Planning Board (March 12th, 2026)

001All right. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Ashlin Planning Board meeting of Thursday, March 12th, 2026. Um, please note that the meeting is being broadcast and recorded. Um, first on our agenda, well, first I'll call the meeting to order at 7:19, just a couple minutes late. Um we are waiting. We have four members here. We are waiting for one member who will be hopefully be joining us remotely. Um um just soon hopefully. First item on our agenda is the chair and clerk's report. Um I believe besides uh another communication that I had with um Susan Thorne, is it Thornton? Borto Thornton um regarding the zero um uh >> zero cross street. Thank you. I have no memory this evening. Um I think that was the only uh correspondence that I had. I I had

002actually reached out to her because she had mentioned that Copington Planning Board going to be meeting this past Monday um and that they were on the agenda. So, but when I checked the agenda, that issue of cross street was not on the planning board agenda. So, I reached out to her and asked about it to ask about it and she said that um I think the the Hopington Town attorney had apparently asked the planning board to pull it from their agenda, you know. So, um that was all that was known about that and so obviously I did not um go to the meeting and but just noting the correspondence. Do you have a question? >> Did they say why they pulled it? >> Not in that email. No. No. Um so, um but reiterated that

003uh that the planning board did send a memo. Um Jasmine's actually sent that uh in in a a p a real paper format like you know um so uh in support of the select board's um letter. So that did go out. Okay. So um next on the agenda is public comment. The room is quite quiet this evening but there may be people online who want to make a public comment. If you do please raise your hand so that Jasmine can see you. None. Okay. Seeing none, we'll go on to our next agenda item which is public hearings. The first public hearing on our agenda is from Eversource. It's a scenic roads hazardous tree removal which we started um talking about uh two weeks ago. Um I see Matt Mitchell online. So um I think I

004think when we last talked about this topic, we were going to first of all look have planning board members on their own. were going to look at the marked trees if possible. Um, and Matt was going to find out about um potential replanting of some trees. Is there anything I missed in that that we were going to look at? Okay. Um, I did go out I with Melissa and Becca who's also online did go out with Matt on was it Tuesday? The really really nice sunny day. We went out and looked at trees. It was quite nice actually. Um, and didn't obviously walk the whole way or look at every single tree, but looked at all kinds of example trees um up close to kind of understand those conditions. And I highly recommend if anyone

005ever wants to know anything about trees or how a forest grows, please ask uh Becca to take you for a walk in the woods and you will learn lots of stuff. So, um that said, I'll turn it over to Matt if you want to um give us any updates on the information you have and then we'll open up the board to any questions or concerns. Yes, I do have another PowerPoint uh I think shorter shorter than last time but with some uh context and tidbits if I can share my screen. Let's see. I think it is this one. >> Oh, I also while he's getting that ready, I also want to comment that um Scott had wanted to set up a Zoom with Matt to talk about a um just talk about a few issues

006that questions he that he had and I was there as well for that. um for those questions. Did you want to uh say anything about that, Scott? >> That was just this afternoon, kind of last minute. >> It a short little call this afternoon. Just wanted to understand more about what was, you know, how like the number of houses that were affected in that area. And you gave me some clarification on that. And then just some other um pieces that could be um affected like we talked about how the uh water treatment plant over there could also lose power. at the same time when those houses in that area loses power. Um I drove the street and looked at them. Um so I was didn't have as many questions about the physical trees but more

007about the area. How many people in Ashland were affected? How do we really you know understand like we pass this how does it improve the lives of those well hopefully you know the the power outage portion of the the lives for those people that live over in that section. Um so just kind of understanding more of that part. Yep. Great. All right. So, with that, I will turn it over to Matt. >> Uh, do you all see the PowerPoint? >> Yes. >> Excellent. >> All right. So, hello again, everybody. Uh, Matthew. Um, so on the left, I have some new introductory photos uh, compared to last time. So, these are photos I took um last summer, the most recent summer, uh during an outage investigation actually for the circuit. Uh there was a treecaused outage.

008Uh this is right near the hop the line with Hopkin. I think it's technically on the Hopkin side, but you can see where the you can from where this was taken, you can see uh where the road names changed. It's very close to the Ashlin portion. Um, and you can see that this tree has failed onto the wires on or it did at least. Uh, on the right you can see uh where we pushed it off to the side of the road, but at the top of the photo you can see where the primary high voltage wires are. And then on the left um this tree ended up being almost completely hollow like a straw. Uh was really something. And what was very um interesting for me as an arborist was that this uh tree

009did not have any of the swelling that we normally look for um with trees that have a lot of rot in the stem. So um you know I walk I I've gone up and down street looking for what I think um are good hazard trees. Um but there um there's a lot out there. Uh there's just a lot out there with um where we are in the forest life cycle. So this is a the map of the circuit. Um I have highlighted in yellow how and cross which are the scenic roads um where there are proposed removals today. Um and I wanted to show this because to sort of explain like how electricity flows through circuits. Uh the substation is somewhere up north. Um and generally the electrical flow for the circuit goes north to

010south. Um so what that means is anywhere where there is a treecaused outage or any any outage for that matter um everywhere downstream or in this case south of that location loses power. Um who al who also loses power is anybody upstream or in this case north um from where the outage event occurred until we hit until the uh until we hit um isolating equipment um that can um basically shut the power off and keep the rest of the circuit energized. So um anything upstream of that switching equipment does not have an outage. Everything downstream does have an outage. Uh, and the nearest switching equipment I found on the GI on the Eversource GIS I marked in red. Uh, so everything to the left, uh, so that's that section of Cordavville. Um, and I think

011that road is Thomas Street. Um, as well as everything down How and even further down into Hopkin where how turns into Wilson Street um would lose power. So if there's a tree related incident um on house street close to if I think more than half of the circuit loses power it's it is over half of the circuit that loses power because that northern section that's very straight along the town line that's all right away there are no uh residents getting power on that section so it would it any anything that happens on house street it can be very significant um even though house street itself especially the southern portion is not particularly densely populated Uh so some facts and figures since May of 2024 81% of outages on this circuit have been tree related. That's

012four out of five. Uh there have been 52 total outages. Uh of those 42 have been tree related. So a very significant portion of the outages that Ashen residents have experienced have been tree related. And of those 22 uh which is over half uh occurred on House Street itself. Um so you know house uh house street isn't necessarily the most densely populated street in Ashland but um there are outages occurring on house street that are affecting a significant uh number of people. Uh on the right I have circled in purple all of the uh property parcels in Ashland that would be impacted by an outage. I didn't count every single one, but I think it's well over a hundred. Um, and this is just for the Ashlin portion. This is not counting um the residents

013in Hopkin uh for example. Um, and circled in yellow um which was alluded to earlier is the uh Ashlin's water treatment facility. Uh so, you know, we're not just talking about people losing power. We're not just talking about trees and live wires in the road like this. this would impact potentially um critical infrastructure for the town. Uh this slide's basically unchanged since the last time. Just summarizing um my tree list, 46 trees, varying size classes. About 13 of them are dead or virtually dead due to invasive pests. And I broke it down into hazard ratings. Again, unchanged. Three. Uh the hazard rating of three is what I would consider uh the most potentially hazardous two in the middle and then one um is on the lower end of the spectrum. Now I think where we

