Planning Board (April 9th, 2026)

001All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Ashlin Planning Board meeting of Thursday, April 9th. I'd like to remind everyone that the meeting is being broadcast and recorded. Um, I will call the meeting to order at 7:16 and going to the next thing on our agenda is the chair clerk's report, but I do not have one this evening. And then we have public comment. And I imagine given a glance at who's in the room and who's on the screen that all comments are related to projects. But I will open it up to public comment if there is anyone out there. Are you still letting people in? >> Nobody's in. >> Okay. >> All right. Then seeing none, we are being very efficient and are already at item four. Woohoo. So, um, uh, item four,

002public meetings. So, first on our agenda are, um, two ANRs. I believe they are the same applicant, right? Um, one is for 37 James Road, one is for 137 Pond Street. Um, Jasmine, do you have any introduction to these or do you want to let Mr. Connors just um introduce the project? >> I think >> Okay. >> I will absolutely. Which one would you like to start with? >> And these are the >> Which one would you like me to share first on which plan would you like? >> Well, we do 137 since that's the first on the list here. Oh, were these the these were just the Sorry, these were the signature copies. I assume it'll be easier to look at paper copies than these. You're you're actually gonna I was going to say

003we need >> Are you going to talk from there? >> Wherever you want. I can go back. >> Yeah, I think so. We can look at it on here. Thanks. >> That's what I have. >> This one's 37. Awesome. >> This is uh James Road. Okay. This is the larger parcel, 123 Pawn Street and 37 James Road. You can see James Road is a little L-shaped uh lot uh of roadway at the uh top part of the plan. The uh parcel is about 11 acres and it is a parcel that has little individual pieces that were cut out on a previous plan for reasons we do not know by McCarthy and Sullivan. Um but those are uh all basically merged for zoning purposes. And this is an ANR plan showing the totality of the property

004for two reasons. The first is because of um transferring we're going to be uh selling the uh we're going to be acquiring the property and the um deeds were very uh vague and complex with all those parcels. So we have a single parcel of this particular site and the second reason is that it will protect use of zoning for three years. Uh you can see that there's access from James Road to an existing house that is now empty. It's still a viable house at the end there. Yeah. And then the rest of the property is an old um uh abandoned construction yard uh use in the back of the property to the left and upper leftand part of the plan. It's all wetlands. Um, and then there's a sewer and water easement that comes in

005along James Road and continues into the condos behind the property and that has a uh sewer line and a water line which will um be maintained in that location. So this is simply an ANR plan to advise the register of deeds that they can record this plan um and that there's no subdivision uh involved. >> So and then can you go on just to explain what the other one is? >> Pardon me. >> What the Can you go on to explain what the other one is? They're all 137. >> 30. Do you want to put 37 up? >> Absolutely. >> 130. >> I was going to say this is this is 37, right? And then there's >> this is 123 pond in 37 James. And the next one is 137 pond. It's a small parcel.

006>> There you go. So that is a uh site adjacent to this which Mr. Uh Wheeler has uh acquired in conjunction with some plans that we are developing for the uh totality of this site. it made um the project much better. But uh this is a different owner that he's acquired it from. He owns it at this particular point in time. And there is a uh abandoned uh condemned house that will come down on that site. But uh as we get further into the permitting process that you've seen some uh remnant of prior to this, that will be incorporated into the uh site. because of uh again the uh transfer of the property into a larger entity at some point in time we prepared this ANR plan with a updated survey for both the uh

007the transactions and also for the zoning protection. >> Great. So this one if if you can go back to the other the other one. >> This one is just that little corner down there. Okay. >> Yes. Um and um so Jasmine obviously both these properties fit withever whatever regulations we have about properties. It's different than a lot. There's no rule of 22 on putting properties together or anything like that. Right. >> They're not changing. Not >> sorry. They're not proposing to change anything with these plans. So, and nothing on the plans that doesn't make it a valid I'm always thinking in terms of lots, which I know these aren't, but usually we're looking at ANRS in terms of a lot, but there So, there's nothing on these plans that it makes them um um the

008equivalent of what would be non-conforming if they're >> Exactly. >> It's all It's all good. >> Right. >> Okay. Um, does anyone have any questions on this? >> I'm sorry. Is this one here? Is the gas station? >> Yeah. >> The big one is the gas station. >> Station is the lot that's between the road and our property in the front. Yes. >> That's the gas station. >> And then what's behind it? >> There is a house behind it. Oh, really? Okay. >> I think that's one of your town >> inspector. >> Oh, okay. I've been to that gas station 100 times. I didn't know there was anything behind it. >> Inspector in Ashland, but he's a wire inspector in several of the towns. Might not be >> okay. >> They can't hear you when

009you talk from there. Just to give you a heads up. So, >> thank you. >> He's a wiring inspector, but it may not be for this town. I thought it was, but Thank you. >> There's a house there. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So, um did everyone get the memo and review the memo on this >> or sorry um you called it a I called it a memo, but >> I sent it as director's memo. Yeah. >> Okay. Director's memo. >> Yeah, because this is this is actually isn't something we've uh done before. Um, so can you just give a brief explanation just so more education? >> I guess I don't really understand what we're asking what we're being asked. >> Absolutely. So essentially what this is the term used is a confirmatory ANR which is

010actually something that I had not come across actually in my 10 years of doing planning. So I did confirm with town council and they did say and in Babroski's book um the fifth edition which I did provide you copies of there is something called a zoning freeze that is allowed. So essentially when you submit a subdivision plan, it's approved and that that zoning freezes for a certain amount of years, but you can submit an ANR, which is what this is, that doesn't propose any changes. You're just showing the lots as they are as an endorsable plan because the lots exist. You're not proposing any changes and it's not a subdivision. So they bring it for approval, not required, because it doesn't require a subdivision. they get the confirmatory approval that yes, this is not a

011subdivision and they get a zoning freeze for three years. So, it's just something that allows people to essentially confirm um well, we're not confirming anything, but they're they're reubmitting a plan that's already been approved. This plan was already approved once. They're resubmitting that approved plan, and we're just saying yes, there is no subdivision required here, so we can sign it. There is no, you know, approval not required. So >> what's what's the benefit of doing this? >> The zoning freeze. >> So they can have the zoning on this property cannot be impacted by any zoning change that's made within the next three years. So if a zoning change were to go in to move this from industrial to all residential, the industrial zoning would hold on this property for three years. >> And what is

012it currently zoned as? I believe it is industrial and I believe there is some residential in some of the areas, >> but it's also Pond Street overlay district. >> Yes. >> Which is I mean just full disclosure for the two of us and Anna um if she was here, this project came before the planning board. there's there's a project on this or a proposed uh conceived project we'll call it a conceived project for this for this and I believe it came before the board a year ago about right um so but informally there was not a formal they were just looking for feedback so I think twice I think >> does that sound right twice before the board three times maybe three times all informal no formal application just getting feedback, right? Um which which

013people are allowed in fact we encourage people to do, right? So that that the more discussions the the better. So um so that project is still not in front of the board but so from our perspective I can see that they've already put a lot of work into what they're thinking about here. So, they want to freeze the zoning on it so that if something happens, all the work doesn't, you know, go down the trash, you know. Um, so, and they're allowed to do that under Mass General law. They're allowed to bring it forward for an approval not required. Um, and then the V zoning freezes for three years on that property. Okay. >> No. >> And >> are you worried that the zoning is going to change? >> Uh, not necessarily, but when we're

014going to invest a ton of dough, we don't want it to happen. >> Yeah. >> We have a massive investment. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, unless there was something, this is was my both of our questions and our questions to town council that um it's an approval not required. So unless there is something wrong with it, >> right, >> something illegal about it, then it gets approved because it's just saying confirm this is the property and it's mass general law that's saying it freezes the zoning. So >> okay, that was my questions. >> Okay. >> All right. Um I don't I don't have any have anything either. So um someone like to make a proposal on that. >> So is it basically just saying it's a motion saying that we agree that these Oh we

015endorse? >> Yes. Your your motion to endorse the ANR >> and we can put both of them at the same time. >> You may. So I move that we endorse the ANR for 37 James Road and 137 Pond Street. >> Right. Is there a second? >> And a roll call vote. >> Right. >> No. I >> and Trisha Kendall. So that was that. Um >> myars if you'd like to sign. >> Do you want to take >> Oh yeah, we might as well. Um, so Mackie, we're just going to put these out on the table. We're going to take a minute since we're waiting for Anna. Um, anyway, so that we just take a moment to sign these and then have that done. So you can either keep it rolling or we'll can take a

016five minute break. >> Do we have to sign them? Is that what it is? >> Yes. >> Are there Okay. I just saw that stack there and I didn't know we had to Oh, okay. All right. >> The utensil is very important. I mean, >> she's she's getting a pen that'll work on the myar. >> I've driven I drove on the little road behind there once when we saw it. Yeah. >> Next time. >> Yeah. Yeah. Next time. Yeah. >> Oh, we're going to sign the ones out here. But we're we're getting the right pen because my won't take Thank you. You as well. Thank you. >> All right. So, why don't um while we're Let's see. Next we have the YMCA, but um you know Anna's on her way and she wants to be

017here in person for that one. So why don't we go ahead and take care of the meeting minutes. >> Okay. >> I mean if Anna has any changes, she can let you know. But usually there's not. So we're looking at the meeting minutes for March 12th. I Is that the only ones that were in there? The other ones weren't in there yet? >> We didn't get those yet. Okay. So it's just March 12th. This is when we had um the scenic road uh tree removal discussion, one of them anyway. I think the second one and also um um the YMCA. Oh, and we went through the housing production plan. Boy, that was a that was a busy meeting. Yeah. >> Where where are they in here? >> Oh, sorry. Um, >> yeah, if you >>

018Yeah, it's only like five pages back from the front of the binder. Jasmine, I think the only uh very minor edit I had on the meeting minutes was line two 229 and it's just the spelling of my name. It's just sha which I don't use. It's not a big deal but I think it's a pretty common way for a lot of people to spell it. You guys good? Ready to go. >> A motion to approve the minutes. >> Are you ready? >> I did. >> Oh, okay. >> That was it. >> That was kind of like a casual like should I Is there a second? >> Second that. >> All right. Roll call vote. >> Inad Scott. >> Paul Montto. and Trisha Kendall. >> You're on top of things, Scott. I think you're like awake

019tonight or just a lot of caffeine. >> I got a lot of stuff I got to do. >> Okay. >> Mo motivated. Got it. Got it. Okay. All right. I'm Okay. We're still waiting for Anna for the for the public hearing. So, why don't we um talk a little bit about um skipping ahead? Um right after the agenda is the um this design review committee uh bylaw and Anna's very familiar with the design review committee. Obviously, this was this actually was her suggestion about how we could potentially modify. And so just a little a little bit of history. The design review committee right now is set up and has been set up since I don't know a while, right? Um yeah, I'm not even sure how many years, but um it was set up it's

020set up currently that there's a standing board of five people um uh generally same verbiage that's in here that have experience in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture and engineering. and um one person owning a business. Well, that's that they look for that, right? It's not mandatory. Um and and they would serve for three-year terms. What the problem we've been having, at least since I've been on the board, um is is kind of finding keeping people on that board and finding people really with the depth of experience that we need. Um so, It's been quite hard to get people that that are registered architects, that are registered engineers, that people if if if this board if this committee is an advisory committee to the planning board, right? They we we we appoint the design review

021committee and they report back to us. Um, so really it's it's supposed to be in my mind and I actually confirmed with uh the founders who created Paula Parker who helped create the um design review committee. Um so it's meant at a time especially when there are no designers on the planning board which happens sometimes there's not a single architect on the planning board. So the planning board can then rely on the design review committee to really look at design, you know, on some of these buildings when the people on the committee on the board maybe don't have that expertise. But we but it's hard to it's hard to get architects and engineers and people with the experience we want to sign up for a three-year commitment and to I think do some of the

022in between tasks that the that committee has started doing, you know, looking at various things and meeting more often. So the committee kind of disbanded itself about six months ago now, right? Yeah, maybe. I I don't remember actually when it was, but the last remaining members of it all resigned. I mean, there were there was definitely some tension between the planning board and design review committee. Planning board maybe not feeling we were really getting what we needed from the design review committee. Design review committee maybe feeling like their voices weren't heard, right? And instead of having that discussion, unfortunately the the last three members resigned. So we currently have no design review committee. So, out of that discussion in the planning board, um Anna actually had this idea of of couldn't we just have like

