions really. I want to don't want
to reiterate. I I agree with a lot of
[1:13:39] what was just said here about the the
size of the buildings and the fact that
[1:13:43] there's so many people and so many
things stuffed into a small space.
[1:13:48] I'm not a builder, so I don't know how I
could recommend things, but instead of
[1:13:52] 270, maybe cut down a little bit on some
of the pe on some of the the uh the
[1:13:57] units to create a little bit more space.
question I have is um the setback used
[1:14:02] to be 55 feet on that apartment building
off of Maple. What's what's the setback
[1:14:08] now?
[1:14:11] » It's more
>> it's more than 55 ft. I don't have the
[1:14:13] exact number.
>> It's probably bay of parking. So it's
[1:14:18] about 70.
>> It's at least 70.
[1:14:19] » Did you move the whole building back or
just you kept that 155 corner and then
[1:14:23] angled it back?
>> If you recall it was skewed previously
[1:14:26] to the
>> Well, when we Yeah. We rotated it. I It
[1:14:29] may have moved the corner for further
away
[1:14:32] » from the street.
>> From the street because we want we
[1:14:34] wanted we didn't if you recall we didn't
have parking there before. We didn't
[1:14:38] have the commercial, right?
>> So, we had to make it you know a typical
[1:14:42] tray of parking is you know eight uh 60
60 feet and it might be a little more in
[1:14:49] this town. Um and uh and then there's
green space uh when you get to the
[1:14:54] street and I don't know if that's five
or 10 in Shbury. And then and we have to
[1:14:59] deal with some slope there. So it
probably has to be a little elongated.
[1:15:03] And then um this sidewalk and then you
know I typically do wider than normal
[1:15:08] sidewalk. Um so there can be cafe spill
out that kind of thing onto the
[1:15:13] sidewalk. So, it's it's I I'm thinking
it's at least at least 70 and it may be
[1:15:18] more.
>> Okay. Uh how many retail spaces will
[1:15:22] will there be in that building?
>> Try to keep this not conversational.
[1:15:25] Just come through the chair, please.
>> Sorry.
[1:15:27] » Say that again. I'm sorry.
>> We just can't have this be
[1:15:31] conversational. We need to just have any
questions directed.
[1:15:34] » The question that I would have is how
many retail spaces there would be there.
[1:15:39] I don't know if they could answer that
now or whether
[1:15:44] That's something that they will answer
later. Do
[1:15:46] » you want me to Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
>> Respond through the board.
[1:15:48] » Go ahead.
>> Um I I don't know. It It depends on who
[1:15:51] the tenants are because typically in
that kind of building, you would build
[1:15:55] the building and you do the storefronts,
but you might not demise the units
[1:16:00] because you have tenants that come to
you and they say, "I want 800 square
[1:16:03] feet. I want,200 square feet. I want
1600 square feet." And if you you you've
[1:16:09] already demised it, then you can't
accommodate this what you wind up with
[1:16:13] people you can't accommodate.
>> Okay. You mentioned uh they mentioned
[1:16:17] too about there' be a sign where
residents go one way and then the retail
[1:16:21] goes another way. Is that for parking
purposes or would anybody be able to
[1:16:25] park residents and retail in the front?
So retail would then be fighting for a
[1:16:30] space or the residents will be fighting
for a space
[1:16:32] » if I can through the board. Mhm.
>> Um uh if I may, um the residential entry
[1:16:38] is in the back. So it's unlikely if you
had all the parking in the back for the
[1:16:42] residential that you'd be parking in the
front. Um and again, if you were
[1:16:49] going to the commercial spaces, you
wouldn't be parking in the back because
[1:16:53] you'd have to walk around the entire
building.
[1:16:56] So it's the, you know, and that's that's
why it's allocated and designed as it
[1:17:01] is. The parking for the different uses
are essentially separated and they're in
[1:17:07] closest proximity to those uses.