014left things off last time I think the big elephant in the room was the question of replanting. So I wanted to get into that a bit today. Um, I would prefer a more open-ended commitment just uh following um a future tree warden DPW recommendation. Um, and the reasons for that are the following. Um, it basically comes down to it's difficult to say how many appropriate sites there are to plant trees. So, I don't want to commit to a really big number before we know like what can actually fit. um plant uh if we're restricted to town owned properties, the biggest potential of course uh a lot of people think of is the road layout. Um but planting within the road layout uh makes it actually somewhat difficult to guarantee that these trees survive into maturity,

015which is whenever I plant trees, that's the goal. Uh I do want them to be there after I am gone, preferably. Um, if there's a pre-existing canopy, it starves the nursery, transplants of light and water, which they need uh quite badly after going through the transplant process. Uh, and if it's a forested street such as how and most of cross, uh, replantings um on those streets specifically are necessary to preserve the forested aesthetic. Um there is a there as we saw on the sitewalk uh for those who were there um there is a very vibrant um layer of young naturally regenerating trees that the forest is producing. Um and the existing canopy trees next to the proposed removals would also fill in the space over the next few years. Um, the road layout tends to

016be somewhat hostile to trees. Um, even outside of whether or not there's an overarching canopy from the forest, they got to deal with road salt. They have to deal with compacted soil, poor soil, urban soil, uh, not what they're used to growing up in in the wild. Um, they can get whacked by snow plows. um you know, when they're plowing the roads, their priority is to clear the roads, uh not necessarily to watch for small trees that are easy to miss at night. Um so if we're going to be planting within the road layout, what that means that it severely limits the choice of species that we can choose from. Species have to be selected primarily for their hardiness. Stuff like are they native or not? Do they have good fall foliage? Do they have

017pleasantl looking or pleasant smelling flowers? um those all are very become a very secondary objective. Um these trees have to be selected for whether or not they're just going to survive in this hostile environment. Uh and if we're planting within the road layout where there are utility lines overhead, that further limits the choices to species that do not require pruning at mature height. Uh basically all that is to say plant uh doing a planting plan only in the road layout can be very difficult. Uh most of my proposed removals have been selected due to they are already potentially hazardous or they're already in poor health. Uh we're not removing healthy trees to make way for new construction uh or uh to mitigate any tree mortality that would come from burying the burying the wires. Um

018removing the trees in my opinion um removes potential liability for the town as they are town- owned trees. Um, and removing these trees allows the adjacent ones to get more sunlight and to grow in a more healthful in a more healthy fashion with less stress from having to compete with the more neighbors for light and water and resources. Uh, regularly thinning via tree removal is a very common practice in forest management. Um, so for those above reasons, I think that a onetoone replanting um would not be the best decision to go forward with. I think that planting project should center around what species and number of trees best suits the selected location and the project. And if we are trying to plant as much trees as humanly possible, that can backfire as they start to

019compete with each other for light and resources and can actually increase risk of mortality long term. All of that being said, uh I did come up with some kind of system um for throwing a number out there. Uh there are 10 trees of hazard rating two or lower of a significant size. So foot and a half or more in diameter. I think that's a pretty good place to start the conversation for uh of replanting at a minimum 10 trees. I'm very open to more. Um I think that would just depend on the needs of the planting site and the site availability. Um and that number final number is something I'm very happy being decided by uh the town and the tree warden and not by ever source. Um that is the end of my presentation.

020>> Can you just go back to that slide and so so when you say so what category is that? Sorry I just didn't understand the lower part. >> Uh this slide you mean? >> Yeah. So the hazard rate the hazard rating of two is the middle rating. Um I didn't want to include three uh because that's a lot of dead trees or trees that are in like the worst possible condition. These are not healthy trees. Um so this is the middle category of there is a moderate amount of potential risk with these trees failing. They have they have some kind of rot. They have some kind of defect. Um it's not extreme. Um but >> and they're 18 in are over >> and they're 18 and they're 18 in. >> Planting in what way? You're

021saying >> go because these are the trees that we're taking out. So, um if uh we're if we're taking out tree these trees that are of a significant size, I think that that um and there's 10 of them, that's a good place to start. Uh >> you're saying only replacing those 10 >> uh at a minimum of the a minimum of the 10. Uh I'm very happy for that number being higher. Um, it just depends on what the town's needs are for trees, for new trees, >> right? I just want to make sure I understand. So, we're saying the level threes, those are all the ones that need to come down anyway because they're either dead or they're really close to dying. Super, you know, they're they need to come down anyway. So you're saying

022the remaining ones 10 is just kind of the arbitrary number you started with because it's based on the number that are in group two that they're over 18 in. And then you're going to partner with Becca and the town to when they come up with the need. That's when Eversource is going to say, "Okay, you have a need. We're going to help fill that need by giving you these trees." >> Nice. >> Okay. And Becca, I don't Is she on with us? >> Yes, she's there. >> Yes, I'm here. >> This was something that came up because I asked about the the forestry plan. Um, and she did mention earlier, and you can confirm if I'm saying this correctly, that the funding for it was approved in the fall and you're just kind of waiting

023for that to get the final approval to move forward with coming up with that forestry plan. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, it's not like we're waiting on funding or something to get this planned. And once we have the plan, that'll really help drive the direction of where these new at minimum 10 trees can go >> if needed. >> Yes. >> Right. So, that Becca would be determined as tree war in Becca would be determining where those go and what species they are. So, so it's all appropriate for the area. My question is also that the um is this just the trees I assume it cannot include maintenance because >> yeah you know that would have to be done by the town but is the planting you know is is it just the

024donation of the tree because I want to be clear and then the maintenance it's a gift and then the maintenance and the planting is done by the town. Is that what we're >> Yeah. Generally, generally what we do with um uh town replantings like this is we deliver the trees, our contractor plants the trees. Um >> okay. >> Uh but the the maintenance for the watering uh would be something that the town does. >> All right. So the contractor would provide the tree as the the type of tree as requested by Becca and then they would plant it and then it would basically get turned over to us for its care. >> Right. >> Okay. All right. So, um, uh, Becca, any comments from you on this, um, appropriate, um, appropriateness of number and >>

025yeah, so I'll I'll add to it. Um, I know that Matthew had mentioned the size of the tree. Um, I I didn't quite catch it cuz my my audio is not so well. I'm having some internet issues here. I I think Matthew, did you say 4in caliper trees? >> Oh, I didn't I didn't say a specific size for the replantings. Um, but generally we plant most of the time the trees that we're planting are one and a half to two and a half inch caliber. That's sort of the h that's sort of the happy medium between growing quickly, recovering from the transplant, but still being a decent size. >> So, for the planning board and anybody watching, um a 2 and 1/2 caliber tree, very dependent on the species, but it's going to be about

026five feet tall or so. That that's the height of the tree that you're probably looking at. If you've gone to the Ashen Arboritum uh before all the snow hit, mo all the trees we planted there are 2 and a half inch caliber. So you'd be looking at a tree of that size. It's a it's a good size. Um but you don't want to go very large with your tree plantings because it it's actually much more stressful for a tree. And I explained this to um to on the sitewalk on Tuesday. Yes. Um, and I'll explain it here as well. The the best analogy I have is um when you transplant a a small tree versus a big tree, um it's like taking a younger maybe elementary school child and transferring schools. They adapt very easily