023a a design review committee that um that's assigned per project so that when an applicant come before comes before us, say like the YMCA, we f we have a list of we maybe keep a list of architects, engineers, people that we think would be good adviserss to us. and C then if there's a group of three people that will serve just for that project. So it's the only thing they are obligated to look at is say the YMCA and then their their term would be done, right? So that way you can find people who have a a window a window in their schedule that they're that they can focus on one thing but they don't have to sign up for three years, you know, so makes it much easier to hopefully to fill to fill

024those spots. We won't actually know unless we try it. But there was an example recently for um 10 to 60 Main Street where very informally a group was pulled together um uh to serve as kind of an not not a third-party review officially, but an informal group to try to give feedback to 10 to 60 Maine. And in that case, apparently it went very well that the applicant was very receptive to that input input and those three people were able to kind of just serve just for that amount of time and then not be obligated again like for for years, you know, to to do it. So, kind of working from that model, we were looking at um uh the bylaw and um Jasmine and Lisa me town council found that with very few changes

025in our current bylaw, we're just changing the makeup of how the committee is made up, you know, and then we can start to um you know, to to fill those slots as we as we have um applications come for our board. I think even I thought Lisa even said I I don't want to get this wrong, but I I think she thought our design review committee structure was very unusual for for a town. >> She did say that, >> you know, because I think it is and I'm not sure why, but it it has been a heavy burden for people to be on that committee. Maybe maybe it didn't start out that way, but I think in recent years it has become a lot, you know. So, um, so anyway, this, so this is this

026bylaw that we're going to be having a public hearing on on the 30th. Um, so, um, so just wanting to know if there's any questions or any, um, suggestions with it. So, basically um, the meat of it is in obviously 9.6.2. So design review is conducted by a committee made up of three members. So it's kind of taking out out the alternative members things like that made up of three members appointed by the planning board where possible members shall have experience in the fields of architecture, landscape architecture or engineering and up to one person owning a business in the town. That that was obviously carried over from before and we decided to there's no harm in leaving that in, you know. Um but it also also members members shall be appointed um uh per application

027review. So in legally that means we've gotten an application for a YMCA or for a a housing project what whatever it might be and they would be assigned for that application not for all the projects open at that time. The ad hoc committee will be concluded at the end of each review and the planning board will appoint a new ad hoc committee before the next application. So, um, the other thing I might change in there actually is the word before. And I might just change it to for for the next application >> because we might not we might want to I think we want to wait until we get an application so that we can actually ask are you available right now? you know and someone's availability might change >> and is there a reason

028why we are limit it to three members because depending on the scale of the project you may find an architect you may find landscape architect an engineer um so are we limiting ourselves to three >> you want to say at least just put in the words at least so that >> max five you don't want a large group obviously but >> we could say three to five >> and there might be some excitement over a specific project where they or passion they want to kind of you might have more people who raise their hand >> or if it's a smaller project maybe three is more appropriate versus a larger more complex project maybe five. >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah, that's a good idea. um >> made up of three to five members and changed it

029to for the next application before the next right >> because in my mind like I said if once we get an application if we had that list we can see who's available >> right >> and for some projects that are like say say the the soccer fields right now maybe you want two landscape architects and a business person on that one maybe you don't even need an architect on that >> but you can really can change the flavor of of who you have based on the project, >> right? Maybe you get a landscape specialist or something. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Like who's most appropriate can give the best insight and advice, you know, back to the board. That's what I'm kind of hoping for. It might even be like a coach or something, you know,

030for a >> something like that. >> Having said that, then are we limiting ourselves by saying person owning a business? because a coach will not fall in that category or will not fall into any of the other design fields. >> I I think it I think that just the term where possible kind of allows for that possibility because I think in general we want in general we're looking for designers or people with professional experience but I think there's also there's latitude in there. um you know in that in that as well. Yeah. And then the rest of it, um, let's see, there's a few changes at the bottom. any the design review committee shall submit its written findings to the planning board and to the applicant along with any suggested conditions. Such report shall contain

031any Yep. Okay. Just cleaning it up for a little bit. Really? >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, otherwise the everything in the middle it just says um it's just the bylaw saying what projects go before the design review committee. So it's not changing that. Any other comments on that? >> Okay. >> And we just we have to wait till the 30th because of the timing >> because we have to put it post in a newspaper and advertise it as a public hearing so that if anybody's interested they have the opportunity to >> feedback. Y >> So we'll look at these changes with Anna. >> Yes. That should be a pretty quick meeting. >> Yeah. But but we want to um before it's posted, right? Or has it already been posted? >> Well, it hasn't been posted

032at the clerk yet, but it's already been sent to the newspaper for the 30th, but it doesn't have the verbiage in it yet. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, >> no, I told her I'd get it to her tomorrow. I knew we'd be discussing it tonight. >> Okay. >> She has this draft, but it's not posted yet. >> Okay. >> But if somebody were have called today and asked for it, she had this. >> Got it. So in remind me on the 30th it can still be changed on the 30th absolutely tweet right. >> So if on the 30th you decide take out this paragraph rewrite it that's perfectly acceptable. >> Okay. >> I think it's I think it's um I think it's great if we can make as few changes as possible without reinventing the

033wheel. Um but I think the changes made here actually are >> I think they're impactful. The three to five I think is I think is great to keep it keep it flexible depending on the pro you know the project a >> lot more palatable to do it per project than for three years. >> Yeah I I think so you know it's hard to I mean it's hard enough to get you know people to sign up for five years for this board or three years or whatever. Um and and hopefully then yeah we would get people for you know for that list. So, >> all right. So, it is 7:51. We are still uh Anna said um she would be here at 8. So, we still have nine minutes. >> Did you want to continue now?

034>> Oh, I think yeah, they can do it. >> Yeah, >> I guess I I got three. >> Yeah, I just enough to continue. You got to wait for >> I don't think we need to. >> I don't think so. But >> yeah, it's just continuing. So, you don't need >> Yeah. Does it >> And I think I can do that. I'm just not going to vote. >> Right. Because there's no discussion. There's no material. >> Trying to think what I can do and what I can't do because I'm still not uh >> Yeah. >> Excuse yourself. Do you have to step out for us to make the motion? Well, the the the the funny thing is so um so as you I I'm I refuse myself from from this project 55 Tilton because um

035because the owner of that building is my landlord, but um I am moving out of that building um as of June 1st. I'm moving into a home setting up a home office for myself after >> You sure? I've seen your office. >> That's pretty nice. >> Got a lot of space at home. >> What? >> Enough space. Yeah, I do have enough space at home. So, um but yeah, so uh so um I will be moving out of that building. Um and we'll no longer uh be no longer have a conflict of interest, but I haven't seen any of the stuff. So, it'll still be it'll still be all you guys. But that said, I can still continue it. I just won't vote. Okay. Um, and that is just continuing because >> we're just waiting

036for their peer review to come back. So, the peer review and their engineers have just been working to get some details straightened out until she hasn't completed her review yet. >> Okay. All right. So, um, I will move to continue 26. No, that's the wrong one. I will move to continue 55 Tilton Avenue, special permit and site plan review to the 30th. >> Yes, please. >> To April 30th. Is there a second? Oh, no. Can I Can I make that motion? >> You can make the motion. >> All right. I'll make the motion. Is there a second? >> Second, though. >> Okay. >> I just won't vote. >> Keep your eye on the eye. >> Angel cazad and I. >> Okay, there we go. So, that is continued. We still have six minutes. Is there

037any other announcements anyone wants to make? Any updates on meetings and I'll have to listen to that part of the meeting. Anyway, >> we um CPC met last week. Nothing new came forward. Um >> no new projects. >> Yeah, no new projects or anything. Um we'll still be putting one well in theory one could should be coming up for um a town meeting. It's about possible purchase of a piece of land for the town for >> Okay, great. Deepa, anything on your committee? >> Um, Metro West, it was a for um participating in a historic preservation training program and just passed on the message. >> Sorry about that. Um I've emailed uh responded to that email asking interested in participating in that historic preservation training there two one hour training virtual programs. >> Oh >>

038sounded like a good one to >> participate come back bring it. >> Yeah that does sound very very good actually. Thank you. >> He says they're partnering with the National Alliance of the Preservation Commissions. Trainings will be one hour each via Zoom. They asked for three designers from Ashland. The historic preservation committee did. Did they send it to everybody depot or just you? >> I think it only came to us. So if it's like it's a larger one. So I think it's >> I'll share that with the board. All right. Um why don't you tell us if you know um Jasmine um is where the housing production plan is right now. Do you know have any updates on that? >> So Jen Goldton has just incorporating the comments that she had received. So we expect

039the what they call the final version of it to be sent to us early next week and then I'll send that to share it with the board and the select board as well. And then at that point, we get a letter from um a memo from Michael Herbert just confirming the votes from the planning board and the select board. And we'll send that memo along with the draft housing production plan to EOHLC. WA is our contact there. It used to be Phil D. Martino, but he has stepped down from that role. So, we're going to send it to WA. Uh we're going to email it, but also send it certified mail as well. And then they'll confirm that they've received it. And then that would be once they review it and they determine it's complete

040as long as there's no edits, it would be retro back to the date that it was submitted. So, >> okay, >> as soon as we get it and submit it, we'll let you guys know. We are going to submit it to the state and the boards at the same time. So, if you notice there are discrepancies, let us know and we'll let the state know. But it was important for us to get that deadline rolling for the um the retro approval. So, >> all right, great. And is there any update on uh the 40VS? >> The 55 West Union is the only one still open. 10 to 60 Main Street um is still before Concom. Um 61 Waverly is actually approved through conservation and it's been approved through the ZBA. So they are ready to

041start ground work whenever they are ready. Um 55 West Union has been continued out until May. We we actually our peer review from Haley Ward who was reviewing the project for us is leaving Haley Ward. >> There's going to be a bit of transition. So luckily the applicant agreed to an extension to give the engineers some time to replace Bethany to continue finalize the review for them. So, it's just been a little little bit of a waiting period there, >> but a little breather for the ZBA maybe >> kind of. It's been nice to meet it. >> All right. Thank you for that. All right. Um, and anything new that we should be any new applicant any new applications that have been submitted? >> Nothing's been submitted. No. >> Okay. All right. Although the Ballad

042Roads, just you know off topic, but the Ballad Road subdivision is moving along there before conservation. They should be done probably within the next two or three meetings there. >> That was the one with the older lots, the older smaller lots. >> So probably by this summer, you'll probably see some movement over there. >> Okay, great. >> And if anybody's wondering what's going across from the senior center, that's just a single family house. We've had a few calls. What's going on across the street from the community center? Somebody's just putting up a single family house there. >> Oh, community center. >> Yeah, they took down a lot of trees there. >> Yeah, we've got a few calls. So, >> I guess I haven't been by the way. I don't I don't remember noticing anything. >>

043Yeah, when you drive by it's like >> it it went from like a >> they did it quick >> pretty big to like a big pile of >> trees in like four days or something like that. >> Wild. Yeah, maybe it was for some >> I think it was this week, right? >> Yeah. >> So, what's the Thursday? >> Like it's like they run some those cool machines that like take the tree and like run it through so all the limbs get taken off it right away. And >> that's on the other side of 135, you mean? Right. Not not on the side of Olive. >> No, it's right right across from Olive. If you're on if you're on Olive Street. >> Yeah, I guess. >> I thought it was all one piece of property.