>> Okay. And and the final thing that I
[1:17:12] have is um if you look at the picture up
there um and you previously showed a
[1:17:18] picture of oak and the fact that there's
a quite a bit of buffer, you can't even
[1:17:23] see through the trees. last meeting you
mentioned there's a big um you extended
[1:17:28] a fence up higher and uh I think even
brought the buildings down low or
[1:17:34] whatever. So there's been quite a bit as
far as buffers go along Oak. As I look
[1:17:40] at this and look at all the buffers to
the right, to the left behind all the
[1:17:43] buildings,
it looks like in front of that building
[1:17:47] on Maple, there's only like five five
trees. And if you look behind the
[1:17:53] building, there's about 90 hundred and
some odd trees. So it looks like buffers
[1:17:57] have been put between a lot of things
here. But that tall building that's now
[1:18:03] only 70 ft from Maple, there doesn't
look like there's much of a buffer
[1:18:07] between that building and Maple. So
that's my concern there because the
[1:18:13] people in Maple are still going to be
seeing, you know, what's upwards to a
[1:18:16] three, three and a half, 4 foot building
with really no buffers there. very
[1:18:21] little buffer yet quite a
>> um quite a large amount of buffers is
[1:18:25] around some of the other areas. So I
would just ask to consider something
[1:18:29] like that and maybe buffering a little
bit better uh that building to Maple.
[1:18:33] » Thank you.
[1:18:38] » Yes.
[1:18:43] » Ano 102 Stony Hill Road. Uh I have only
two major concern about this project
[1:18:49] because the number the footprint of the
uh those buildings are coming 270 units
[1:18:54] is pretty high for that area. There are
two school system there and when people
[1:19:00] are coming and moving coming and going
out from those premises that can affect
[1:19:06] the daily life of the residents like the
school buses and same time who is coming
[1:19:11] and leaving from those areas. The second
thing I want to point about the
[1:19:15] infrastructure town is infrastructure is
reaching on the capacity of whatever we
[1:19:20] have. Most of the cases that area is
always flooded when we have the rain
[1:19:25] that area always flooded. There are so
many complaint already residents are
[1:19:28] doing. So residents has the concern
about this project the size the 270 is
[1:19:35] really big and we don't have capacity or
like the money also to deal with that.
[1:19:42] So definitely uh they have to come with
the smaller footprint and then town can
[1:19:47] work on that. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:19:52] » Yes,
[1:19:57] » dating gone at 43 Leblanc Road. Uh thank
you guys very much for the whole new
[1:20:03] revised project. What a game changer. um
still not on board for the 270
[1:20:08] apartments as I'm sure you're well
aware, but um if you guys could scale it
[1:20:13] down, this is such a different project
from 2014, I believe. Um
[1:20:20] it's
uh as we know, this project has been on
[1:20:25] board since it's been 12 years now.
Uh something's going to be built there.
[1:20:31] We need to work on getting the best
project that we can. I think we're
[1:20:35] really moving towards that. Uh my reason
for being here right now is I had sent a
[1:20:40] letter I believe on July 28th. I had
asked today Louise is out if it had made
[1:20:46] it into the record. I had sent some
pictures. I believe Mr. Chararma was
[1:20:52] just referring to that the flooding down
by in front of the plaza. Um it was
[1:20:59] addressed back in 2020
when the plaza renovate renovations were
[1:21:04] being done. Um there's significant
flooding that happens down at the bottom
[1:21:09] of the plaza. It is not Mr. Adams
responsibility to handle all of the
[1:21:16] flooding that happens right there. It's
I believe that the drains down there
[1:21:23] cannot handle the water from the hill.
It's just there's too much water that's
[1:21:29] ending up in that drain. I think it's a
mass DOT problem. What I'm hoping is
[1:21:34] that more water does not enter that
drain system. So my question through the
[1:21:40] chair is what is the plan for the water
on site so that more water does not come
[1:21:47] down Maple A because the water I can I
ask if you did receive the pictures that
[1:21:53] I sent from 2020 and also July 28th of
this year because in one week uh the
[1:22:02] last week in July we had two storms that
that whole area was completely
[1:22:08] completely flooded. And again, it's it's
the whole hill that just rushes right
[1:22:13] down. And I believe he had to do some
not extra drainage, but when he was
[1:22:19] working on the plaza, something had to
be done. But if all the water is coming
[1:22:23] into that exact drain, there's nothing
he can really do. But if the drainage on
[1:22:29] site can have some recharge, stay on the
site, then hopefully something can be
[1:22:34] done.