027compared to taking a high schooler who's been in one school all their life to another school. It's a bit harder to adapt. Um trees are kind of the same way. you take a small young tree, they adapt very easily to the new site that they're put in. Um, but the older the tree is, the bigger the tree is, um, it's much more likely that the transplant stress will be too much for them and they just would not actually survive. Um so having a smaller number of trees to spread out get the right size 2 and a half inch caliper is a good size um tree so that they can grow fast and fill in the space because they will grow fast um is ideal. >> All right. So we're starting with 10 2 and 1/2

028in. I think Matt gave a different diameter but or caliper but we'll say two and a half 10 two and a half caliber trees um that they will be planted um and then the maintenance of those trees would be taken over by by the town. Is that acceptable to >> you said that's a starting point so want to be mindful because I think the 10 is out of that 21 um out of that rating two I think it's 21 trees right so um it would be good to keep it open in such a way that if we can do better than 10 we should have that option available. >> Yes, I think I see where the confusion come from is coming from with the the diameter. Um, so I came up with the 10 number

029by um counting the number of trees that had that hazard rating of two. Um, and I counted each tree with a rating of two that its own diameter was 18 in or large or more. So basically counting all the big trees basically >> significant trees rather. So, so what why did the other two don't matter? Like why only the second category? Like why are you using the second category, not the other two? >> Uh I didn't want to use I so I didn't want to use the three. Um because that is the tree those are these are the trees that are at the highest risk. Um so these there's not really much to replace. Um these trees these are the trees that are dead. These are the trees that have the really big gaping holes

030in them. These are the trees that are infected by really nasty invasive species. Um, >> there's not really much to replace. >> In other words, you're saying category 2 is more like your your Eversource is doing something for the town. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, I think we're kind of overthinking this from my perspective. So again, I think we have 10 2 and a half inch caliber trees uh species to be selected by Becca and location of planting to be selected by Becca. Um but to be planted by Eversource and then it would be taken over to the town. So if anyone has something they would like to change, I want a number. >> Yeah. Would you be open to adding nine more to it? Um those are the rest those are the ones that

031are still in category 2, but they're over a foot instead of 18 in. Um, I counted the same 10 you did for the 18 plus. Um, but I think a foot is still kind of good size. Um, I noticed most of the ones are all really small except um I think there's one one that's 18 to 24 that could be also added. But >> yeah, my my only hesitation with that number of trees is just finding the places for them. Yeah. Again, I only want to follow the direction of the forestry plan and the and Becca's recommendation. You know, >> I think if there's I think if there's no place for them, then they don't get planted. If if Becca, you know, we don't just take please, we we won't just put a tree in

032a place that it would be likely to fail. So, if we don't have locations for them, then they then they don't get planted and, you know, we don't we don't need those trees then, right? Yes, I'm kind of making the assumption that after the forestry plan that there is somewhere in the town that we'd use >> some trees. >> We can make that assumption and if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. Right. >> So, Matt, is 19 possible or are you going to make a counter offer? >> Oh, we're h feel like we're haggling. Um >> I if if if Becca finds locations for 19 trees, I'm happy to plant 19 trees. It's just it's just that that large of a number is something I'm nervous about committing to and being stuck on it. >>

033What do you mean being stuck on it that they have to be planted? >> Yes. >> I mean, >> no, I think that's up to Becca. And if she doesn't have locations for the trees where they can thrive, then we're not going to waste money. So, is there a particular reason we can't say 19 trees planted over the course of 24 months in the town of Ashland at Becca's uh discretion with input from various committees, select board, I know the comprehensive plan certainly thought about certain areas of town needing more coverage. So there's plenty of data sources for Becca to peek at, but to me, why not say 19 trees over 24 months or something like that? >> Is does that sound Does that sound good, >> Matt? >> Um, yeah, if we want to

034go with 19, just as long as we have the asterisk of there aren't 19 spots, there aren't 19 spots. Um, I don't think we need to necessarily do the over the 24 months period. Um, I think that a a realistic timeline for this would be in the spring planting season of next year. Um, and I think we get um you can probably get most of them done within the the same planting season. >> So, you're saying spring of 20 2027. So, I would say then we would want the spring of 2028 to finish the 19 that were not planted. >> Let's just say 24 months to make it easy. Well, 24 months from when? Because I don't want to miss the spring cycle of 2028. If what Matt is saying is the first time we

035can plant is in April, I don't want to miss that. I don't want to miss the following April. So, why don't we say through the end of 2028? >> Through the end of 2028 or >> Right. He's saying he can't do anything until next spring, not this year. >> I mean, we the the planning seasons are fall and the spring. um fall being like early Octoberish. Um where was I going with this? Uh so so if we don't get them all in on the So we don't get all of them in in the spring, we can then do them in the fall and then um >> and in the next spring is >> I Yeah. Yeah. The this spring it's way too soon. Next and um with the fall planting season that's coming up um

036I think it would still be a little bit rushed if we're planting that many trees. to the board. Um, just going back to the selection of the planting locations and the species being planted is based on the plan that's being written this year. Um, that inventory is probably going to be taking place over the course of the summer. The plan will finish by the end of this year, but it's probably not going to be finished before the growing season is done. Um so we wouldn't be able to give that list of locations and and tree plantings to Eversource and until the end of the year um or very beginning of next. Um and then just real quick on the why might we not be able to do 19 trees all at once. Um depending on

037the locations found um we think about planting trees and we're like we want as many in a in a small place as possible. It looks pretty when they're small until suddenly they have a 30 foot radius spread crown and they're all growing into each other and it causes the trees to decline much earlier than they would have if they had been spread out. Um, so normally we stagger the plantings so that you have a larger tree providing some shade for a smaller tree and so that when the large the older tree um does eventually decline, that younger tree is already there to replace it and they're not growing into each other as well. Um, so that's why we might have it we might not have sites for 19 trees all in one year. So, so

038I'm I'm just looking for numbers that we can put on this. So, maximums are 19 trees and a maximum of 24 months. Do you think that would suit that would be helpful and suit your needs? Uh, Becca, whether or not they all if we don't have places for the 19 trees and we can't get them all in, then we can't, but we have an opportunity to do so. But are those time frames and the amount of trees >> sound good to you, Becca, or would you adjust something? >> I I think that's fine. Okay. >> As long as Ever Source is agreeable to it, I think that's al that's fine. >> So So Trisha, I'm just perplexed because 24 months from now is only going to cover one spring planting and one fall planting. If

039you want to cover another spring, it needs to be more than 24 months from now. >> I'm just going misstating. >> I am going by what Becca says in the 19 in in in the two in a two year a 24 month span. I think Becca is saying what she's okay with what we say. >> Becca, do you think we need more than do you think you need more than 24 months? >> I think 24 months is enough time. The first 12 months or not even 12 months. This year we will finish we will get that plan done and before next spring we will have provided Eversource that information. So next spring of next year they will be able to do the plantings. If for some reason they don't have all of them in, then

040fall of next year they will finish those plantings. And I I will be putting the pressure on ESource to make sure that they meet that timeline. So >> I I appreciate all of that. I mean, I've been in this town for a while and what I see is that when we say something will be done by the end of the year, no offense, Becca, it doesn't get done by the end of the year. We oftentimes need more time to get things approved, editing, etc. I don't I I'm a little perplexed why we're not giving ourselves >> give me how many months. How many months? >> Like I said, I would I would just open it until the end of 2028. That gives you the full cycle of next spring and fall. Okay. And if it