044I thought it was too. >> I thought that also, but I I don't >> like where the where the dog statue is, right? It's right there. >> Huh. Why must not be? It must be just the road that goes up and that property must be separate. >> It was, which I didn't know, but Oh, and the Bark Park will hopefully be open um next month. So, >> Oh, wow. >> So, if anybody keep an eye out on the website, Beth has updates on that when it's going to be open. So >> nice timing for the spring. >> I know. >> Yeah. >> The bark park >> it is. But we should have it actually all set up in the next three to four weeks and the Warren Barn will be done for the summer so

045they can run some summer programs. >> I saw that. >> That's moving along pretty well. >> Yeah. >> Very exciting. >> The arburitum looks really nice. If anybody's been >> No, I haven't been there. Yeah, I forgot about all those things over the winter. >> It looks so good. Your tree is doing really well. >> I drive by it every day. Yeah, it looks good. >> Do you Elliot? >> There's a little tree over there that that Becca has >> going towards Sherborn. >> Agreed to call Trish's tree because when I was out there helping clear, I worked whatever however long I was out there just to clear this just to free this one little tree that was being strangled by all these invasives. So, it's, you know, informally it's my tree. >> That's doing

046really well. Thanks. I saved it. >> 49 Homer kind of construction. >> Oh, yeah. >> They're clearing the their site mobilization. >> It's going very slowly. They actually haven't even pulled their building permits yet. >> So, I mean, they've pulled some demo, but obviously nothing for building yet. So, >> they're just not I think they had something going on with whoever they work with who is using their site as storage. I think it's just taking longer for them to figure out things. Hy >> Anna. Well, we have uh we have just gone through the whole back half of the list so that >> Oh, when we >> Wonderful. >> You'll have to watch it on tape and catch up. So, >> you took all these things. >> Yeah. Sorry. Away from me. >> How could

047you? >> We could dredge it up. >> What? We could dredge that up for >> I mean that's the stuff I'm excited about. >> All right. So now we are having a full board. We are ready to continue with number five public hearings. First on the agenda is 30 Memorial Drive the YMCA. Um so Jasmine we la where we left this and who do we have online? I've got Rick. >> I'm here too, Jasmine. >> Oh, Matt is there. Okay. I thought you were there, Matt. Sorry. >> Good evening, everyone. >> Okay. All right. So, when we left this last time, we wanted to um we'll look at the shity. Um and I think um has that there's there is text in there now. on the last page, right? Or yes, a different a revised

048text. And has that been >> uh resolved between town council and the YMCA? >> Yes, town council has reviewed this and said this language um is is approved. She actually made some small changes. So, this is the text that town council approved and we did send this to the YMCA and they did agree to her small changes as well. um which essentially just says that the the planning board and the applicant can agree on the shity amount as they're still working with Mike Carter to get that shity done in phasing so they don't have to put up so much money immediately up front. Um and Mike Carter who's our peerreview engineer thought with the way the site was going to be phased that makes perfect sense. So he's just readjusting his shity amounts to to

049match the phasing of the project. All right. And I um I just had a few things in reading the um the the copy that we went through last time. >> Um page three, top of the page. >> Yeah. In that paragraph, it talks about a parking management plan. What was the parking management plan was? Um, can someone just refresh me on memory what that was? It says a parking management plan is presented to the planning board on July 24th and I meant to go look at it to see to remember what that was. Is that >> I don't recall that. Sorry, I don't recall that one either. There's someone from the Y on that can explain the parking management plan or is that something we can bring up? >> I think yeah that might be

050good evening everyone for the record. Matt Eckle from Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the Y mentioned Carrie and Rick are also here. Um thank you again for taking some additional time on this matter. Um I I'll be honest I think that might just be uh terminology that was maybe uh overeneneralized. I'm not sure there was like a document that read parking management plan. I think it was probably more relating to the the total number of cars and the parking spaces and the allocation of accessible spaces and and early learning center spaces that was required versus the rest of the building which had kind of a you know that moving target number. So I don't know if there's a hard document labeled parking management plan. >> Okay. >> So if the if the board sees fit

051to you know rename that I I think we're okay with that. I didn't want to be we don't want to be misleading, >> right? And I also I had thought and I um and again I didn't have chance I thought there was also we had also talked about and I thought it was in in here but I didn't see it in this decision or maybe we took it out last time. Someone can maybe remind me that we talked about if if the parking was um if there was too much parking or if there was not enough parking that the Y would look at uh changes in program. >> I thought you Yeah, I thought I did too, but where where was that? I didn't um when I went through it again, I I believe if

052you go down to let me see the page here five number 11 it looks like if general parking becomes inadequate to modify programming. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay for not going not going crazy. Okay. >> Yeah. And I think to to Matt's previous comment, I mean, we weren't even in front of the board in July, so that is probably >> okay. >> You know, just >> you know, hanging on from an old decision or something. >> And I I agree our our management plan is that we will adjust programming if we can't accommodate the >> Yeah. I mean, I think I think this Let's see this this is under um traffic flow and safety. So, um and we already talked about we already talked about um having reviewed a traffic report which

053was reviewed by the board and its consultant GCG. So, um yeah, I would say we take out a starting with a parking management plan. We take out that um yeah, that whole sentence and just leave appropriate signage shall be installed. Does anyone have a problem with that? >> That's fine. Okay. >> And then my next comment is I'm sorry. >> You're on page four. >> I'm I'm I don't think I have anything on page four. >> Yeah. >> Can I um if you want to go page by page? Can I make a quick comment about page four? >> Tree the trees. >> Sorry, the belaboring of the trees by me. >> Which number? I'm so sorry. >> Number four on page four. My only thing about the trees is I remember we spent a lot

054of time with that like a it was like a one-page maybe it was two pages with visualization of the little trees that were going to be cut down and we had this whole discussion and the applicant provided a different version of it and then we talked about the replanting that would happen in different areas. So that's kind of hinted at, but there's no reference to that document here. And I do think it's important for the public record to reference that document so that it's very clear this is what we're agreeing to cut down and not just like the way it reads now. It's like we're just agreeing to a cut down, but of what? So I definitely want to very cleanly reference that this planning board is approving the cutting of trees as discussed in

055that second document. I think we all remember it. and that the replanting needs to be a lot more specified because I remember there were numbers discussed as to what would be replanted and where. So, I'd like to see that in the decision and I thought we discussed that being in the decision. So, I apologize if I didn't raise it earlier, but I want to make sure that I'm not missing it because uh >> does someone on the um can someone on the Y team know what that >> is talking about? But I don't know how to reference it. I'm trying to find it. I think the way to reference might be so where I would put it is on page four. >> Okay. >> In item four, we're saying we are agreeing we're saying it

056must occur. >> Right. And so I think we should say it must occur development of the site as you know per the document. Whatever. >> I'm trying to figure out what are we calling the document. I'm trying to figure >> Yeah. I think the two the two documents are the there's a there's a document that outlines the limit of work, >> right, which is which is what shows that buffer of of trees staying around the edges and then there's an additional document which is the landscape plan. Both of which were in the >> Yeah. So, I think you could just >> you could probably just say per the you know there's a there's a set of plans, right, that's going to go with this decision, right? >> Well, I hope so. >> Yeah, that's what

057I mean. They're both in that Yeah. In that um in that package. >> Okay. Did you want to say in that first sentence Anna >> must occur for the development of the site, as indicated on whatever she said. >> The report you're looking for with the trees. >> I think that's the I don't know if that's the correct date. Yes, those are that's what I remember as the visual. It kind of looks like the state of New Hampshire. >> Yeah, looks like we're cutting all of New Hampshire down. So, let's see if that's >> I'm trying to lighten the conversation. >> I think that was more of a um that was more of a diagram showing where different trees were, >> but I think >> Are you guys referencing the arborist report? >> Yes. But

058then I think >> yeah I would prefer to not put that in a decision because that is not to scale or overly you know detailed. I think that the what's being cleared is is what's within the limit of work which we tried to estimate on that but I I don't think we can take that to the to the grave because it was not you know if you overlay it it doesn't really match exactly right. So, so would the would the text be um as per as indicated on the limit of work and in the landscape plans provided? >> Exactly. >> Yeah, that that would be more specific calling out. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Exactly. >> And those and those would be in the set um talked about uh >> let's see the very top >>

059and then to kind of match it on the other end. I think you had a landscaping plan. >> Oh, yeah. Here. >> That we need to reference, right? Because you were saying you were going to and I'm talking to the applicant. I think the applicant had a certain number. Am I imagining that there was like a written document that said what we what would be planted or is that a figment of my imagination? >> There's a landscaping plan. Okay. There is >> on that has like even they even documented all like where all going across. >> As long as we're referencing an agreement as to what we're cutting and what we're planting, I'm good to go. >> Yeah. So, and I have the latest plans. It says in here the latest plans are with a

060latest revision date of 21226 and elevation plans at um 11625. Does that sound >> that's the most recent version? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Um the next item I have then is Oh, it's just more um it's more just a a typo than anything. This would be on page six. Um the the last of the four bullet points is on dimensions, building height. >> Yeah. >> Um so it says >> 49 to 49. >> What >> is that what it is? No, it um it says so given the use of given the use of sloped landscape which maintains this twotory facade in Memorial Drive blah blah blah and a three-story facade on the rear of the building resulting in a height from average grade of 40 feet 9 in that should be comma and

061then small t the board waves. So that first part was all an introduction of the information and it doesn't it doesn't read correctly. It should be together. So that was like said it's kind of a typo thing. Um and then I think the last item actually last item actually trans it goes um on page 8 n and wait a minute I guess eight and nine. So, >> okay, >> on page eight in letter C, we talk about in no event shall any of the following be permitted without authorization. And number triple I on that part is installation of non-native or invasive plant species. Then on page nine of letter J, this is where it really gets bad. Letter J, we say that 75% of all landscape plantings shall be native >> and then all planting

062materials are non non-invasive. That's great. And 70% of the planting material is native. That's just in two cents. So I think so we're kind of uh yeah, it's a little sloppy. >> So should I take out Okay, I'll start with this one. So I'll take out and 70% of the plantings of we'll keep it 75%. I'm fine with that. So, we we'll keep 75% of landscape plantings are native species. We'll take out the 70% so that we at least we just Is why okay with that? I assume 75% native versus 70. >> Isn't Isn't one of them planting material versus the other one said plantings like landscape plantings? They're supposed to I mean in my experience we've never >> disting distinguished between landscape plantings and planting material. I think there's both those are supposed both

063>> both supposed to mean plants. I think >> that's the plant. >> I guess what what is this? What is the standard? If the standard is 70% then we would like 70. If it has to be 75 we'll take 75. But I don't want to like volunteer something that's more than standard. >> So where did 75 and 70 come from? Frankly, I frankly I think if we look back and I don't know if I have it here. I think if we look back on our um previous decisions >> I will say planting material to me means dirt which I would hope is native. So sorry the lawyer speaking I not meant by the material was the dirt. >> I think we can all agree the dirt is native. I actually I actually I actually >>

064So we really do want to differentiate between native dirt and non-native. Okay, that's helpful. >> I could be mis remembermbering, madam chair, but I believe the decision was originally written as 75% and then there was some discussion that maybe the standard was 70. Maybe that's why it's written in different different numbers in different places, but I thought it might have been 70 at the end of the last meeting. >> I think that is true. I Are we are we talking about one thing or two things? >> One thing. We're not going to get into >> planting material is not is the same thing as plants. >> In the history of the planning board, we have always talked about plants. We've we've never talked about planting material >> at all. So that has in there. >>

065Sorry humor in this. >> I agree. >> No, you agree. Right. So I think I think it's probably another word for plants at this point and at least otherwise has in my memory has never been talked about by the planning board. >> Let's simplify it. >> Sorry. >> I think I think it's about taking it out >> taking it out entirely. But that the question is >> I think it typically is 70%. I think that is what we have had before. Let's go with 70. >> Um, and I think that's why it came up last time. I I I'm okay with it either way, but I I believe it has been 70% in other um in other decisions. >> Could I also make a very small OCD comment on page E? There's this lovely space

066between paragraph C and D. Can we just squeeze those two things together? See, I changed the online document. Sorry. >> Okay. >> So, okay. Where's the original? I'm sorry. I need to go back. >> So, on on eight >> um >> and letter C. >> On eight letter C, but now I'm back on page six to >> page six. >> I mean um Oh, no. It was on eight and nine you said. >> Yeah. So, on Yeah. So, on eight letter C >> I changed it to 70%. I think I think in this one um we just take out installation of invasive plants in no event >> um should be permitted without authorization installation of invasive plant species just take out non-native because they can plant non-native they it's just a certain percentage but they

067cannot plant invasive I wouldn't think they would want to do that anyway but >> well it says without authorization >> poison ivy everywhere right >> isn't isn't this the authorization So, >> because it says without authorization and aren't we giving them authorization in >> No, from the planning board at a public meeting. So, they have to come back to us if they say we'd like to plant an invasive species. >> Um, we can take that out completely, you know. And renumber them, which would be fine with me. Um, should we just take out invasive completely? It's It's kind of silly that it's in there that you would plant an invasive species. I'm sorry. >> No, but you can but keep that in there. I I was just talking about the insul because you said non-native

068or evasive. Right. So, the non-native is the part that you're saying is contradictory with page nine. Right. >> Right. I'm saying we don't need that in there. Right. Because they we already have a percentage of non-native. >> I understand that part. Why are you taking out the invasive part? >> Because I think other places we say you can't plant. >> We just took out the non-native part. We left invasive but took out native. She's trying to take >> because because on Jay because on Jay on the next page it says all planting materials are non-invasive species. So instead of giving them hey but you can come back and plant an invasive species. That seems ridiculous. Why would we want invasive species at all? >> Okay. >> It seems you just take that out. >> Yeah,