>> So, thank you. Thank you, Tim. I don't
[1:22:38] know if that kind of spot, but
>> um so the the problems that were
[1:22:45] described are not necessarily
from this site. Um the vast majority of
[1:22:53] drainage for this site actually flows to
the wetlands that are to the southwest.
[1:22:59] Um
we are um I've gone through the peer
[1:23:03] review and we're this the peer review
for this site is obviously active given
[1:23:07] that we're making the changes here. But
um we've submitted plans and storm water
[1:23:12] reports that show that you know with the
recharge that we can do on site through
[1:23:16] subsurface systems and with detention
systems, we'll be throttling back the
[1:23:20] flows to Maple A and other design points
around the area. So this project will
[1:23:26] reduce the peak flows of storm water
going to those pipes which is not very
[1:23:31] significant from a area that actually
goes there today. So we'll reduce that
[1:23:35] area, reduce the flows. The majority of
the site actually goes to a different
[1:23:38] wetland system that actually discharges
right across Route 9 going uh south. So
[1:23:44] I understand that there's an issue at
that part of Route 9 in Maple. It's not
[1:23:49] necessarily this project that's going to
solve that particular issue with the
[1:23:55] outside drain system. We we will
obviously
[1:23:58] » it won't make it worse.
>> It will not make it worse. It would it
[1:24:01] would make it slightly better. probably
imperceptible given the fact it's a
[1:24:04] large area is going there but it would
not make it any worse.
[1:24:08] » Okay, thank you.
>> Um so I just I want I went back to that
[1:24:11] email chain just to make sure um just
adding additional context. So um Keith I
[1:24:16] think did reply. Um so DPW was also
aware of that issue as it relates to
[1:24:20] existing conditions and anything in mass
or town jurisdiction and they are
[1:24:25] working on that. I will reach out and
get a followup as well um and provide
[1:24:29] that to the board. this post development
runoff can't be any more than Yeah,
[1:24:32] » correct. But in terms of
>> Graves is going to verify that that. So
[1:24:36] » yeah, in terms of uh having it addressed
as well, I'll I'll give the board that
[1:24:39] update as well.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other members of
[1:24:43] the public wishing to speak on this item
this evening? Yes, sir. Please come up.
[1:24:47] State your name.
[1:24:54] » Hi, Paul Lindseay, 86 Oak Street. I want
to just reiterate a few things that I do
[1:25:00] appreciate the additional um access to
the four units to take to ease up the
[1:25:05] traffic on Oak Street. Hopefully that
will work. Um I'd also like the fact
[1:25:11] that the that emergency access is no
longer there. So that'll help preserve
[1:25:15] the neighborhood. Um and I um also
believe we should keep the height of the
[1:25:21] buildings lower and reduce the count of
residential units. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:25:29] » Anyone else from the public on this this
evening?
[1:25:33] » Question. Can this be found online? Can
we get that?
[1:25:37] » Yes. Yes. This is all available on the
>> It is posted online. Yes.
[1:25:44] » All right. Any other questions of of the
board?
[1:25:48] I mean, at this point, obviously, having
just received this, I think that there's
[1:25:52] some we need to chew on this a bit.
>> Sure. Um,
[1:25:56] » gonna remove
>> I'm sorry.
[1:25:58] » Graves is going to review.
>> Yes, we there would have to be a peer
[1:26:01] review done on this. Um, so I think that
at at this point in time, we're going to
[1:26:06] look at continuing this hearing this
evening.
[1:26:08] » But if I may, before we continue, just
obviously there'll be additional review
[1:26:12] and feedback at the next meeting and
certainly there might be some additional
[1:26:15] revisions as part of Graves. I'm just
looking to get some initial feedback
[1:26:19] from from the board recognizing that we
did do some highlevel um explanation. I
[1:26:24] heard from the vice chair that he did
not feel like the site was integrated.