041doesn't get >> 2028, done. That's what the date is. >> Spring of 2028. I don't think it's then of >> Is there any other changes that we need to make on this? End of 2028. 19 trees, 2 and a half inch caliber. Okay. Um, sounds like so this will be a what uh for us you will have a this is a pretty typical acceptance decision but it is something we'll have to sign. Is that right? >> Yes. >> So we can have this ready for I can have it sent out. >> Yes. >> But you can approve it tonight. >> All right. That sounds good. >> So 26 though we're going to be remote, right? So, do we have to like come in and sign by some specific time? >> Just as soon as you

042can after that. I can also Yeah, we can drop it off in mailboxes if need be. If people have a hard time easy for you, I can come. I just need to know. I need clear direction. I mess things up. >> All right. Well, she will put that out for signing. All right. So, is someone want to make a motion? All right. I motion that we approve the Eversource Scenic Roads Hazard Tree removals um based on the allowing them to to remove the ones that they selected. Um, and they're going to plant 19 new trees um, with feedback from >> Becca in the forestry plan by the end of 2028. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second that. >> Roll call vote. >> Lea Wangai. >> Anna Tesmani. I >> skip I >>

043and Trisha Kendall I. And I >> Paul's on. >> Oh, Paul is on. >> Paul just came on. Yes. >> Yes. I'm here. >> Would you like to vote? >> Sure. So, I'm going to Montino. I >> All right. So, that passes. The trees will be taken care of. Thank you for all the detail um and research in this and for the tour as well. >> Thank you all for having me. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Matthew. >> And hello, Paul. How's the How's the airport? >> I'm still here. I'm in the I'm in the lounge. They're going to kick me out in 354 minutes, so I'll just go outside. Okay. >> No big deal. >> You could be in your car, too, just listening. >> Yeah, I'm just parked

044off site, so it's too much of a hassle. So, >> better for me to stay here. >> Okay. Um, then we will move right along then. Um, >> we'll just take care of Tilton while it's here. Um, 55 Tilton Avenue is continuing. They've asked for a continuence until >> March 26th, please. >> March 26. So, um, so unless there's comments from the board, I will make a motion >> that 55 Tilton um is continued until March 26th. Is there a second? >> Second that. >> And a roll call vote >> Anna Tesmanitzki I >> skip I >> and Trisha Kendall I. So that is continued. Next on our agenda, which is the one we want to make sure you're here for, Paul, if possible, is 30 Memorial Drive. That is the YMCA. >> Yep. >>

045So, um, so Peter, we are ready for >> Oh, okay. So, um, >> Dio, I believe, is presenting. >> All right. Um, >> good evening. I Yeah, I'm I'm going to present um so I can drive the drive the presentation from here, but you ready for us, Trisha? Yeah. Um, I think so. Is there any other introduction we needed, Jasmine? Obviously, we haven't we we recognize you, but we haven't seen you for a while. So, >> correct. Well, that's why we're here. Excellent. >> Um, so as a reminder, uh, Carrie Dio, Scholar Consulting Group. We're the owner's project manager for the project, uh, Ashlin Firm and, um, really excited to be back. Um, why haven't we been here? That's a great question. Um, so we um got to kind of a crossroads I think with

046both conservation and planning and realized that we weren't making a lot of progress until we got through the peerreview process, right? So um we kept coming back and and realizing that that a lot of the conversation was about what was happening with the peer review. So we did opt to stay um out of the out of the planning board and consom until we were ready. Um just as uh I'll go through this, but we have since um been able to close uh the comments with GCG and Vanessa Associates and then earlier this week um Becca and the conservation uh closed their hearing on on our project as well. So we thought this was a great time to come back, give you a quick update on kind of where we've been since. Um a lot of

047the work that's been going on has not been super glamorous. It's been a lot of uh back and forth of conversations around storm water. Um but what we also recognized is that there were some items that were talked about with this group. We had teed up to present those items um at the December 11th meeting that we did end up continuing because we hadn't uh received updated uh comments. Um and they were all incorporated into the revised sets that were submitted with the peerreview comments ex but they have not been presented in public forum. And so we thought we could just give you a high level of what those are. Again, they're all in the plants that you have. Um, so just a reminder, if I can get my slides to go. Okay, so just

048a reminder of the team. Um, we actually have uh folks from most of these uh entities online. Uh, we don't have traffic on with us because I don't think there's anything there that could come up. But in the event that anything comes up, we're hoping we can answer any final questions um or make any clarifications this evening. Um, as a reminder, so as of that December 11th um, meeting uh, when we did to uh, decide to continue, I had sent an email to Jasmine just kind of confirming to make sure we all knew what what we still had as open um, confirming what was still open um, with both planning and conservation. I think I actually uh, emailed uh, Becca and Jasmine together. Uh at that time uh there was still some clarification desired to

049understand our approach to how we were clearing and why we were clearing the site. Um we wanted there was some question about what the landscape buffer looked like in that existing condition. Uh just a again a little clarity on what's happening in that corner. Uh the planning board had asked the YMCA if they would be amendable to having a public bus stop on their site um if and when the town rolls out a a busing system. And then um we have to still obviously get through the the nitty-gritty of the decision. Um and then there are three kind of looming items that like I mentioned we have now since closed. the right uh GCG and their peer review for storm water and and civil vaness for their review of um of traffic. The conservation comments

050and their hearing is now closed. And then in incorporated in all of those were the comments we received from you know the town technical review, the fire department, police, all the different entities in town um that we received along the way. Uh so this evening I wanted to give you an update of those uh status the of the items from that 1211 email and then the items I again they're in that final set but I don't think we've ever really talked about them publicly that I wanted to touch on just to kind of bring you along to make sure you were all feeling like you heard the answers to the questions you've had. Um the one was about Dunkin Donuts access and and how how one would get to and from um the the parking

051lot there. and then all the way not only to but through and past our site uh to Trolley Brookke. How do you get from the front yard to the backyard? Again, on foot, on car, in cars, etc. And then there was another question about what the retaining walls would look like. Um so we just gave you some brought some imagery just so you could see that. Any questions before I jump in on any of that? >> Um doesn't look like it. Not yet. Um so again just for perspective you all know this site but in case there's public listening um you know this is the site of Memorial Drive across the street um from the backyard of the um middle school. Um it's right uh adjacent to the 135 uh Dunkin Donuts which we've talked

052about and right near the trail head here of uh Trolley Brook um as well as the the the dog park. an overview of the the full site. So, in our approach from a from a development standpoint to building on this site, so obviously it's a forested site right now, um we are attempting to maintain the the forested area to the extent possible along the the perimeter of our of our site to keep that old growth forest intact um and give ourselves a buffer, you know, from adjacent properties. Um we're hoping to curate what we're calling the nature's edge um which will be you know what you know like a backyard for the community right so you you'll see uh trails um areas for recreating you know fields are also looking into natural areas may they

053be paths or you know natural classrooms etc. Um but then in that space where we are um needing to clear to do our development, we're hoping to actually enhance the area back there by by curating this nice space where where some specimen trees can actually thrive um you know native trees um and and give them a space where they can be appreciated. I have some images that will show you the existing condition and then also some of the images we're using as inspiration. might have >> just as clarity in terms of um requirements. Um so the requirements uh that are needed you know along our our frontage is you know one tree per 30 ft. Um so we would be required to put in 29 new trees. You know this buffer here shows 46. Um