069I think we should just take it out entirely. I don't think anyone is going to say that that's a good thing to plant invasive species. >> Any any problem with that by MCA? No, Peter says no. He's here in in the room. He says no. >> We don't have a lot of plans for invasives. So, >> no invasives. >> Okay. Does that make sense? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. So, we're taking out three and that'll >> I've done that and added and added the rest of the other numbers as well. >> Okay. I guess it's it's just Yeah, two more. Oh, yeah. I guess. Okay. All right. So, that's that. so we don't look silly with all our plant material. >> And that's all that's all I have. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? >> Did

070anyone else have any um corrections? >> Yeah, the other stuff I looked for is there. So, I'm good. >> Okay. All right. Is there anything? Um, so now I would be looking to unless there's any other comments from the planning board or any other discussion from the planning board. >> Just why are these highlighted yellow? >> Oh, the new changed from the last it sent you a version on >> Thursday updated after we discussed with town council. That was >> that was all we had changed from the last version that you had. because lawyers like things to be bright. >> I I did honestly I prefer green honestly myself. But >> this is one very very small thing. Uh page five number nine. It's just the term is wrong. The planning board finds that objectionable

071features such as transformers for the project are instead of is. >> I was just wondering what that other mark I made there. >> But that's tiny. Okay. So, um, now unless there is any other like comment or discussion from the planning board because we're kind of at the critical moment here. If there's no >> madam chair, >> if I may one last comment and apologies. >> I was going to ask you next, but I was going to ask planning board first. Hold on. Hold on. >> sorry for interrupting. >> Is there any other comment or questions from the planning board? >> I think I'm gonna ask her. Just a fun question. Why is the uh in number nine, >> the planning board finds it objectionable features such as transformers. Why is it objectionable? >> We're

072saying it's pretty much we're not saying ugly. We're being nice. They're objectionable to look at is what it is. >> But it is needed. >> Yeah. >> Um I don't know if Trisha already caught this. Page five, the last sentence. Parking plantings. Um there's no comma. >> Wait, where are you? >> Uh page five. >> Parking comma planting. >> Well, because because the one before it is parking, comma spaces. So those are about the plantings in the parking area that we talked about there was four trees that are missing like in the comma is intentional. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, parking sub comment spaces on the one above it and then parking subcategory plantings. Okay. Um, my only my only kind of general stylistic comment because this is stylistically so different from what we've done

073before is I can see how this is a little bit less formal than our normal style and that has some benefit like people could read this maybe slightly easier. it's not doesn't go on for 40 pages. Um, on the other hand, there's enough informality like for example, when you see the board and its consultant on page two, GCG, GCG stands for something. It's not just like a threeletter word. So, I kind of wonder if we should when we clean this up and just kind of the first time we mention a shorthand, give the formal reference and then >> I think yeah, you know what I mean? >> I think that makes sense. Little little things like that that I just noticed where people don't the public won't know what GC >> that that actually is

074their name is GCG Consultants is that is their actual name. That is their full that is the company name the initials of the people that own it. >> Gotcha. >> Just like um >> do we have consult engineering? >> I'm used to a more formal title. >> Did we have did we have consultants after it or did it just say >> I think it just said maybe it just said >> it's it's kind of like this. It's a little bit informal in how it's presented. >> Yeah. I guess my style would be to slightly formalize it and give their full company. >> I can add GCG consultants because >> I think there's more stylistic comment. >> What was your what was your comment on page? You said on page nine there was something I the

075you just >> about transformers being objectionable. I just said we used objection. >> I was saying that it was objectionable and I was just being kind of >> Oh, okay. >> Why is it objectionable? It's needed. >> Okay. Yeah, >> it's unsightly. >> Got it. >> Okay. So, um, I'll let the planning board keep thinking there, >> but what was the comment that you wanted to make, Matt? I'll take comments from the >> from the applicant now. >> Thank you. U, just a quick question. Under conditions three, back to subsection C. Um, this may be standard language for the board, but there's there's kind of some wiggle room on some things like moving the building a couple feet this way or that way. And then in what's section uh sorry I lost it here. >>

076Sorry. This is page eight number C or letter C. >> Page eight. Yes. Conditions 3C. >> Okay. >> And then with within the about halfway down through the paragraph. It really leaves no wiggle room whatsoever for minor drainage or parking changes. I'm just curious if that's always standard language. It's, you know, nice to have a little bit of u, you know, if it's deemed more than dimminimous, obviously we'd come back to the board, but it's kind of hard and fast. If we move the parking space 6 in, we might have to come back. >> That is language that is different than >> than we typically have. So, um, >> so how would you >> I thought is it >> um I couldn't say which one I pulled it from to be honest where I drafted

077this from. Um, >> I mean the two sections that jump out to me are any change to the project's drainage design, any change in parking lot design just leaves no wiggle room. I don't know if there can be something put in about you know deemed more than dimminimous changes or or you know at the discretion of the board or the you know planning department st what whatever the language that would be appropriate but maybe just have a little bit of a a buffer in there. >> I I understand that that's reasonable. Um how do you phrase >> design is a little How do you phrase more than dimminimous? Is that is that a way you can just say greater than >> change to the project? You could say something like any change to the project's

078drainage design >> deemed substantial by >> How about any nondeminimous change? There you go. Any change deemed >> by who? >> The building inspector. >> Okay. >> He's usually because usually he's the one that is making those calls on site, right? >> Is that is that acceptable? >> Yeah, I I think so because any of those changes that may happen would happen prior to, you know, building permit likely or or it would be something that we could discuss with him, >> right? Okay. you know, if we come up against something in the field, we have to make an adjustment, you know, he'll already be active in the project. So, >> right. So, any change deemed to be non-deminous and we'll put that in um >> building inspector signing off on drainage system or is it

079more storm water and com kind of weighing in those? Not sure the building inspector would look at drainage. >> Um I mean if it's like your storm water sweep plans and things like that, it's not building inspector. >> The conservation overseas. >> Yeah. So I don't know if it's it's in the preview of building inspector. >> Yeah, we could do that kind of for the a kind of covers broader. >> So with do what to it? >> Authority having jurisdiction. >> Oh, there you go. >> Yeah, good one. Got that on both of them. >> Yeah. Yeah. So it'll be the same term in the Yeah. So it'll either go to the building inspector or concom or wherever it needs to go. >> Do you want to scroll the screen up so that we can

080just see where that landed on page nine? Okay, there we go. In no event shall any of the following >> relocation of billing footprint by more than two feet in any direction. Any changes deemed non dimminimous for the authority having jurisdiction for the the project strange design? kind of common, right? If you move the building 2 feet, say towards that already a pinch point that we approving of that 25 ft. Um, so it should kind of cover the all those requirements versus just the project drainage system. So you want it to somehow cover everything and say no event. >> Yeah. >> Shall any of the falling be permitted without authorization from the board? >> Because aren't we approving that pinch point that is there? >> You are you're saying they can move two feet in

081any direction without coming before you for review or relocation of the building footprint. And you're saying that they can change graded by six inches without any type of approval. So that's what you're saying. Anything greater than that would have to come back for approval is what you're saying. So you don't want anybody to add, you don't want us to be able to approve everything without you. If it's a major modification, they should still have to come back to apply. So it shouldn't be that any change that's non-deminist can be approved by whatever authority it is. Some changes will have to come back to the board. >> I think I I think what what I caught and maybe I'm um are you saying that that two feet could be substantial in the area of the pinch

082point and that is not allowed. >> Correct. >> I see. You can't change two feet more toward the pinch point that that we just allowed >> that we said. >> Why do we say that blatant essentially >> and that's why I was like that ASHJ should have should that come be a generic one for all those different things. >> I don't know that'd be specific enough for that particular one. >> I mean six inches that sounds so why not just add a sentence that blatantly says that >> all of that is true. Changes are not allowed in areas in in areas >> the pinch point area that you're referencing >> connected with any of the decisions >> and connected with the waiverss already granted. >> Exactly. Just say that plainly. >> Where would you like

083>> at the end of the at the end of that paragraph changes >> as number six now? >> No, still the C. >> Still yeah I mean still C >> but not not new new sentence. >> Oh complete >> complete right right after it but new sentence. >> Okay. So any sorry >> how about um changes without board approval >> are not permitted um >> in respect to waiverss >> in respect to waivers granted is does that make sense? >> Does that address it? I >> think so. Which part deep part is bigger you because >> it feels like we're repeating that ASJ in every sentence. So I wonder if it's >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> We are saying maybe move it up. No, that's conflicting because you're saying no in no event shall

084any of these be allowed and then you're saying any changes deemed non-deminous. So those those two Why you put include the word unless unless the changes are deemed non-deminous. Okay, I think that reads better. Now, do you raised this? So, does that help? probably made it more harder for you. >> I'm sorry. Was that to us or? >> Yes. To you. Did it >> become more difficult or does that help solve the question that you raised right at the beginning? >> No, I I I think it helps. It's a little wordier, but I believe it helps. Gives a little bit of uh yeah, wiggler room, so to speak. And um I would expect any changes to a a special permit or a waiver. We would have to come back anyways. So I think that's fine.

085>> Should that word respect permitted in respect to waiverss granted be are not permitted? Is that word respect the right word? >> Changes without >> related to waivers granted >> when Yeah. not permitted if rel if related to waiverss granted. >> So >> relative to waivers granted. >> Relative. >> Okay. >> Y >> and I'm also curious do we really get into that that level of saying if it's 6 in great difference you come back. >> Yes. That will impact a lot of things. More than six inches across a grade change is huge. Six inches across a mile is humong I mean across a depends how far it is. Six inches across a foot is hu six inches across a mile is nothing. You do want them to come back if there's substantial grade change.

086>> Yeah. I mean I I guess my concern there is a huge site, right? And and there may be spots that 6 in of difference makes absolutely no no impact and there's maybe spots where it's significant. >> Unless deemed non-deminous already by a previous authority. So I think you have that covered if the building commissioner looks at it and says that's aimous change. >> Yeah. They're like we don't care like if it's like in the middle of you know an area that's nowhere near an adjacent property may make no difference. Okay. Is >> it's kind of given right? You can't have plumbing which has its own slope. That has to be designed the right way. Parking walkways have to be designed with the right slope. So I'm not sure how that >> really matters in

087larger scheme of things. But >> well I think because you're breaking it apart into very different areas, the authority with the jurisdiction will be slightly different. So, I think it's ambiguous enough that it's going to give flexibility to the applicant and yet it gives us enough authority. I think it's reasonable. >> Well, ambiguous and just the right way. >> Changes in six ines could marry could could matter a lot if we're talking about accessibility, right? >> If we're talking about the fields out back, it doesn't matter at all. So, I think that's the the non-deminus is up there. So >> if someone says that that's not important but it is important it comes back. >> Is it non-deminous or is it just dimminimous? >> They're deemed >> uh oh >> I I I'm not a

088lawyer but >> unless the changes are deemed >> I think if they're dimminimous that's that doesn't matter. >> Yes. So I think it >> if you want non minimum >> unless the changes are deemed >> no I got to look up my terms >> too little can be little different for me versus another person >> as a designer >> it because I did Google it and it says dimminimus often mistakenly written as non-deminus. Yeah, I go into this >> is a Latin phrase meaning of the smallest things >> referring to things that are insignificant. >> Yeah, trifling. >> So unless the changes are deemed trifling per the authority having jurisdiction. I'm just putting in a word we understand. Okay. >> Great. That reads better. >> Okay, I think we got that right. Does it sound

089>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Angel. All right. >> Google's important. >> The word plantings is not in there. >> All right. Anything else from any party, the why or the board? That's why there's only one of those here. Okay. Then um if there's nothing else um we will then look to uh first close the public hearing and generally between if we close the public hearing we can still discuss but if there's any discussion we we usually have our discussion right away and then we close the public hearing and then we move to a vote. Um but uh but there is there is a space in there for discussion by the board once we close the public hearing. >> So >> are there any public comments out there? Is that >> I will ask

090if there's any public comments um before we close the public hearing. >> No. All right. On that note, um I will make a motion that we close the public hearing >> for 30 Memorial Drive, YMCA. >> Second. >> And a roll call vote. >> Deep Wankit. I >> Tespaniski. I >> Montino I. >> And Trisha Kendall I. Um I just actually want um you to put that number nine up there. Just I don't want to change it. I just want to read it. >> Yep. that we just that we just went through. >> Whatever it was, C on page eight. >> Sorry. Okay. No, it's okay. We can read it from there. So, in no event shall any of the following be permitted without authorization from the board at a public meeting unless the changes