[1:26:28] Um just if we could just get some
feedback from from the board members in
[1:26:32] real time. I think that would be helpful
for us to understand kind of where the
[1:26:34] board is. Um certainly we've heard from
from the board members and the public
[1:26:38] that reduction in the number of units
and potentially the height of the
[1:26:41] buildings. But um if we could just get
any additional feedback that you guys
[1:26:44] have at this time that would be greatly
appreciated just for the purpose of the
[1:26:47] development team. I do think the point
of of finding out how long that roadway
[1:26:52] is um is is an important piece.
>> It's about 1500 feet. I just did some
[1:26:57] math on my phone
>> from the point that you had
[1:27:00] » for the longest the longest
>> from from basically from the culde-sac
[1:27:04] up to uh
>> the stairwell
[1:27:07] » uh further actually I was going to the
the front of building uh four. So, it's
[1:27:13] probably another it's a little shorter
if you're going to the stairwell
[1:27:16] » and and I think if I may um uh Mr.
Rotois, I think you asked to about going
[1:27:22] to the um the roundabout on the far side
of um of uh what's what we're calling
[1:27:32] the supermarket. And um really you can
go you're going to get to the um you
[1:27:39] know you get you come to a center point
if you come down that you take a right
[1:27:43] on that road as you're coming down
>> and beyond that if I can just elaborate
[1:27:47] » right on the road by your building on
maple and cut through that's shorter
[1:27:53] » around and cut through you're at that
building and you know we have you know
[1:27:57] those are all like you know
>> only a few steps so that way you come
[1:28:01] down you know I was sort of thinking of
it. That was sort of a later ad because
[1:28:06] I was just trying to walk around it in
my head. I'm riding around on my bike.
[1:28:10] I'm I'm run running all these scenarios
through my head. And I just said, "Well,
[1:28:15] you know, good chance there'll be a
coffee shop in that building. And if I'm
[1:28:19] going to come down, I'll come down to
>> which one? The supermarket building?"
[1:28:24] » No, no. Well, next the the building
three.
[1:28:27] » Building three.
>> You know, or or whatever you want to
[1:28:29] grab. You just go down and that's like
one one. Not I don't even know if that's
[1:28:33] a full flight of stairs, but if you go
down there and then you come out and
[1:28:36] you're between you're sort of in the
middle of all the small retail. So
[1:28:42] there's a stairwell here, staircase in
the middle. You can see my cursor
[1:28:46] » that connects the the four buildings up
above
[1:28:50] and then you there's crosswalks and then
there's another there's a over there's a
[1:28:55] overlook area with the trees and then
there's another stairwell here that's
[1:28:58] going up from the from the four
buildings. But you certainly would have
[1:29:02] the 44 units in building three that
would just easily access the rest of the
[1:29:08] commercial units and same with the the
nine units proposed above building two.
[1:29:12] So while certainly there there is a
longer journey for an accessible walk
[1:29:18] down the walkways and we've talked about
previously about granting an easement or
[1:29:22] working [snorts] with the town to ensure
recreational um access. Um that that's
[1:29:27] certainly longer. There's certainly a
more expedient way to get to the
[1:29:30] different commercial uses than having to
go all the way to the cold sack.
[1:29:35] » And certainly uh one of the um items
that the traffic engineer mentioned to
[1:29:40] us is there's opportunities now for to
extent that there's uh vehicular traffic
[1:29:45] um different uses within the
development. So there's actually
[1:29:48] multiple trips. So someone might want to
get a coffee and then might need to go
[1:29:51] to the grocery store similar to what you
see at Lakeway Commons. So that actually
[1:29:55] reduced it reduced the number of
anticipated trips because they're
[1:29:58] anticipating folks parking going to
multiple establishments. So some could
[1:30:02] easily park go to the grocery store and
then walk over to lot one and visit the
[1:30:06] three commercial uses on that particular
pad.