054and then there's also an additional you know additional trees on the whole site um for a total of 210 replacement trees. Again I think many of you joined us uh months and months and months ago to walk the the property. Um so this is you know full forested area. There's a number of trees that as you can see have not survived. It's fairly dense um and and basically unusable at the moment. You know, it's it's just because of the amount of feld trees etc. It's very difficult to even traverse um through through the forest um which many of us have done a number of times. Um the idea of what we are envisioning is that nature's edge is really you know taking the space behind the building and creating a a a space where it's

055very parklike. You know, a lot of folks have mentioned Cushing Park in in Framingham um as an example, but these are some representative images that we've been looking at as to how we integrate, you know, native species, but in a way that they can thrive and really become specimen trees versus, you know, dense forests that um that again can't really be appreciated um by the public. Uh again there was a question uh we had requested uh the landscape buffer um be considered. Uh there's a standard 50-foot landscape buffer uh that we understand is uh desired to create a physical and visual buffer between neighbors. Um, we are requesting a 30foot uh setback again because of kind of this wonky corner of our property uh that's making it very difficult to build. Um, if you see

056here this black these black arrows, this is as close as we could get to identifying where exactly on site that is and what it looks like. So, as you can see, very dense um visually. uh you can't see uh the the the um the dog uh kennel that's on that adjacent property. The other thing that is also really important from a barrier perspective is there's a pretty significant grade change. You'll see here um at at our building the grade is 243 ft and at the um neighbors property just you know a couple you know maybe a couple hundred feet in you're down 215 to 215 feet um and then you immediately enter into the wetland. So, um, we feel that that buffer is really, um, naturally occurring, um, and and us being a little bit

057closer to that setback is is not going to be detrimental in any way to the adjacent property. Next one was an easy one. Could we have a bus stop? Yes. Uh, we already have a designated spot right at the front door um for um, pickup and drop off. Um, so the why, not only do parents pick up and drop off, but there's a number of seniors that come via shuttles and and things like that. There could be opportunities where there are, uh, school buses, etc. So, uh, that's already been incorporated into our plan and and should the town, you know, roll out their their master plan for for bus transportation, the Y would be happy to allow, you know, a public bus to stop there as well. The next section is again about that community

058connection. So just as a reminder, these were comments that were largely from the planning board and conversations we had that have all been incorporated into the final plan set but have never been uh shown final uh plans to you. Um so just wanted to go through that. Um lots of conversation around accessible routes and what happens uh out on the street and then also within the site. um is you see this here everything in blue is uh accessible uh per code. That is not to say that the red or pink uh is not usable, right? And I say that um specifically here uh this area here is just slightly out of compliance. So, you know, you think about some of the folks that that are pushing strollers or or or however um they're using that

059space. There may still be an option, you know, where they they would prefer to just go up a little bit of a steeper hill. Um but either way, uh we've continued the the walk all the way along Memorial Drive with a fully accessible walk into the site. Um and then this is your path if you were going to that Nature's Edge area but not going to the YMCA. So, so just to um reiterate um if say you're in a wheelchair um you can follow the blue path and it be a perfectly accessible route >> but it's longer so you might choose the pink path if you're up for it. >> Yeah. And you know accessible route is like 5% I forget and you know Andy kick me if I'm like way off. I think this

060is like six or seven. So it's not like it's a 20% grade. It's just a little bit out of compliance. So, absolutely. And when we think about, you know, the the Hoy um strollers and and folks that might be coming off of Trolley Brook to be running, they they may, you know, these are people running marathons, they may not even notice, right? Um but we do have a compliant route, but also um some kind of uh path of least resistance routes. We also um added back, we had originally had this um >> this sidewalk over here and then had taken it out when we recognized that Dunkin Donuts didn't have a walk. And then I think through conversations it was uh brought up that you know it doesn't really matter because kids are going to

061come up there. So if we can capture them once they enter our site then let's do that. And so that's what we've done here. >> And there's also a full sidewalk along the street now. Is that >> uh to our property line there's not a site there's this is the corner of Dunkin Donuts. They do not have a sidewalk >> in front of the YMCA. Not in front of Yep. All the way here. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> On that map. Sorry. on the map that on or the picture on the top. Can you Yeah. Is it possible to indicate just with your mouse like where that property line is? >> I think it's somewhere like right here. >> Okay. >> It's not a ton. I think if if Dunkin Donuts was interested in

062putting or the town putting a sidewalk here, that's not overwhelming. The issue is on the other side of this drive aisle between there and the crosswalk. There's a transformer and some infrastructure that makes it a little bit harder. >> No, totally get it. But I appreciate it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Okay. Uh I'm almost done. I'm trying to be quick for you all. Um and then this there was a question about what you would see from the retaining walls. We do have a couple of sizable retaining walls. What's important to note is we will be the site will be at the top of those retaining walls. Um and then again there's that dense forest um layer between there and where any visual um connection would be. So really what you'll see is um

063is something like this. I think this is actually from the high school where they have a retaining wall. So, it's just, you know, a fence um along the top of the wall for safety and uh they're basically not visible at all. >> And these red areas are where we have those those conditions. And we're when you talked a few slides back about there being like a 30 foot um raid drop to that wetlands in that little weird corner section. >> Yeah. >> Is that just going to be hill right there or is there going to be some sort of retaining wall there as well? >> No, it it um it will it will just remain as is. That's actually all on the on the neighbor's property. It's existing forested area, but it drops down pretty

064fast. >> Okay. So, it's just going to be like grass on the YMCA side or >> Oh, yeah. Yep. >> and then just >> goes into the woods and then downhill. >> Yep. Yep. >> Got it. Don't kick soccer balls down there. Got it. >> Yeah. You don't want to be playing soccer right here. But this the fields are are down much lower. They're they're more at the um if you remember. So, what's a little bit hard to see, this part of the building is um I'm trying to make sure I say this right. Um the this part of the building is three stories. I could probably pull up a a grading plan, but the the fields are low, right? This corner is higher. Um but it it all kind of slopes off as you

065go down that hill. >> Um but you'll see here this like little bubble here, that's our limit of work. So that'll all just remain exactly as is that forested that forested edge. >> Kelly, can can you confirm is that buffer 30 ft or 20 ft? >> 30. >> So the uh note on the GCG, which I think it's a 0.9 um that refers to a 20 foot buffer. Is that not the same? >> So I think this is a different and Matt I'll let you comment. I think this is a landscape buffer, not a setback. >> Yeah. To hopefully clarify the the 30 foot you see kind of uh car I don't know if you can do the cursor, but the third Yeah. So that's the zoning setback. So again, I know we talked about

066this a while back. So the building itself respects the 30 foot zoning requirement and then you can see the 50 foot which would be the traditional buffer. So part of the building is in that. And then we're about 20 ft. You can see how, you know, the tree line does stagger a little bit. So, at its tightest point, it probably gets a little bit less than 20 feet. And then it's at its kind of its widest, we probably get to 20. So, I would ignore for the purposes of this, ignore the 30 foot number. That's just calling out the the side setback that that we're respecting. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's a little bit confusing too, uh, Deepa because the because of the shape of this, you'll see even though this is on the side