091are deemed dimminimous per the authority having jurisdiction. So, Sounds good. Okay. >> And the one she brought up about the trees, that's also edited. >> Yes. Making sure we have the attachments. >> Okay. So, on that note, um, did you want to see that one, Deepa? >> Okay. >> We trust it. >> As long as Jasmine is saying it's in there, >> right? Who would like to do the honors? Is Is there any discussion? Okay, big moment. We're approve. Well, >> somebody's got to make >> We're making a motion. >> Mo, we're making a motion to approve. >> Then I make the motion to approve the TA >> the decision >> the special permit site plan review >> design plan review site alteration special permit >> for 30 Memorial Drive >> I'll second that. >>

092All right vote I >> Anna Tesmani I >> Scotier I >> Paul Montino I >> and Trisha Kendall I So there you go approved. >> Thank you. Woohoo! >> Madam Chair, members of the board, and Jasmine, thank you very much. We appreciate your patience with us and all your time and consideration. Thank you again. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you all. >> Same here. And I'll get out there and build us a Y. >> Yeah. Can't wait to be there. Can't wait to see you. >> Donate. >> Tell your friends. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Appreciate it. >> I do have that printed so I am going to ask everybody to sign that before you leave tonight. >> Okay. >> Sounds good. >> Oh, with so

093with all the changes already. >> Yes. Okay. All right. So, moving on. There's really just the one thing left on our agenda. Um, and that is uh 240 to 260 Pleasant Street site plan review. This is the >> Yes. So, there's a um I think so those are revised April 3rd. So that um would have been when >> just last week >> has anyone copies down there? >> Thank you. >> All right. And so Wayne is here again tonight? >> Yes, he is. >> Okay. Um Wayne, can you go through any changes from this if this set was revised April 30th? Um >> oh, sorry. Third. Um what were the changes that was being made? I don't recall. >> Sure. Uh thanks, uh Madam Chair, Wayne Bell, Land Design Collaborative. Um I have a couple

094representatives from uh the church here, uh tonight as well. Um so um John Dudley and um Roger Martin Rogers uh a member of the church and is also with the Green Leaf um landscaper. The changes were minor madam chair. Um and what I can do is uh looking at them they were peerreview comments very minor. Uh I could go through their letter if you'd like. uh they highlighted things in red. Um and so uh basically where we are is we at this point pretty much have a clean bill of health with them. Um so one of the things was uh there was an erosion sediment control barrier uh in the northeast portion of the site uh that um GCG called out stating that uh it it wasn't there. it was there but it was obscured

095by some other things. Um so we added a couple more call outs uh to that area. Um the other thing was uh um the deep sumped hooded catch basins that we had in the parking lot. Um GCGs uh was saying that uh it needed better treatment before discharge uh to the um subsurface system uh because of the soil. So we modified uh those structures. Uh the other thing that changed on the plan uh was a note uh regarding the snow storage uh that wasn't to be placed in any uh areas for drainage and that excessive snow that was on the site uh if there was no place to store it was to be removed from site. They asked for a note to be placed on the plan and it was um there was another note

096that they had asked for uh adding uh that the represent uh representative of the planning board be included in the review the vegetative screening prior to the vegetation uh augmentation along the frontage uh and the note was added. Um the other thing uh uh they the original tot lot that we had out there we were looking when we first spoke this was last year uh with the church they were looking to do a >> a recre a little tot lot and the discussion came up you know maybe it is we're going to do playground equipment. They've moved not to do that and that was a while ago. Uh but um they're not doing it as a tot lot, no playground equipment, so it's just going to be um loaned and seated. Uh uh there was

097another note um minimum uh 30 in per hour per square yard uh to be specified for the synthetic turf. Their concern was the infiltration rate. The note was added. It was resolved. Um they also discussed um Yep. So that that note carried over into the details as well. Um uh they had a grading uh their concern they we showed a a contour uh within the synthetic turf. We explained to them because of the accessible handicap parking spaces there was a walkway in front of it. Now, had we left the barrier between the So, it's basically a weed block, it's a um uh just a an impervious uh like a curb almost type of thing um which would be below the the height of the uh the turf, but it it separates the weeds from the

098grass from working its way into the uh the turf. had we not lowered that at that location of the the field, it would be a tripping hazard. So, that's how we responded back to GCG. And uh they note that it was resolved. Um >> and I'm sorry, where where are you in the um list here? And I I might have I don't >> where are you in the list right now or are you following the GCG list? And I don't think >> Yeah, I'm just Madam Chair, I'm just blowing through their letter. Um but I could if you want I could hit on each of them. We could go right to the sheets. Yeah, I don't I don't think we need to um I don't think I didn't realize that so many of the the

099the changes for the April 3rd drawings were the these um the things that you were going through with Concom that um that that G that you that have been resolved with GCG. So yeah, I was looking for if there was any changes to the plans that are >> maybe involve parking or um no >> the the vegetation or something that the planning board >> N. >> Okay. >> No, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Sorry about sorry about that miscommunication. >> No problem. There are some um items on the plan um in their letter that they had raised that we had responded to them earlier on that you know we would defer to the planning board and perhaps incorporating it as a condition in their decision and they had echoed the same thing on different items. So

100the only outstand so there's really nothing outstanding there isn't anything outstanding on the plan um but you the only things that may be outstanding are you know conditions from the planning board um incorporating conditions uh to resolve some issues um >> right I think and I think we started to go through these last time um if not even got through most of them I think we had acknowledged Ed um talking about load I'm going through the ones that um that here in the GCG feedback that require board approval. So the first one that I'm seeing is page five number 15 at the top and it talks about requiring a loading area. I think we discussed last time that >> that a loading area isn't really needed on a site like this. Um is that is

101that me having planning board? I wasn't there. >> Okay. Um, >> yeah. So, everyone let me know. Um, the the second question I think we talked about too was that the um is a question about whether the sign is in the side setback or the front setback. >> Yeah. So, it's a Yeah. So, it's interesting, Madam Chair. Um, and and I think it's a I'm sorry. Go ahead. I I was going to say, is this because the sign sits in the side setback for the other lot? Is that >> No. Okay. >> No. So, if if you could go to if you wanted to go to the plan, I could show you the diff it's it's a different interpretation here. And this is what I and what I said to GCG. I said, well, rather

102than go back and forth because, you know, we could do this for years. I said, 'Wh don't we just put have a condition in the decision that they they need to obtain a sign permit from the building department. Um, so if you look at this here, if uh you wouldn't mind zooming in for a minute. So the sideyard setback, so the sign is situated up in that northeast uh northwest corner. The front yard setback is 40T. Okay, the sideyard setback is 30 feet. If we could scroll to the existing conditions plan for a second, you will see the the yard setbacks. Uh that's further up the sheet, further up into the set. Uh one more perhaps. Here we go. So, as you see, that front yard setback is 40T. The sideyard setback is 30 feet.

103So, we're saying that it's located within the 40 foot setback and not the sideyard setback of 30 feet. So, when we look at this, we kind of, and this is the way I've always looked at it. When I look at a front yard setback, more often than not, they're more restrictive than sides and rears. Um, the only exception to that is if you're in a commercial district and you want storefronts right at the sidewalk. Um, but in this particular case, uh, the front yard setback is more restrictive. So anytime I I look at this, I would argue that along that sideline of the layout of the road, 40 ft back, everything within there is within the front yard setback. Now once you get past that, once you get past that 40 foot front yard setback

104line, then I would say that's the sideyard setback. But right now, we we interpret it as being in the front yard setback. GCG says it's the sideyard setback. I guess it all depends on on how you look at it and that's why madam chair we suggested that it become a condition and the decision um that they when they apply for a permit. >> Yeah. I think for me it depends on um who your neighbor is, you know, in a way >> but um that as as the the same property is owned um next door, I don't see as an issue. If it was a different if it was a different owner, I might not want it outside setback. >> Yeah. >> So, um so to me it's in an okay location, but if that property

105ever becomes separated from the owner, it may they may request that it the location of that sign would be contingent for me that the properties remain um owned by the same person or the same entity. So there are a couple things that that come into play here. So if we were to and I and I looked at this I said so where GCG is saying you know we're in the sideyard setback. I thought to myself well how do how do we resolve that? The way to resolve it is to move it more easterly but in doing so it's going to require clearing for lines of sight so that it would be visible. So this would be the ideal location. um uh here. And again, like I said, I'm I'm viewing this as a front yard

106thing, and I I hear what you're saying. It's, you know, uh which side is the neighbor. Um so, I appreciate that comment. >> Any comments from the board? That that's just my I have no problem with where it is now. I can see if it if there was a different neighbor, it might be more of a problem, but it isn't. So um so to me it might be a condition that's as as long as the two pop properties remain owned by the same entity you know then then it's fine >> and and and madam chair again like I said this is kind of why I I suggested that you know at the end of the day they're going to have to go for a permit from the the building inspector >> right? Um, so okay.

107Uh, >> you're not looking to actually include, do you do you want that verbiage to be in there that it has to be owned by the scene and to between the two things? Because I don't I don't think that's fair to say for further down the line when, you know, who knows how they're going to set these up. >> Well, it's true. I mean, it's a it's just it's a condition that we can talk about later. >> Okay. >> So, I but I don't have any problem. I think the sign is in the right place. Yeah. personally, you know. So, >> I just wanted a clarification on what you were saying. Yeah. Sure. >> I'm not gonna get I'm discussing the argument. I'm not discussing how I feel about it, I guess. Um Okay. And

108then I have um on number 20. Oh, that says resolved. Oh, G, that was where you were talking about the GCG. member um recommends adding the planning board or its representative to be included in the review of the vegetative screening. >> Correct. >> I think I know the name of its representative. >> Becca and so okay. Um is anyone else catching anything where um okay planning board All right. I think this is maybe where we're last time on page eight. Um it's talking about lighting. Um >> I think I think we were talking about that there currently there's currently there's not lights proposed. Is that right? There's lights are not proposed. Is can you refresh my memory? >> Sure. Sure. Um, light light poles are are proposed. >> Okay. >> Um, but whether or not

109they're going to go ahead and install them is is the question. So, what they'd like to do is make provisions for it. >> Okay. >> Um, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be installed. >> Okay. Yep. And there was um >> Did we talk about doing a little more research on the kind of turf the last time? >> Yes. And that was included. I just want I was trying to get >> GCG reports the synthetic lot of these line items. >> Madam chair, respectfully, um we're we're kind of on a roll with the letter. Um we were positioned to discuss the synthetic turf tonight. >> Yeah. Uh but you know seeing that we're into the letter uh respectfully if we could wrap up you know going through the letter and then return back

110to the discussion that occur. >> I agree because it's it's a little bit just refreshing our memory because I think we did discussing a a lot of these things last time and so we'll get right back to that deepa because I think we're almost there. >> Um so there was a discussion about the lights and and the height of the lights. Is that right? >> Correct. Correct. Um so um and talked about wanting them to be at 20 or 25 ft. >> So the the height lights at the field are are going to be at uh if they're installed will be at 25 ft. The ones at the uh the parking lot would be at 20 ft. And this is typical of of these types of uh facilities. Now, one of the things about once

111you go higher with the lights, you need less light less light pole fixtures. Um, so that was kind of and typically when they do these, they have them at the corners of the field, which is what we had done here. Um, and secondly, as I was saying, the GCG and one of my responses, the tree canopy is going to be higher than these light poles. Um, when you look at the activity, soccer lights during the, you know, they're going to be playing in the summer, uh, late spring, summer, fall, you know, and it could be a situation that, you know, if there's a concern about the lighting, um, and keep in mind that the the foot candle distribution on the photometrics plan, uh, shows very little spillage uh, out into the street. Um that coupled

112with um there are light pole fixtures on the north side of the street as well. So we look at this and there there light shields on the field lights so that they don't uh uh light doesn't make its way out onto the street that it's concentrated on on the field. So I think there are there are things that we've done here to uh and that was our our position with GCG uh was that we feel that you know the the lighting is at levels that are acceptable levels um at about um in some cases a tenth of a 2/10 of a foot candle uh out at the side out at the side and that's nothing if anyone you know basically it's a foot yeah foot candle is you know so >> yeah I don't I