[1:30:08] » Yeah. Traffic indicated the biggest
change in this plan is that you're you
[1:30:13] know you have all the the connectivity
inside
[1:30:18] so inside the inside the project. So you
once you come off the road, you know,
[1:30:22] it's an easy drive. Either walk up if
you're above or you drive around or
[1:30:28] drive around and up, but everything's on
on site
[1:30:32] just like it is at Lakeway and just like
it is at Edgeir. You know, Edgeir,
[1:30:37] you've got like half the units are way
behind the supermarket. So you're going
[1:30:41] to the back of the supermarket behind
it. Um, and the other ones are off to
[1:30:46] the left. And if you look at those
distances, they're really, you know, we
[1:30:50] ran the distances before initially um
for um Lakeway and you know, some of
[1:30:57] those distances are surprisingly, you
know, they're longer than you think.
[1:31:01] » The town houses are well um um you get
to some of the the buildings that are
[1:31:06] further away and we're certainly closer.
Some of these units are closer than any
[1:31:11] of those certainly are because they're
they're right on top of them.
[1:31:15] » Right. So I mean I I this is this to me
is more of a village with with different
[1:31:21] kind of um residential product that
would be offered.
[1:31:26] » Thank you.
>> Yes sir.
[1:31:38] » Richard Edwards 80 Oak Street. Um, one
of the things I forgot to uh mention,
[1:31:43] um, and that is with the school that's
right up the street, we see kids
[1:31:50] nowadays on their motor, um, electric
scooters,
[1:31:54] skateboards, those types of things. So
my concern or my question is
[1:32:02] since you're going to be looking to put
in some type of a road driveway
[1:32:09] on site and you mentioned that it's
going to be recreational purposes.
[1:32:15] Is there going to be a concern that kids
because of the grade are going to be
[1:32:21] flying down there and potentially
um um getting hurt running into cars. um
[1:32:31] to the point that at some point down the
road you're like for liability purposes
[1:32:38] we can't allow people outside of the um
outside of the development
[1:32:45] to um traverse the development. So um I
don't know if anyone's even brought that
[1:32:52] concern up. Um some people may even
shrug their shoulders at it. I don't
[1:32:57] know. But anyways, um it it is a
potential because I see them flying down
[1:33:03] Oak Street now and then they just they
zip right down the middle of the road.
[1:33:08] Um, and uh, uh, there's a potential um,
for um, I mean I'm sure if I was younger
[1:33:18] and I was on a skateboard or electric
[laughter] that would be pretty enticing
[1:33:22] to go flying down that road even though
it's only what a 2% grade
[1:33:27] » four and a half
>> four and a half% grade. Um, so want to
[1:33:32] bring that issue up. Um,
>> I don't think we can force developers to
[1:33:36] bond off third party stupidity. So,
>> I'm sorry, what did you say?
[1:33:40] » I said I don't think we can force
developers to bond off third party
[1:33:44] stupidity.
>> Kids are going to do that stuff.
[1:33:47] » Okay.
>> Well, anyways, I wanted to bring it up
[1:33:50] because uh sometimes these things aren't
brought up and then someone says, "Boy,
[1:33:55] how come nobody ever thought of that?
How come there wasn't a concern? Do we
[1:33:59] need to put speed bumps in there?"
I don't know the answer to that,
[1:34:03] » but uh um
>> maybe maybe that's the point, but then
[1:34:08] maybe with speed bumps that would be a
ramp
[1:34:11] » and the kids would go flying. So, who
knows, right?
[1:34:13] » No, it's true.
>> Thank you.
[1:34:15] » Thank you. Appreciate that.
>> So, I'm going to add into that a little
[1:34:19] bit. So, that is something that actually
has been brought up to our office
[1:34:22] conversationally from residents um about
a concern of the electrified bikes um
[1:34:27] and what can be done about it. I think
to to Mr. Rake because his point it's
[1:34:32] not any one particular project. I think
it's a larger concern. Um I particularly
[1:34:36] have concern you know I think one of the
ways to address it is to encourage bike
[1:34:41] lanes uh throughout the community. But
the concern there being that these if
[1:34:45] you've seen them travel faster than
bikes as well. So I think it's going to
[1:34:48] change the landscape of a lot of that
infrastructure. So in some ways it's new
[1:34:53] in some ways it's not. I think there's a
lot of, you know, there's bylaws related
[1:34:56] to um scooting in the public right of
way that are the general bylaws and
[1:35:00] things like that if you want to dig
through those. Um but it's something
[1:35:03] that we're aware of. Uh and as we look
at, you know, making suggestions or
[1:35:07] recommendations or policy amendments,
it's something that we we are aware of
[1:35:11] as a concern that's growing with the
public. So,
[1:35:13] » appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.