067of the property, this is a rear setback because of the direction and then we go back to a 25 sideyard setback. Um, it's a little bit, again, we've talked about this corner at Nauseium, but it's just a little bit of a wonky situation. >> So, the black dash line on this is your property line, >> correct? Yeah. >> Correct. Okay, >> thank you. >> Um, that's all I had to present. Just again, I just wanted to, you know, kind of get you up to speed. um make sure you were aware that the stuff that we hadn't talked about had been addressed and um I guess open it to any comment or um the other thing I think we'd like to talk about a little bit is the status of our decision. I know we um

068we were given a draft and that has been um I just have to figure out how to stop sharing here. Stop sharing. There we go. um that has been iterated upon um by um both Jasmine and the and the planning board I believe and then also um Matt. So um that's all I have to offer you. So I'll let you let me know. >> Yeah, I just just to jump in a minute about the decision. Um, that's something the planning board's going to need to go through in detail because I did notice that it was quite changed um uh by I I can't remember um who had looked at it um from Fletcher Tilton and um in a different way than what our decisions the format our decisions usually are in. So, the planning board

069is going to want to review that carefully and we may be likely reverting to our standard um decision rather than those comments that were that were changed. So, I just wanted to make you aware of that. Um, but we will be we will be looking at that and to see what we want to do with it. So, I think in looking at the comments about the decision, it would really be more comments about um about conditions if there were comments on conditions. um that were going into that and how those would be how those would be worded. So, but again, that will probably be then finding its way back to I'm not sure if the board even had a chance to really go through um go through that decision at at this point. >> That

070was the one you sent yesterday. >> That was the latest version prior to that. >> There was a red line version and a clean copy version. That's the one I'm referring to. >> But that came yesterday, right? I was thoroughly confused why I had two trying to figure out what they were until I figured out. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Just m Madam Chair, if I may, just to clean up any confusion, there was a a version that was submitted uh through Jasmine and planning a couple weeks back and then the the version yesterday just we we talked further about the shity which we'd also like to talk with the board at at some point hopefully tonight or in the very near future. So there was only one minor change from that prior version, but there

071was something circulated about two two and a half weeks ago, I think. So I'm not sure if board members have had a chance to look at that, but that is substantially the same as what was circulated yesterday. >> Yeah, I'm not sure I'm not sure we concentrated on at that point because with with the project as it kept getting continued, obviously we're going to kind of wait to see what happens with the project before we revisit the decision. So um we didn't focus on it too much at for for months really. we started to look at it. We we talked about um different findings that the board usually talks about and puts and puts in our typical decision and um and then we didn't see it for quite a long while. So I don't think

072we probably revisited that until the project was coming back back to us. So um so there like I said there may be um I'm I'm most interested I don't want to speak for the board. I'm most interested in um changes to proposed conditions that that um the the YMCA may have issues with and we would want to know that. But in terms of the way our decision is written and the text that we use um that um will be up to the board. U Madam Chair, if I may, there are a couple of uh notes in these GCG reports that really looks for board approval and DPW. >> How are we going to approach those? Are we just going to hope that they can run through them just give a >> I I think that

073should be our focus while we have um while we have Paul >> uh listening there online. So I think >> I think yes the conditions um the the GCG questions that you're talking about I think is is our primary focus for today to to work through some of those. >> Do you have them um marked up of in order? You had mentioned the first one. >> Thank you. Um nine was the first one. >> That was the one with the setback. >> That one was the setback. It sounds >> Excuse me. Excuse me. I don't >> Yes. It's really hard to hear at this point anyone other than Trisha. So I don't >> Okay, >> so we're looking at GC. >> Thank you. Perfect. >> GCG report and going through some of those board relief

074requests and DPW. If you just want to walk us through what is what are you looking for in those notes? For example, nine, we just talked about the 20 foot6 uh setback pinch point that you have there. There's 11, which talks about parking space. Can you go through some of those and just walk us through what is it that you're looking for from the board? >> What I we might actually just be able to go through these like for instance, like you said, starting at nine um to understand where the where the board is sitting on this. So um so number nine as you pointed out Deepa was the landscape buffer. So it's not a setback but the landscape buffer is typically supposed to be um 50 ft. Um the applicant was explaining why it

075was um reduced to 20.6 feet um because of the the steep the steep corner there leading to wetlands which basically makes it unbuildable by the by the next door neighbor. So, why don't we comment on those one at a time? Does the does anyone on the And I know we mentioned this before on a previous meeting, but does anyone on the board have a question or um a concern regarding number nine? They were they will be asking for relief for that setback, sorry, for that buffer, use the right terminology here, to be 20 um 20.6 feet instead of 50 feet. The only question I had um was that's the only spot, right? That's kind of that reduced buffer. >> Is is that the only spot of the reduced buffer at the at that pinch point?

076>> Okay. Thanks. That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. >> Yes. Yes. >> So does and and Paul, make sure you make yourself known if um you have a because I can't see you. Um Okay. >> Yeah, I'll raise I'll raise my hand on the when I have a question. >> Okay. Uh Jasmine is watching you. So just remember that. >> Yep. >> Okay. So otherwise I will determine that that we will write that in as a condition and that it's okay at the board at this point. Okay. Next. What do we got next? Deepa >> 11. This is parking space calculations. It does say board approval required. Um can you explain uh Carrie what number 11 is on the GCG report? I can probably speak to that a little bit, Madam Chair.

077Um, >> yeah. So, so we've obviously talked about parking a lot through this process. We did get the the the ZBA relief for the size of the parking spaces already, but the the ELC has a requirement which we're meeting and then the rem the remainder use is kind of open-ended per the code. Um, so really what we're looking for is a finding that the amount of parking is appropriate compared to the uh the use that we're proposing and we provided substantial evidence that this is very similar to the Framingham facility and this parking ratio uh is adequate. So it's it's unfortunately it's not a based on our square footage we need 250 spaces we have 250. It's a little bit more of a interpretation open-ended uh kind of qualification. So, we're just looking for relief

078that the parking as proposed is is adequate for the use that's proposed. >> So, are you asking for more parking than what's required? Is that or less right parking? >> There's there's not really a final figure. So, we we have adequate parking for the ELC per the requirements and then the rest is kind of a sliding scale based upon our traffic engineer, the peer review, our proposal, and your ultimate determination. So, it' really just be a determination that the parking as proposed can adequately serve the use. You know, I don't know if we I I'm sure somewhere along the line there was a chart or something um showing that parking um that you isn't there? Um >> Yeah. So, the use >> Yeah. The actual quantity right now I believe is uh somewhere right around

079280 spots. Um, and again, like Matt said, the there's not a chart in the bylaw that says you need this many spots per X or Y in a YMCA. So, what we had to do is try to figure out what would we need for the program and and extrapolate that. And so, I think that the reason that this is on here is because there was nothing for GCG to confirm we had the right number. So the only way we could have the right number is by studying the use the membership projections and then using Framingham who has similar uh membership projections or or existing membership to see what we would actually need to run the building. Um and again that's more for the membership building. The ELC is prescribed X number of spaces per child.