113don't think we need to go into I just I apologize. It's there's been a lot going on the last two weeks and I know we discussed this before and um >> been trying to wrap up the YMCA and my head is not in this one uh so much so it's taken me a little bit to get back into it. I apologize. >> No problem. >> Um so I I think I get the lighting. I remember talking about it last time. What was um the hours of operation? Was that about the lights? The hours of operation of the lights. Correct. >> Okay. Because the hours of operation got us into trouble before. Um I want to go down that road. >> So I don't know what um >> yeah but I guess in this um in

114terms of light >> um >> versus just when something is open. >> Yes. Is there a proposal? What would what would what would that what would you propose? What does the applicant propose about the hours that they're going to need at this facility? What would be the >> I don't know. I haven't What? >> Yeah. >> How late are lights on at soccer field? I have no idea. 10 9 >> probably. Probably 9 10:00 at night. >> Okay. I I can't see any later than 10. That seems >> No. No. >> Right. And that's it. And and again that all madam chair that comes down to the um you know the way the decision is written and the owner >> you know if the church says no you know we we don't want to be

115doing this with lights you know and again there may be a situation where you know as they look at this from a cost perspective they install the conduits they prepare it for lights but they don't install them because of the cost of maybe this cost of running the lights or you know so that may in itself say that any activity on the on the field is limited to days. So, and I understand where you guys are coming from. If there's if it does go forward where they do install lights, you want something in your your decision that uh that regulates that. Well, like I said, >> and I can, you know, >> I I can also see us putting something in the decision that maybe is a little earlier than we would otherwise intend, but

116um to have that in there as a starter that lights are good until 8 or 9. Um but if but later hours can be requested once we once the town kind of sees what >> you know what these lights feel like, what the noise is like. Right. Sure. So there's an opportunity to go later once once more is understood. >> Just kind of in that point, is there any possibility that these this field could be used for something that's not soccer? Like will the church hold events on there? Will the you know, it's a big flat open space that could be used for all sorts of different activities or concerts or I don't know. I'm not really sure. Just wondering if that was in the plan or if they really just want to play youth

117sports on it. Yeah, I think it's more of a recreational uh thing for the for the youth and you know perhaps if they have a situation where there's a ceremony, a church ceremony, you know, baptisms or or and the like and maybe there's some activity, you know, they would have a a lunch in or something and everybody would gather out on the field. >> Um, you know, and maybe, you know, so again, it'll be that type of thing like church type events. >> There aren't bathrooms there, so that's going to limit True. Yeah. >> Because I don't know how far even if you open the church I think I feel like it's more than is that more than 300 feet. >> Yeah. So they would so we have provided that >> bathrooms. >> Yeah. So

118we have and and as I see it you know again they got they would coordinate that. So they would look at it and say okay you know because of the restrooms you know maybe we don't go out there. So again I think that's kind of minor at this point respectfully. I think it's um you know like I said I don't see any big you know I don't think Springsteen's coming here um so but I you know I just see it limited to some church activities no different from any other church facility. >> Okay. All right. So, um, so I think that that just gives an overview of of where we were, I think, last time, which I think is fairly fairly minor issues that can be obviously written into a decision. The big question that

119we asked about last time, I think, was the the turf and better ways of doing it, not better ways of doing it. So is um and you've provided some information about particular products. The smart turf would very particular product. I'm not sure about the other at um it's it's the infill. This is about the base underneath the turf. Is that what the second document >> is about when it talks about >> hybrid infill and tpe infill? >> So I am going to defer madam chair. >> Okay. >> To Roger Martin with uh green leaf landscaper. Okay. >> Um and he can answer the questions specific to that. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, good evening everyone. Um my name is Roger Martin. I'm with Green Leaf Landscaping. Um yes, the question was

120brought up with regards to the type of turf that'll be utilized. Um, obviously synthetic turf, much like a lot of building products, um, has had significant growth and, um, innovation over the last, you know, 20 years. If you think back 20 years ago where synthetic turf was, it was, uh, what we put inside our porch areas. Uh now you see them on professional uh sporting fields, you see them in parks, you see them uh uh residential and commercial landscaping, uh playgrounds, so on and so forth. Uh the synthetic turf itself would be analogous to say um like a cell phone in apps, meaning that each manu each company makes their own proprietary turf and has their own proprietary infill. Um, in this case, uh, I what I wanted to do was to look back on

121what Ashlin currently has, uh, and has been using. So, Ashlin High School, as I mentioned last week, as well as Ashlin Middle School, have a synthetic turf field. I believe they're older than, you know, 2020. And although that's only six years ago, there has been significant changes uh done to the synthetic turf for durability uh for flexibility. Uh in addition to that, uh the infill component itself um earlier on and I believe both of the fields in Ashlin have what I would consider to be the base level infill in what it's referred to as SBR. You'll see that uh denoted there. And SPR is basically a substitute for a synthetic rubber um substitute for natural rubber. Um and predominantly it's made out of recycled tires. Um what the what transpired from that is they wanted

122to get a uh they wanted maybe a better material that might have been more eco-friendly. So now a lot of companies are utilizing products that are like a hybrid. So using both the SB, but in addition to that, you're also using um organic materials like cork and coconut fiber and um olive kernels. And then um above that would be the TPE infill, which goes away from rubber. And what you're really dealing with there at that point is um um more like a um a sand material that uh is been engineered for its durability, elasticity, and so on so forth. So I would say that where we're looking to uh would probably be something above what you currently using in your uh your own public fields since this is a private field. um you know and

123the innovation is just such that um it's it's more apt to use a better product because of the environment and then we're kind of focused on that. Uh so we would be using something like a hybrid infill and I gave you a technical data sheet or I believe Wayne sent in a technical data sheet um from uh Smart Turf. Um so the the product we would use would be something similar to this. Something that um is one going to be easier on the joints of the children uh you know playing the sports. In addition to that something that's going to have better drainage uh in addition to that uh obviously increased durability and something that's more eco-friendly. >> Um so sorry. So which one on this are you proposing? There's there's the hybrid system and

124the TPE system. Which one are you proposing for this project? >> So, uh the again this is why I'm saying the the words that I'm using when I say hybrid infill and TPE versus what you guys have used in the P or are using currently at Ashlin High School or the middle school is SPR. This is like saying Kleenex, meaning that there's very there's a there's within each of these are very specific products that are um proprietary to whatever vendor. Uh so to what I wanted to say was that we're probably using something closer to like the hybrid infill. So it's not quite the SPR that you've used in the past. that's older technology, but something that is more eco-friendly and um in, you know, utilizing materials like I said, cork and coconut fiber and

125olive kernel. So, I I'm hoping I'm answering your question by saying it would be a hybrid infill, but to say specifically the type, it really determines it's really determined on the specific manufacturer of the synthetic um turf. So, I think what I'm hearing is look, the town uses a certain kind of turf at the high school. Ours is going to be better for the environment is kind of my takeaway. >> Yeah, that's that's I mean, I'll be honest. >> That's my big takeaway. But the one thing I was going to ask you is because you're not being specific as to the brand and I think what you're saying is like there's different there's lots that fit in into that category. >> Yes. >> I'm not a turf expert. I don't think anyone here is. Is

126there a way you could just like tell us about one that might work? like just pick one off the internet and just kind of give us >> I don't even need to do the we could use >> or something like it. >> Yes, you you should have that document in front of you. >> Right. I think what he's saying is what we currently use is pure pure um rubber crumb. >> Correct. Yeah. what he's proposing to use is the hybrid system which is a combination of >> sand rubber chrome >> or so what that percentage of each thing is varies by manufacturer and correct me if I'm wrong if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying what the percentage is proprietary by manufacturer but ultimately it is a blend of all of those things that >> but

127are they like are some some manufacturers like 20% organic material and 80% yes or is it like a 50/50 blend and which way are you going to go is My question, >> it's usually when you're talking about hybrid material, it's usually the replacement of anywhere between 30 to 50% of the SBR, which would be the recycled. Okay. >> Uh, tire rubber. >> So, essentially what you're telling us is you will be using material that's 30 to 50% uh what's the word? non rubber and is more >> it would be the the one you want to talk about because when utilizing rubber there are other rubber materials that are eco-friendly it's the SB which was made out of recycled tire and that's where uh a lot of one of the reasons why the technology came about

128is because uh of the dust that was provided by the SB rubber. So what I'm what I'm saying is that that SB rubber um will be decreased by 30 to 50%. >> Relative to what we have at the high school. >> Exactly. >> Okay. So it's 30 to 50% less rubber than the high school. Yep. >> Which is >> Yeah. That's the hybrid. >> Yep. >> Which is 100% which is probably 100% what's at the high school. >> Yeah. Roger, is there an example of somebody using this particular recommended field in this approximate area like one of the universities or another high school, middle school outside of Ashlin? >> Using what the specific brand? >> Not brand necessarily, but the style that you're >> I can tell you that any new field I can for

129the most part any new field that's being built today is using the hybrid. that that's the there there would really be no reason at all like the fields that you guys have currently I'm assuming that at its end of its end of life and it needs to be replaced you will be going to a hybrid system >> I think I think where for me like where where the town of Ashland is concerned is um is about the materials and the safety of the materials in regards to like the environment and what leads leaves, you know, what leaves the site. And so the smart turf sheet that you provided, you know, they say on their website that they're 100% um PASF free, right? And that's so and that's the actual turf that goes on top of

130the infill, correct? >> So is that the you know, is that the standard now? Is is a lot of what we're hearing about turf fields not being good for the environment is is that really in regard to the old turf fields and not not in regard to this new technology? That's what I'm wanting to know like is >> yeah I think I think like anything else um you know there are there is an there is a desire obviously um for one to have a better product but that better product can be denoted on many things one durability but in addition to that how it's how it it's utilized uh in in an environment you know people are looking to be more green uh one you know the big thing we have is you know how

131do you recycle the material of the field when you're done, you know, when it's at end of life. Uh so yeah, there's now a big push towards utilizing materials that can be when I say uh disposed of in this case recycled. So this same type of field technology that's out there now, most most if not all of it is 100% recycled back into another field. >> Yeah. And I'm a little surprised that the sheet doesn't say that because I believe the um the website did >> say that. Um so I think again like those are the types of things that you know the um the PAS you know anything that might go into the groundwater anything that might be runoff you know th anything anything that might be offging that those are things that leave

132the project site and go out like to the rest of us right and and so those are the things like I want to know about you know and how how how this thing affects the community. It sounds like like something like smart the smart turf is a is kind of a you know one of the leading brands as terms in terms of doing it safely. It's it seems from the little research I did on it. >> Yeah. >> And it seems like the underllayment that you're looking at the hybrid system isn't maybe the the gold standard but it's it's a silver. Is that kind of what I'm >> Well, there there's I mean there there's a uh platinum if you want as well. I mean some of the No, >> professional fields now use FIFA

133uh FIFA turf. I mean where it's certified. There's so many when I talk about synthetic uh turf fields. The technology in synthetic turf field would be analogous to talking about flooring tile. 20 years ago you had one option. Today you can buy tile that looks like wood, >> right? And then that's why I'm wondering like, you know, in specifying a product like when I go to specify a product, you know, I need to talk about the the performance grade windows, you know, that I'm specifying. I'm wanting to know like so what what is going to be specified, you know, on that site. >> So let me ask you that protects Ashland from >> from whatever from whatever that, you know, the field would bring. Well, I I can assure you that the field, if we're

134talking about a technology using the hybrid product, um the field would certainly be um more suitable, more eco-friendly than your current fields that you allow the children to play on today, >> right? I mean, obviously, you know, we're not looking to those fields that were that were probably good at the time. And so we're always looking to do better. Right. So it's it's >> But the kids are playing on it today, >> right? Right. So it's understand they'll be playing on >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Right. >> So it's understandable that the products are better. And that's why my questions are always like, okay, we're we're adding a new field. It it um it makes sense. You don't have to water it. There's definitely environmental benefits that way. um that

135doesn't take all the pesticides or the fertilizer to try to keep it green. Um but it's also understanding okay that it's a better product than anything we have in Ashlin. Great, but how how good is it for the environment? You know what just you know what are the what are the downsides of it environmentally? Like that's that's the part I just want to I I haven't I don't see it in here. I don't. So that's the part I want to understand. It's they seem like good products and that's that's where that's where my questioning is going. Right. So, um >> I I I have to say that, you know, there's any any town. I mean, you can go to your towns uh to the side of you or or towns in other states. Uh anybody

