[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.

Shrewsbury Planning Board - September 3, 2026

Transcript