080So that that's compliant. Do we have the breakdown of ELC versus for the membership building? Yeah, just a moment. Just have to pull it up here. >> Jasmine, is it easy to switch back to the plan to so that we can just look at >> Car's sharing? I'm not. >> Oh, okay. I am not sharing anymore. I don't I did take back the share. I'm so sorry. I'm going through the decision. Hold on. >> Okay. Y >> I just thought I wonder if it was easy to switch back to the plan just quickly so we can kind of see where the parking spaces are because I think we all have the GCG report in front of us. And and I would note, it's been a while, but just for everyone's uh uh remembering, we we

081did have a se separate traffic peer review and that actually recommended turning our snow storage flex place into the additional parking which we've now done. So there is even though GCG does comment on this, Vaness actually was the traffic peer review and I think they closed out their review some time ago based on the uh a number of factors consider relating to traffic. But just just so we're aware, there was a separate traffic review of this as well outside of GCG. >> Yes. Yes, I noted that. And also um I was wondering where the snow storage ended up because it did GCG did talk about it moving, but I wasn't sure. I was looking for it on the plans and I might have just missed the note about where the snow storage ended up. >>

082I'll bring up very soon. >> Oh, really? It is a big file. All right. Um I don't have a problem with the number of parking. It seems I'd hate to say that I'd like to pave over more to provide more parking. So, um does anyone have a I know that that's not really mathematical. If you guys are wildly successful, like is there a way to expand parking or is it basically kind of what you start what you end up with is what you're going to have for kind of ever? >> I I can just speak from what I know from the Y. I think that if they were wildly successful, they would have to stagger programming to adapt to car needs. >> So change something else to uh >> Yeah. Exactly. There's also opportunities to,

083you know, depending on what those activities are to, you know, have kids take the bus there or um, you know, etc. But I think, um, Framingham is a pretty successful Y. Um, and and again, we modeled this off of of what they're using. We actually even went over to see, you know, do they have extra spaces and and really kind of dialed in on these on these numbers. So, we feel pretty pretty confident in that. And the parking spaces are also not following Ashlin standard. I think they are smaller. Is that 9 by? Yes versus 9 by 20. >> Yeah, >> that's that's correct. We did receive the relief from the ZBA. They're kind of industry standard now, but not necessarily Ashlin zoning bylaw standard, but we did get the relief. >> Yeah, that was

084the point that we made. Boy, it was a while ago now that um looking for relief in that 9 by18 and then um Jasmine actually made the comment that I don't know if the planning board actually has the authority to grant that relief and it was determined I believe by town council that it was the zoning board of appeals that grants that relief and not us. >> So they did get it granted by the zoning board of appeals and now it's back to us. >> It's right below the next one. I didn't notice that. Um um when you find those numbers we can look at it but I I guess we should move on. Um there is uh seven as well. Looks like there is some comment on the height and I don't know if

085it is a building department comment versus planning vote. Um >> sorry you're backtracking to seven. >> Yeah, sorry. I think the height uh I think the calc the the question there I think is about how the the average height is calculated. Um and that was saying that the um um the building department um Doug Scott will probably be calculating that. Um I think for our point it was about um that they are asking for relief for the height in general because the back is three stories and the >> I don't remember what the front height is. We've looked at it before. >> It's just two stories. Yep. And and that's exactly right, Trisha. when you do that average calculation of the height across the the perimeter of the building, it it's higher than what is

086um within the bylaw. >> And so there was a request for um an allowable height um by Matt special permit. >> That that's correct. Yeah. So we're in between the zone of what's by right and not allowed which falls into a special permit. So we are speak seeking that relief. >> Yeah. And I I want to say the height from the street was around 35 ft. Is that >> 46.5? >> 30 3 >> 46.5. Right. >> I thought that was at the back. >> The back is 54.5. >> Yeah. One moment. That one I have that one I have and I can I can share uh from the front. 34 foot8. Um again if I can uh if you want me to share that 34T8 is what you'll see from the front of the building.

087So what's the 46T 5 in on this note that is there that says it's proposed height the first sentence or second sentence >> that is likely >> is that referring to another Yeah, that is um >> it's worded kind of strangely there, but that's GCG wording it strangely. Um >> elevations here. >> Is it 30 ft by height in that area? Maybe it was. >> Was it >> 40? Might 46 feet five inches be average. >> It might that might be the that might be the average. I think what we were determining >> I know. Yeah. >> I remember I remember talking about how an average single family home is allowed to be 35 ft in in the resident um residential one a districts. Um, and so this wasn't so it surprises me then that

088the height in that district is 30 ft. But >> because that special permit is by us, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. That was one of the things they were asking for from the kind of from the beginning. So >> did you just hear the architect say 46 feet 5 in? Nope. I think that was Rick just offering what that dimension might be. I'm not sure what that dimension is that GCG is. I'm trying to find a drawing that will show that. >> I can weigh in here. >> So, I can kind of try to solve that. >> Yeah. Hey, Carrie. Lonnie's on. Let's let the architect >> Oh, Lonnie. >> Sorry. So, Lonnie Ash from CBT. So, that 46.5 was the dimension from the lowest level to the roof. When GCG commented and asked us

089for the mean or the height from the mean grade, we did provide them with the calculation. So the height from the average grade is actually 40 feet 9 in. And we provided them that chart. So in that response there, they said the chart seems reasonable and that's where that last response was. >> And then what is the 54.5 ft partial two levels in the north elevation? 54.5 ft. I'm not sure where the 54 is coming from. >> That might have been early on. >> Yeah, might have been a We were never over 50. >> Okay. Yeah, >> if you can just make a note um just to send to Jasmine um those written out clearly so that something we can put um if we need to we can put in the condition like what the

090height from the street, the median height and the um I guess the average height and the the tallest height from the back like I know you know those numbers so it'd be nice for us to they are a little unclear here in in GCG's report. Um so the question then is does anyone have a was there any issues with those heights? We had discussed it previously. I think it'd be important to really see all these numbers in writing. There are too many numbers floating around right now. Yeah, I in my head it's not clear. So, it may be helpful to just see them in writing and then we can >> Yeah, obviously if you can send those send those in writing and I believe if the um to make sure the elevations that we have

091are up to date. I'm not sure when we if if there's still if all the work since we saw you last has been site work or if there's any more Mhm. >> If the if the elevations have been brought up to, you know, >> Yeah. largely site work. Yeah. So, we can send we'll send the Yeah. We'll send an image that shows the elevation. >> Yeah. And put the elevation on the put the elevations on the drawings just so we we have a complete set of drawings that we can refer to in the decision as well. That that reiterates all the information. Um, okay. I think then, unless I'm wrong, Deepo, we're down to back down to 13, which talks about the accessible spaces, but that says resolved. >> Yep. >> It sounds like everything

092is there. Um, >> the next one was 19. >> Okay. And that is regarding delivery area. Okay. So, delivery area proposed in front of the YMCA. It talks about the non-standard delivery area um at the early learning center. Is that the is that the board board approval required there? >> Can one of you walk us through what that is about? And >> um >> Andy might be able to jump in on this one. I think it's it's not required, but we do have an extra delivery area over there. Um, it's kind of an add-on feature, I believe. But Andy, if you're available, I don't know if you can jump in and speak to that a little bit further. >> Yeah. And if I can share my screen, it might help uh just to talk this