136who's building uh a field that doesn't want to use uh natural turf because of the pesticides and the fertilizer and so on so forth and the lack of durability or going to the synthetic fields. Um, if you're you're you're talking about, you know, having an environmental test done, I I mean, I'm assuming that there's a department within um, you know, the the town of Ashlin that, you know, is looking into this at the very least, considering you have the same product and and the same usage and and yours is a public field. This is a private field. >> I I get that. Is anyone understanding my question here? as it's just a am I not being clear about what I'm asking? >> I think you're asking for specifications and I don't think that they picked

137a they didn't pick a vendor yet. They didn't pick one. They're just telling you it's going to be better than what's currently out there. So, I think that's all they're trying to say. >> I think that's what I keep kind of hearing that there's not a particular We're not getting any specificity other than it's 30 to 40% less >> rubber. That's all we seem to be getting. >> So, what you're looking for is for what you're looking for is a specific vendor. >> I'm I'm not looking for a specific vendor. I'm looking I'm looking for that. Um, you know, hey, this this study, it's like a traffic study like you know this study that has been done on artificial turf shows that when you reduce >> the amount of rubber by 40%. you know, really

138that that it it a much safer very little gets um >> washed off into the environment into the the water table, you know, like how safe is if we go from a terrible product at you know that it's and to hey it's a 40% less terrible product but still pretty terrible then we probably want to know that that I'm not saying that's the case. So that's what I'm trying to understand. No, I mean I I I've been thinking about the same thing kind of like yeah the the standard should not necessarily be well it's better than what you guys have at a public field and when you do get rid of it you'll probably get this stuff and I appreciate what you're saying like I love the fact that if we're going to go turf

139we're going to go better in town that's fabulous. Um but yeah to your point it's I don't know what the standard is for private property. I'm curious to hear from Jasmine from her experience because I don't I think this is the first time I as a planning board member see private space turf conversations. What is our jurisdiction here? Like do we as a planning board get to decide what kind of turf gets installed? Can we what I guess where is our kind of boundary? Because I don't know I've never seen this before. >> I don't know if there's any existing case law on turf. >> Yeah. But typically on a private project, you wouldn't be able to dictate the type of turf they would choose the same way you could tell them that they couldn't

140>> bring in a specific grass per se unless you could cite that there is specific >> concern because we know that the PAS level is at X amount and it will leech at this rate, right? And then at that point you could say due to public safety concerns. But in speaking with our health agent, our board of health agent, it's something that the state actually doesn't have a very good handle on right now. >> I was under the impression Massachusetts is very concerned about the P PCF in water and that we have pretty high levels locally. >> Yes. Um, and so I would think in theoretically we could argue that there is kind of a public health question whether it's town replacing it or private property probably that did not exist at the time that

141we installed our own public fields turf. So that sounds like we could kind of have that conversation. So the question I would have is like who in town can we consult with other than who you mentioned? like should we be talking to Hong Kong? Do they have jurisdiction on this or knowledge base? >> Hong Kong wouldn't have jurisdiction, but the board of health actually would be your best jurisdiction. >> So, do we want to consider that as an option just to kind of get some feedback because we don't seem to >> memo to his I mean what he says is basically the data just isn't there. They're aware of it and they're collecting data, but it they don't have anything substantive to >> like you mean the state doesn't have or something. So it's a

142conversation that they're definitely having. It would be worth having having Ra Raj Gupta as our um health agent, but he it would be worth I think having at least his >> Yeah. Because to me there's a difference between like the scientific concern that this stuff cont like I don't think it's any anybody's denying that washing the stuff repeatedly is going to contribute these forever chemicals into the water source. I'm confident that they're so new relative to how we use turf that there's no like definitive report from the state of Massachusetts saying this is good, this is bad. Like I know that, but that doesn't mean that it's not bad. So I kind of want to figure out where do we land on opinion. Just ask them for a memo of opinion if that >> exactly.

143I I think where we lack the expertise, but we seem to have some jurisdiction over public health relative to something we're going to approve, I would seek their input, both of those entities. Roger, I bet if you were to show us a vendor that you're likely to use, I bet they would have a ton of that information that that you know, it's probably some marketing also, but it would probably help answer some of the questions that have been raised. >> And I I want to add that what I'm hearing from the applicant is a real appreciation for being more pro- environmental. And I want to honor all that. And I think it's fabulous that we're having a conversation about doing better than our community has done. Although when the town installed it, we probably did

144not have as many hybrid options. So I'm not saying anything bad about the town. I'm just commenting that the part of the applicant wanting to do better I very much appreciate to be clear. >> Yeah, I agree. And I think I'm and you know from the beginning I think um I I not this meeting but in other meetings have been very much saying that you know we haven't done this before on the board. >> You know I know it's a a kind of a controversial topic >> you know um that I don't really know that much about. So, I'm trying to be educated here um and to try to understand what really are the pros and cons between these different products. So, like like Anna said, I appreciate looking, hey, we're looking at good products

145here, but it's just trying to understand, you know, what what are the cons like and being being honest about the cons or or if if it's unknown, right? So that we can make an informed decision about that because again, it isn't necessarily exactly about what happens on a private property. It's what happens to those things when they these little pieces of these things come onto the property of the rest of us. You know, that's what I'm trying to I'm trying to understand and it's not my wheelhouse and it's not my area of expertise. So, I'm trying my best to look at the this information and trying to understand it from that perspective. And I asked this question right at the beginning because that GCG report asks for the product spec specifications which I don't know

146if we had this shared with GCG at that time. So um with them not having that actual product and having a storm water management I'm not sure if the exercise has been completed. Um, and that's exactly why I wanted to hear about this option of what are we proposing here because the GCG does ask for specifying the turf product because it's a very generic synthetic turf is what's been noted, >> but if we had a better product, I'm guessing GCG would weigh in and your storm water management plan would also get reflected and probably answer a lot of your questions that you're looking at. We have a manual here in front of us, but I don't think that's accounting for this product. It's a very generic synthetic turf model. So is that I mean otherwise

147yeah it's it's like writing it's writing specifications that things have to contain a a maximum of 30% rubber or or 50% rubber or whatever you know it is you know um but but if there's data that shows hey it doesn't really matter how much rubber it is it doesn't do anything to five feet off the site there's no there's no, you know, remnants of that. There's no chemicals, there's no whatever. That's the kind of education we're trying to we're trying to get here. >> So, uh, what I'm what I'm hearing from you is that you're looking for an environmental impact study >> for for synthetic turf. I >> I don't I I don't know that I don't know that any any provider of turf will have uh an environmental impact study uh to provide. Um

148what I can say is that obviously I I think all of us can recognize the fact that uh a lot of towns certainly ones on the side of Ashland are putting in synthetic turf fields uh because of uh there there are obviously benefits to that as far as usage uh lack of other chemicals that would be bleeding into the system like fertilization uh and so on and so forth. Um, so if you're looking for a specific type of product, what I'm saying to you is that the components that you would have interest in knowing about would be the infill. And I'm saying that the SBA um SBR would be something would be older technology and uh what we're looking for what we're looking to is something that's more environmentally friendly and would be uh more

149advantageous than what you're currently using. So, >> but if you're asking me for an environmental impact study, I mean, that's something completely um separate from the manufacturer. That's something dealing specifically with uh water runoff uh on the field. >> So, so >> um so you know, Smart Turf, what you've given us obviously is prolle and everything. Do they not have an EPD or HPD? Because both of those things might provide information that would be beneficial. I can certainly >> I'm sure there's a turf manufacturer out there with an EPD. >> All right. Well, we'll go ahead and and uh I could certainly see if I'd get that information for you. Um I I don't know whether or not they do uh have something like that or not. So the only thing I mean I'm not

150an expert by any means but I I just kind of started looking at state position on these forever chemicals and I'm assuming we're all in agreement that this stuff has forever chemicals which I think is PFAS, right? So, it sounds like the like the the smart turf itself doesn't, but I don't it's not it doesn't say it on here, but when I looked on the website, it said that all of their products, I believe, are PFAS free. >> Um, which kind of surprised me, but now we're not talking about the underllayment, which we don't seem to be getting that kind of >> got that kind of >> information, that kind of detail. Like, it's like, oh, no, no one studied it. It's like >> so if the underlying one h like so I guess what

151you're asking really is specificity if the PFAS is not in that one we're in better shape. All I was going to say is apparently >> in January of this year there's a bill that just got through committee at the state level to ban PFAS in various children's products etc. And I guess there are uh 28 states that have passed laws to ban PFAS in at least one product. So Massachusetts, I guess, is moving making progress on this and that could change a lot of how um communities approach this. There's also uh 172 public water systems and 96 towns in Massachusetts that have exceeded the state's limits of PFAS, and I'm pretty confident we're one of them. Am I right on that, Jasmine? I think I think we're kind of not in a good place. So,

152my thought would be let's dig in to whether what we're dealing with here in the underlying layer, if that's also PFIS free, then it's a non-issue for me. But if if it does have it, I'd like a little bit more input from our public health people and concom just a little bit. >> All right. Just so that I'm so I'm clear, could you please let me know what I'd be uh requesting? You're looking for whether or not it has PFAS. Um and you're also looking for what? An EPD. So, can you define what that second part is? >> An EPD is an environmental product declaration. So, it'll tell you basically pick a product and tell us. >> It'll tell you specifically for this product, everything that's in it, how it impacts the impact of the

153environment, whether it can be recycled, >> whether it's from recycled material options. >> You also have an HPD, which would be your health product declaration, which would then also that would >> dip into your PAFS and stuff. >> Yeah, makes sense. So, I mean, if they have that, that's an easy way to just here's the information on what the products have in them and >> and then can we ask Concom for input on like how would the water part work? Like I don't know enough about that to understand the water runoff issue like I who do we ask? I don't think that's gonna come up in storm water review with >> okay >> if if it gets reviewed at that level for because because all of these have like internal drainage under them that basically

154like its own storm water system that collects it and then >> dumps it. Right. >> Yeah. So I think they're in that process now. But concom I think what Jasmine's saying is like concom's jurisdiction is to is to talk about the water and so water isn't causing erosion and it's not you know whatever but it's not analyzing what's in it >> um isn't part of their jurisdiction and so that's a line I think they hesitate to cross >> understood. So >> yeah, >> really it's the public health person and >> these particular documents and then who's doing the storm water >> part that's coming to us >> conference they're before them currently they haven't open >> okay great >> they have they have it open with this product >> the information that we have is

155the same that concom has >> no do they have that with the product that they are specifying here or they have it as a generic synthetic turf. >> They just have this generic synthetic turf. >> So I don't know how beneficial that is. They're saying that's a product that we're going to use then Hong Kong should have that information to make sure that when you're looking at storm water they have the right information, the right products back. >> Is it? >> Yeah. I'm not sure. I'm not sure at the high level that they look at things. I'm not sure >> because I think the section details would have to account for what product it is, right? >> I mean, look, >> excuse me, Madam Chair. Just just a question with respect to >> just a

156question with respect to the the storm water through the chair. Yeah. Is the question about the storm water runoff from the field to downgradient areas such as wetlands, which is the conservation commission. jurisdiction. Is that the question? >> No, we're not that we're not we're not looking to go into Kong. We rely on them to look at that. >> What we're looking at, as as Anna put it, is like the the public safety question, right? Like, okay, the storm water can be all managed properly, right? It's all managed properly. It's great. >> But what does the storm water contain after going through this system? That's our question. I just This is the first one. the first fields has that have been prop proposed for this board and that's why we're digging into it. It's a

157new subject for us. We're not we're not trying to uh you know um beat you up over here. We're just we're trying to learn and understand and so that's why we're trying to um give you the information the things we don't understand and how we might better understand them. >> Sure. And we and I and I understand that and I guess just just for the record what's happening with the storm water here is none of it's actually leaving the site. This is a rare rare gem where there's no runoff leaving the site, no peak rates, no volume. Um and GCG has reviewed the storm water report as well. I understand the permit is with conservation. Um, my understanding also is that conservation, I'm sure they reviewed it for conservation as well. And if their their

158letter satisfied the storm water regulations um both at the local level and the state, I'm sure uh conservation will be um pleased with with the results of of their study. So, we'll find out. We'll find out. So, I kind of want to kind of throw out my linear brain logic here for a second. To me, there's a question of do we have jurisdiction? What I'm hearing from Jasmine is we can in theory control the turf because we have some jurisdiction over whether it can contribute negatively to public health. That's what I heard. >> That's what it believes during in the case law. Okay. >> I think it might be helpful if the board agrees, Madam Chair, to kind of get that confirmed with legal counsel to sort of understand what is our jurisdiction. What I'm