>> All right. So, if there's nothing else
[1:35:18] um from the project proponents this
evening, I think we
[1:35:22] » just interrupt there's any other
comments. I would just to answer your
[1:35:25] question Mark I would say you know the
mass of the project um five stories is
[1:35:29] an issue
>> and any you know anything to promote
[1:35:32] pedestrian and bicycle traffic when I
hear like the road's great because you
[1:35:37] can drive down
>> that's
[1:35:40] » not the intent of the you know this
district. So
[1:35:42] » certainly
>> there's a sidewalk.
[1:35:44] » There's a sidewalk. I understand. Yeah.
Yeah. So the hope is that folks aren't
[1:35:48] driving, right? The the hope is that
folks are taking alternative means of
[1:35:52] transportation. Um but previously we
came back to the board with a very
[1:35:57] robust network for pedestrian
circulation and we were told we don't
[1:36:01] see you know how folks are going to be
able to drive to to the four four
[1:36:05] buildings. So this is a multi-purpose
access way if you will right where you
[1:36:11] have vehicles
>> understood
[1:36:13] » and and and pedestrian access. So um and
beyond that we've taken steps and these
[1:36:18] are in the slides related to the
criteria but I won't I won't I won't
[1:36:21] [laughter] I won't do that to you guys
this hour. Um but certainly um efforts
[1:36:26] have been made to allow for improved
pedestrian circulation, whether it be
[1:36:31] the the tip down driveways, the um
>> if I may um the difference the big
[1:36:37] difference in pedestrian connection for
the the long road here between the old
[1:36:41] plan and this plan is that this
eliminates the need for ramps and
[1:36:45] landings and handrails. This is purely a
accessible sidewalk at a slope that is
[1:36:51] very reasonable for anyone. The ADA and
we have decided is the right slope. So,
[1:36:55] it is a sidewalk that anyone can
navigate up and down.
[1:36:59] » And we're also installing bicycle
parking throughout the site which will
[1:37:02] hopefully encourage folks. I don't know
what's happening with these electric
[1:37:06] bicycles. Sounds like it's a problem. Uh
but maybe they'll park them and they'll
[1:37:09] go have a cup of coffee instead of
driving, you know, over people on the
[1:37:12] sidewalk. I don't know. [snorts]
So, um, but so just to kind of take away
[1:37:17] from what we're hearing from the board,
reduction of the massing, it sounds like
[1:37:21] four stories might be acceptable, but
five stories is is not acceptable. Um,
[1:37:27] and a reduction in the number of units.
Um, and if there's any further feedback
[1:37:31] regarding the the perception of
integration, that that would be helpful.
[1:37:35] » Just just just to keep in mind, I know
Chris had put together a slide. Did we
[1:37:40] ever make that slide? Did we ever
present that slide? I think it might
[1:37:43] have at the other hearing.
>> I pulled it up. I don't I can
[1:37:46] » It might have been at the hearing on 525
Hartford Turnpike, which I could not
[1:37:51] participate in. Um about the
>> the the large scale projects that we
[1:37:58] have approved, including Lakeway Commons
and Edge Mir Crossing. Uh the unit count
[1:38:03] to the square footage of retail space.
Um, you know, for instance, at uh
[1:38:13] at Lakeway, it's something like 90,000
square feet of
[1:38:18] pretty good pretty nice retail um for
250 units. Um, Edgemere
[1:38:25] » 264
>> 26 I think it's 250 even.
[1:38:29] » 250 plus the 16 town houses.
>> 16 town houses. Yeah. All right.
[1:38:32] » Yeah. Um
and at uh
[1:38:40] Edgemeir it's 250
plus about 120,000 square feet of
[1:38:45] retail. Granted Market Basket is the
lion share of that.
[1:38:50] » Um it's kind of a different demographic
over there. Um
[1:38:53] » but
>> and the lakeway also prohibits large box
[1:38:58] right
>> stores right. So, it's kind of finding
[1:39:00] that happy balance between the right mix
of commercial with those residential
[1:39:05] units.
>> So, we certainly understand that. Um,
[1:39:08] » doesn't mean you have to max out the
number of units.
[1:39:10] » No, no. I And we we hear that and I
think um this dialogue is really helpful
[1:39:16] for us to take that direction. Um
because, as I said at the beginning of
[1:39:20] the hearing, we've done a lot to really
address these board comments. We want to
[1:39:24] create a project that everyone feels
okay, we got there, right? and that this
[1:39:28] is something that will work for the
community. Um and so um this this
[1:39:33] feedback is really helpful for us. So um
we'll continue to um interface with
[1:39:38] staff. Um we look forward to additional
comments from the board and Graves the
[1:39:43] next meeting. Um and we'll
>> Do you have anything else you want to
[1:39:47] ask?
>> Um only that the the financing speech
[1:39:53] that you got from the guy from Go
Venture.
[1:39:55] » I was out in the hallway. Oh,
>> I I heard it.
[1:39:58] » Um um um is you know that's it's valid
for any project. So uh you know I'm not
[1:40:03] going to repeat it because he he he did
a sort of a technical job of it.
[1:40:08] » Wasn't there but I would have said
there's two kinds of problems.
[1:40:11] » But
>> that's not my problem. I I got I got to
[1:40:14] approve a project.
>> You know I hear I just just saying I'm
[1:40:18] not I'm not you know I've already said I
would do the light if needed to be done
[1:40:23] and and all that. So
>> I'm not beating you up. And you know,
[1:40:26] we're we're willing to, you know, take a
look at, you know, if you want the fifth
[1:40:31] floor taken off that, you know, maybe
there was some misunderstanding. I'm not
[1:40:35] I wasn't trying to throw anyone under
the bus, but you know, that's what
[1:40:39] that's what I was heard. That's what I
heard through through uh Mr. Mr. Bor.
[1:40:44] » Clearly, my game didn't work. So,
>> so it's [laughter] him. If it's not him,
[1:40:48] it was him. But I loves it. [laughter]
But I I I wouldn't have come up with
[1:40:56] that on my own. I was like, really?
Okay. Well,
[1:40:59] » that's an interesting one. And I
thought, well, because it's sort of in
[1:41:02] the middle of the project that that's
why it would have been said. So, uh um
[1:41:06] um if that was the not the intent or
someone misheard it and [snorts] relay
[1:41:11] it to me, um whatever the case may be, I
I mean, I I don't want to have any, you
[1:41:16] know, bad feelings about it. Um, I did
it because I thought that was that was
[1:41:21] that was indicated that that was
something to do.
[1:41:24] » We appreciate your efforts.
>> Yeah.
[1:41:26] » So, no one gets into any trouble or
misconrs any other statements. I should
[1:41:32] continue this.
>> Yes. So, I'd like to
[1:41:35] » I'd move that we continue the public
hearing on the uh 335 Maple Avenue site
[1:41:42] plan approval and special permit until
Thursday, October 1st at 7 p.m.
[1:41:48] » Second.
>> All those in favor?
[1:41:50] » I opposed. Eyes have it.
>> Okay. Thank you very much for your time
[1:41:54] and welcome to the to the new member.
>> See how much fun it is.
[1:42:02] All right, next item on the agenda. We
have a couple of items under new
[1:42:06] business this evening. One is to discuss
and vote on updating the fee inlue
[1:42:11] figures.