159also hearing in my own head is it seems like there's two public health questions I have. Number one is children standing on top of PFAS material to begin with. That is its own question which seems to be developing very recently in the legislature in Massachusetts like now like it's happening right now. this conversation that definitely was not happening when the town of Ashlin put in our own tire turf. Right? So, not only has the technology advanced, but the interest and the public concern and the science of PFAS has also significantly changed. So, it's a fair question today. One, can kids even stand on this stuff? Would I want my kids standing on this stuff for significant periods of time? Is the kind of one public health question. And then the other public health question is

160the leaking of this into water. Right? And to me those are two separate public health questions that have very different causation components because the first causation component we will all know without any scientific research that hey if kids play soccer on PFAS material we don't need anyone to prove to us that they're being exposed. Right? The second one of leaking into public water. That's where I don't have the expertise to understand will there be that in this site? Who can we ask? It sounds like we need to ask an engineering consultant or someone how would this work if there is potentially a storm water system that retains the water. Could there still be leaking into public water? So to me, those are two separate causation positions that are completely different. Does that make sense? And

161I would want legal counsel to comment whether we have a right to look at it that way. And if we don't, we don't. >> Yeah. I I think those I think those are all I think those are all a really good summary, right? And that's why we're trying that's why this is kind of a learning little module here about these type of fields and what our jurisdiction is and then what information we need to make a determination about that jurisdiction. Right? So >> because if we have jurisdiction over the first part of exposing kids and that's now public concern the way it was not when we installed it at Ashlin Fields then it's easy for me. There's not much there to prove kids stand on top of bad things at the end. The second one

162is a little bit more tricky. >> Yeah. And I'm not and and I just want it to be clear, at least for me personally, I am not saying, "Hey, this stuff is bad." You know, the you know, the the fertilizer they put on lawns is is bad, too. You know, that has a little sign, keep your kids off, right? I get it. So, I'm I'm not saying that at all. >> It's trying to understand and how we compare these things and how do we make the best decisions we can. now. I mean, they probably made the best decisions they could for the other fields then. We need to make the best decisions we can now. So, that's that's just what I'm trying to get my head around. So, I'm very I'm very excited about a

163field project. I think it I think it would be great to have in Ashland. Um, but uh trying to get this information about these types of fields. That's what I'm trying to understand. And and I think for both of you that's probably easy easily resolved with what's your manufacturer, what's your ingredients list, all of that. Um just because that's going to help narrow down is is there anything there that we need to worry about? And if there is something to worry about, how much do we need to worry about it? Because >> yeah, >> is it inert really inert at the end of the day in the material that it's in or is it something that leeches over time? >> Yeah. And it seems like I mean there's so more and more products obviously are

164getting those uh declarations because they want to be a part of that movement where so many things are going. So it seems that there has to be has to be some out there that have these that information right >> that they've done the work they know they know what the >> you know what the information is >> because it is a marketing thing. >> So let me let me ask a question. So if we were to be talking about like um we we you have this the technical data sheet on smart turf. If uh and and inside that information it says that um Smart Turf has declared that their entire range of artificial grass products have showed non detectable levels of PFAS at 100 parts per trillion >> backed by an independent testing lab. What

165what does that do? >> Yeah, that's what I that's what I said. I saw that on the I looked that up myself and saw that. So I guess I know but you were just saying the technical data sheet. >> Yeah, that's the top level. I'm talking about like we don't we keep talking about this middle level with the rubber and other aggregates and and and things but there doesn't seem to be any information about about that. >> Okay. So you're not worried about the PFAS then? >> Well, you know I the question ultimately is you h we're understanding that statement to apply to the actual turf grass the fiber, >> right? Does that statement also apply to the fill? That's what's not clear. Is is the hybrid fill also PAS-free? >> Right. So the the

166yarn the fiber is is is the fill >> because even though it contains chrome rubber crumb rubber can mean a variety of materials some which are less offensive than others. >> Yeah. I saw on the list on the front page of that the information on the different fills I assume the smart turf is number four turf carpet right but there's also one >> two three and five so I think the bulk of the questions is related to five what is that infill generally the subbase and the the drainage that's stone and stand and things that are organic Um the shock pad also can come into play um for leeching more than because the kids don't touch the shock pad but um >> for leeching. So is that also PAS free that material? >> So the

167infill is that I mean the order seems a bit strange. The infill is where is that's on top of the turf carpet. >> Yeah. Everything else goes in and then you like sweep the infill into it. >> Oh so okay. So the infill with the with the blend of 30 to 50% rubber um is the infill on top of the turf carpet. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Right. So that's the part we're trying to understand. Right. We have this great turf carpet that has no PAS in it, but then we're sprinkling something else on top of it and that has question mark, right? >> And and that's the stuff that gets tracked home. >> And that's the stuff that gets tracked home because it's loose, right? So that's that's the that's the certainly that information

168has to be out there. >> What we'll take what I'll do is I'll make sure that uh I contact them and find out specifically about their infill and if it has the PFAS. Is there anything outside of that that you're of interest? >> Well, I think while you're doing that also the shock pad would be good to know. >> The the I'm sorry, what is it? the the shock pad under the turf under the fiber >> y >> like the whole system um >> does that statement apply to the entire system? >> Okay. Yep. >> Are are you definitely going with Smart Turf or is this just an example of who you're going to go with? >> Like I mentioned, there are so many different manufacturers of this product. when we talk about a hybrid

169product, um they certainly are uh a company that we're looking at very uh diligently, but to say that we've made a decision on who the vendor will be, we haven't. But they're it's going to be at this level at the uh hybrid level. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, I think that um I think that uh Jasmine, if you can um just keep track of the the kind of questions that we have about the not the questions, more the the discussion that we've had about the lights, about the the sign that there doesn't seem to be anything else here that we're that anyone's that we're concerned about. It's just this one thing that we're trying to trying to learn about. out and I think then we should reach out to Concom sustainability say um uh

170board of health and just see if they have data on this. If if if other parts of our community in Ashland have been doing have information on this or have been doing research on this or have a statement to make about this then we would want we would want to know the same as we would want to know in a building you know we want to know what um what sustainability has to say about it you know so using our own you know our own resources that we have so um but uh but that said like like I want to re reiterate that no one I don't think anyone is We're not trying to throw out the project. We're really trying to understand the implications so that we can make a a sound decision, right?

171>> Can I ask sort of like a very econ economical question? Like what's the how burdensome would it be to not use this kind of turf at all? And is it is it the cost of maintaining without the turf that's the issue? Like from the applicant's perspective, what are the alternatives to using this stuff at all? And how expensive would that be? Is it cumbersome to the project? >> Are you I'm trying to figure out the question. Are you talking about instead of using a synthetic turf? >> I guess what are the alternatives and why are there are they economically viable? >> Would they somehow jeopardize the project? So, the the options for fields um today, regardless of where you're at, um in what township or what state, you're either looking at natural turf field

172like grass that grows, utilizes water and fertilization, um or you're using a synthetic turf. Those are the all those are your options. And I guess I'm asking the first option, the non-turf option, the organic material with fertilizer, is that would that essentially would that make this project not viable? >> I don't know that it would not make the project viable, but it certainly >> uh would impact um what what the intent of the the field would be. Sure. Um, you know, one of the things you run into and then one of the reasons why your middle school and your high school decided to go with a synthetic turf field, I'm certain of is durability. uh you can go ahead and grow that grass and fertilize it and then spring season turn comes about and uh

173the kids want to get out there and and play on the field and it's a lot of moisture in in the soil and they run on it and they rip it up within within a day and then it has to grow grass again. >> Yeah, that's where where Angel has a lot of some experience with this in in schools, you know, as she >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm just trying to I know it's it might seem like a stupid question, but I'm you know, it sounds like it would be it would not destroy the project, but it would make certain things more difficult. >> I think it's also the the question as we compare like the the the fertilizer and the um the the water and >> the amount of water in the summertime becomes

174a lot to keep like a real a grass field with grass growing on it, >> right? the the maintenance, the the the mowing and the you know um so the yeah and not just the labor of the mowing but your you know the um fossil fuel powered lawnmowers to you know there's there's all these different kind of factors and that's why why the um declaration statements like you know that it it does some of that homework for you and kind of compare the pluses and the minuses. this is what it does, you know, so that you at least you can make an informed decision like, yep, we we just we we chose the lesser of two evils and and and we're we're satisfied with that. We're we're content with that, right? So, um but we're

175just asking to provide that kind of information to educate us in that way. So, is that uh is that clear? I think that's I think that's I mean I appreciate the information that was sent this time and I think we're looking to take it just a a little deeper than inquiring minds want to know right we want to know more about this so we'll we'll get information from the town's end and we would be looking for again a deeper level of information about um about the the three layers of the product I guess um we kind of seems like it seems like the the actual carpet part is more more out there, more wellknown and the other parts are a little bit harder to to get the information on. So So is that is that

176well that's the task. I guess you have to see how difficult or or you may not know yet how difficult or easy it is but that that is the ask. >> All righty. Well, we have our homework assignment. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Um, so with that said, Madam Chair, we're looking at a continuence. Do you folks have a date in mind? >> Um, our next meeting is on April 30th. We're skipping over school break week because a couple of us won't be here and probably a lot of other people won't be here as well. Um, so our next date is the 30th. Um, we have a few things to do that day, but I think we can definitely be where we can have a spot for you to to check in and

177not not delay anything if that if that's suitable for you. >> It'll work. >> Great. >> Thank you folks. Appreciate it. Have a good night. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. So I will make a motion to um continue 240 to 260 Pleasant Street site plan review to April 30th. >> I'll second that. >> A roll call vote. >> Pabanka I tend I >> and Trisha Kendall I. So um we've already continued 55 Tilton. We've already done the meeting minutes. We've already talked about lots of stuff. Is there anything? Well, first of all, I just want to um we did talk about Anna and I guess I can almost let you listen to the tape. Yep. >> But we talked about the um >> comprehensive plan >> design review committee. >> Oh, yes. This

178draft. Yep. >> Yes. And if we just made a couple changes, we we said um instead of it made up of three members, we said three to five >> and then a board will reappoint a new ad hoc committee before the next application. We said for the next >> Great, >> you know, so that we don't we don't make a group until we have a reason to do so. >> Perfect. That's exciting. >> Um >> awesome. >> And besides that, that'll be the text that we'll be ready for on the 30th, which will be the public hearing. >> Awesome. So >> good to work. >> The only thing we didn't do without you is the things that you would know more about which is um the compreh anything with comprehensive plan. >> Uh so the

179only challenge is that there was supposed to be a combined planning board select board meeting as you all know that fell on Passover. uh the select board did not meet I believe and so um from what I understand from Yolanda the posting that we had drafted for applicants for the implementation committee was made at least in Michael's newsletter. I was going to follow up with Michael and see if it made its way into the town website as well. Um Yoland is on vacation a good chunk of this month. May is the election month and so her suggestion was that we reconvene in June to make this happen. Um I think that that's our reality. We can't kind of go back in time and make Passover go away. Um so it is what it is relative

180to kind of where we are. You know, that's the update. Um, I definitely think it's really important that we create that implementation committee as early in June as possible because once you hit late June, you're in the summer season when no one wants to do anything. Sorry, many people don't like doing things. Um, because it tends to be a busy time for people to travel and families etc. And so my only kind of pitch is that we really work hard to make that happen and set up the committee early June to mid June so that they can start to get to know each other in the summer and maybe get going in the fall because if we wait I think the more we wait the less likely this is to get going. Um so my

181hope is that we can make it happen in June. Um, >> yeah, I think that's the uh um the kind of unfortunate timing of a lot of things happening at once with with town meeting and the override and so much energy being put toward that and then um the this committee and school break and vacation and the election. So where I don't I don't like either that we're kind of waiting several months longer than we had hoped to. But on the other hand, it seems like that that's kind of where we are. Um and that hopefully then with the housing production plan in place and the comprehensive plan in place, we have all the documents we need to to jump start, you know, if not during the summer, that might be a more relaxed conversation

182by the chosen group. Um, but you know, at least by fall that they're really that they're really deep into it. So, all right. On that update, I think everything else we're I think everything else we're good with. So, um, anything else by the committee? I know Deepa and Paul both have all their signatures, all their papers in. So, welcome. Great. So, that all that's ready to go. And Jasmine, you wanted us to sign things before we leave. >> I had the decision if you'd like to. >> Okay. >> So, if there's nothing else, um I will make a motion to adjourn at 10:01. >> Second call vote. >> I can IO. >> Angel Cazadian I and Trisha Kendall I. All right. Thanks everybody.