>> Uh thank you. Yeah, so we um the board
[1:42:16] has had this item for a few uh for a few
months. Um I did meet with uh Judy
[1:42:22] Barrett who had originally done these
figures for us um to review. Um the
[1:42:26] figures as presented were in order. um
we kind of got into the technical
[1:42:30] background of how they're calculated um
and as it relates to the policy. So, it
[1:42:35] was a very productive conversation, but
the the figures that's presented are
[1:42:39] correct um operationally just for the
board's um knowledge. Uh you may already
[1:42:46] be aware um those are the the general
numbers that are provided to give a a
[1:42:50] developer who's contemplating that a
ballpark figure. um that um technical
[1:42:57] calculation that we do on the back end
um would be done for each project, but
[1:43:01] this just gives them a ballpark so they
don't have to call and they can do some
[1:43:05] of that research on their own. Um again,
I I do recognize that the board has
[1:43:09] moved away from Fee and Lou as a as an
option. Um when questioned on it, we do
[1:43:15] provide that uh information to
developers that the board is moving away
[1:43:19] from that, but they are entitled to ask
for that special permit.
[1:43:22] » Sure. Understood.
Okay. Is there any um discussion on on
[1:43:27] these updated figures?
[1:43:31] » We have to approve this.
>> Then I'd move that we approve the
[1:43:37] figures for the fee and L as written.
>> Is there a second?
[1:43:42] » Second.
>> All those in favor? I
[1:43:45] » opposed. Eyes have it. Thank you.
Uh, next item is discuss and vote on the
[1:43:52] bond issuance for 193 Hartford Turnpike.
>> I got to recuse myself. So is Tim.
[1:43:57] » I think we can stay here.
>> U, thank you. So um on this one um we
[1:44:02] did hold it um we were looking for um
some clarification on how this uh bond
[1:44:09] could be issued in relation to uh the
pending appeal. Um I did uh just this
[1:44:15] afternoon um get a letter from the
applicant as well as conferred with
[1:44:20] council um that we are okay uh to issue
the bond. They're entitled to that uh
[1:44:25] under 4A with the um um with the
approvals that are granted. Um that
[1:44:31] said, I I did also speak with councils
on um on all parties. Um I do my
[1:44:36] understanding is that uh an agreement to
settle that suit is um probably due
[1:44:41] within the next couple of weeks. So,
they're just putting the final touches.
[1:44:44] So, um, looking forward to seeing that
as well. Um, and we'll continue to work
[1:44:49] with the applicant. So,
>> Okay. All right. So, can I get a motion
[1:44:54] to issue the bond for 193 Hartford
Turnpike?
[1:44:58] » I'll make a motion to issue the bond for
193 Hartford Turnpike.
[1:45:02] » Is there a second?
>> Second.
[1:45:06] » All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have
it.
[1:45:11] Uh next is discuss and vote on bond
issuance for 17 Maple A.
[1:45:16] » Um so this is the um bond issuance for
one to seven seven Maple A. Um the
[1:45:23] project is moving ahead. Um they've been
proceeding with abatement of the
[1:45:28] property. Um those who have been uh by
recently will see that the fences have
[1:45:33] gone up. Um they're uh doing some
initial site prep and again that
[1:45:37] abatement. So, um, anticipating
demolition to come, uh, probably
[1:45:41] sometime late fall and winter.
>> Okay, great. Uh, is there a motion to
[1:45:46] issue the bond for 17 Maple Lab?
>> I make a motion to issue the bond for
[1:45:51] one.
>> Is there a second?
[1:45:53] » Is there a second?
>> Second.
[1:45:55] » All those in favor?
>> I opposed. Eyes have it. Uh, next, we
[1:46:00] have one ANR in front of us this evening
for 65 Elm Street. Uh, this plan has
[1:46:07] been reviewed by staff for compliance
with Mass General Law um and has been
[1:46:12] recommended for endorsement. Do I have a
motion to endorse the plans received and
[1:46:17] authorize the town the town to um sign
on the board's behalf?
[1:46:22] » I make a motion that this is not a
subdivision. It is an approval not
[1:46:26] required and the board should execute
the ANR plan.
[1:46:32] » Is there a second?
>> Second. All those in favor? I
[1:46:36] » opposed. Eyes have it. And um just as of
note, there are two pieces of
[1:46:42] correspondence that have been received.
One for 335 Maple A and another one for
[1:46:48] 193 Hartford Turnpike. Um any other
items this evening?
[1:46:53] » Think we're good. I move that we uh
conclude this evening's public hearings.
[1:46:57] » Second.
>> All those in favor?
[1:46:59] » I
have it. Thank you very much.