093through. >> Yeah, that'd be great. >> Okay. >> Just a moment. >> Okay. So, you should see the site plan any second now. >> Yes. And I think GCG's comment is relative to um not providing like a designated loading space or loading area for the ELC, but we were planning on using this space in front of the shed as loading. So, it's not really designated, but it's not really a very wellused area of the parking lot. So, that that's kind of the plan. That's what they're commenting on. And we talk about loading deliveries for an early learning center or even for the YMCA uh as the the main building. What when you when you think about location what are loading and deliveries like for the frame location? >> Yeah. So I can comment on that

094and if you stay right where you are there you'll see that the arrow pointing uh that says proposed concrete ramp. So, in general, most of the most of the deliveries that come for the Y are coming off of UPS. They're, you know, Amazon orders or things like that, paper towels and and equipment like that. They're not um, you know, not large deliveries. There will be food deliveries to the ELC. And so, right where Andy's little hand is there, um, you'll see there is a an accessible route up to that back door, which puts them right into the pantry of the kitchen. Um, but that's the bulk of it. um any special deliveries that would, you know, be equipment or or or such would either happen, you know, by going down this back access road or

095be delivered to right where they need to be. Um but the daily deliveries for the Y are just like, you know, you would get at a, you know, small shop. They're not um they they certainly don't need a loading dock of any type for their operations. >> Okay. So, it's not like it's not like at the at the Framingham Y. It's not like It's not like getting the Dunkin Donuts delivery truck in there every day. >> Correct. It's just Yeah. Yeah. Firmingham I it doesn't have a dock. Um everything comes in through the front through the front door. >> Yeah. I know we've provided um relief for that before in the bylaws because there are so many businesses. This is like at 29 9 to 29 we did because the delivery they just don't get

096that type of deliveries even though it's a business right it's not a grocery store you know kind of thing. >> Yeah. >> So um I know we had >> while you have plan we may be able to answer the question there was a question about how many parking spots at the early learning center versus in the rest of the site. So early learning has 60 87 spots. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the total count at the moment is >> 289. And so again, one of the comments from GCG, we had proposed not striping that area to the left there that's identified as 26 spots um and using that for longer term overflow parking. And I think GCG's point was you might as well stripe it now so that it's there and you're ready for it.

097Um which precluded us from using that for snow storage. Um so we did um identify locations off the edge of the curb both here and in other spots in the parking lot where we could store snow that would not impact the strategy for the landscaping. >> And how many accessible spots do you have for the 87? >> Can can you turn your mic on, please? Well, it's it's 28A spaces. >> Do you not need three8 more than 50? >> We we have sorry, we have eight accessible spaces total. You can see that the two well where the curfew was now was six and now over there is two. So there's eight total for the 289 which exceeds the requirement which I believe is seven. >> But for the 87 for the ELC, do you not

098need three spots right in that location? So the 87, just to be clear, is is to the left of the ELC. That's not all. Obviously, that's an insane amount of parking for just the ELC. The requirements for that are one space per employee and then one space per five children. So we're at 98 children. So rounding that up, that's about 20 spaces for children and then one per employee, which Carrie, I don't know if you have a an up-to-date number on proposed employees, but for the ELC itself, it's probably somewhere between 30 and 40 that's required per code. And then the the delta of that out of 289 is what's you know kind of exclusively dedicated to the early learn to the general membership. But obviously there's expected to be some uh interaction. These are

099not meant to be necessarily separate parking courts. Uh they kind of all go together but we have the dedicated space by the ELC for those times. >> Sorry. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, the accessibility is based on that total 289. >> Okay. And and that one didn't require uh relief from us. So, because it's meeting, >> correct? Correct. >> Yeah. Um >> Yeah. And to be clear, I don't think the other other area required relief. It was just more of a confirmation, right? Because there's not a clear bylaw that tells us what that count should be per member. Um, so it's just m just a confirmation from planning that we calculated it based on our need and that you were all okay with that. >> Okay. >> And like Matt said, that went

100through traffic engineering and then traffic uh peer review as well. >> Like I said, I mean, it seems like a lot of there's a lot of parking provided. And personally, I would hate to pave over more of that green space in back to provide even more parking. So, um I >> and just >> I like the idea of changing programming, >> separating the most popular classes, say in order to keep the parking lot full, but not um but not having to add more spaces. >> Um okay, I lost my place here. Deepa, did you know what was next? >> Um the next one is 19. That's what we did. We're okay with the non-standard loading area, it sounds like. >> Anyone else? Anyone have any comments on non the non-standard loading, no loading dock? Okay.

101Okay. >> Is there going to be signage for like Amazon or UPS to know to go to those back doors versus trying to come in that front door? >> So, the uh the only folks that will be coming to the back door are going to be food deliveries that are scheduled. Everything else will come through the front door. >> Food deliveries for ELC, not for the membership building. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. There's no food service provided in um in the um center. >> So the sorry the front door of the ELC is the one that's facing Memorial Drive. Correct. It's got like that big sidewalk area in the front. Mhm. >> So, but you're not expecting Amazon to park in those like right outside that entryway and just walk in there like you're expecting them

102to go to the back loading area. They they could I mean I I think that um >> yeah I mean I think that the the we're not again we're not talking about like a store that you know the ELC should not be getting frequent deliveries. It'll be more of like a residential type delivery. If it's an Amazon they'll stop, drop the package and go. There should be amp, like Matt said, should be ample parking over there for them to find a spot or to pull over. uh like um Andy said, in front of the shed to find a spot. Um so, >> and and Carrie at Framingham, we have two separate entrances and for like Amazon, small deliveries, could be arts and crafts supplies, whatever. They're going to just go in the main building. Uh

103or they're going to go in the back door. So, there won't be deliveries in the front door of the early learning center. That wouldn't be typical. >> Okay. The next the next number though 20 is about signage since you had mentioned sign. It's about the monument sign proposed at the southeast corner of the driveway. Um can we bring up the plan again too? I remember where that is but it's nice to have it on the screen. >> Yeah. Andy, you want to share your since you have that set. My computer can't handle Zoom and downloading that set to open up. It's >> difficult. Yeah, >> we do we do have hard copies in front of us. So, okay. >> Yeah. So, I I think the comment here is um the sign is proposed at a

104location outside the front side or rear yard. Right. Okay. So, right. It's just on the street and I I think the um GC GCG just recommends adding the sign permit as part of the approval conditions. >> So we do this we we've done this for other project as well that >> we're fine with that. >> Yeah, the sign isn't designed yet. It's not perfectly clear what it's going to be. So it's just that they'll have to come back for a sign permit >> which goes through the building inspector. >> That we're fine with that. Yep. >> Okay. Are we I assume we're fine with that. the board. Okay. Um, let's see. >> 21. I I'm just curious about that note. G6G recommends adding architectural shed plan as part of approval conditions. >> Right. So, is

105that the shed backed by the early learning center? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And I think that's the same line of thinking as the last one. It's just to put as an approval of condition. We we have it obviously cited but we never submitted any kind of architectural plans. So I think that's just the idea is to condition it so that um when those plans are available those would be submitted as part of the package. >> Okay. So the the size of the shed is kind of outlined but um but we need drawings for them before it's built. >> Yep. >> Correct. >> Sure. >> And I think it's located >> Yeah. in the back of the parking lot. I assume it's for equipment maintenance >> like >> Yep. Exactly. >> general shed purposes. >>

106Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think some of our figure Well, what was interesting is adding it as part of your approval conditions. That was what was >> intriguing to me. >> Yeah. I assume it's just because it has not been designed yet and your focus has not been on the shed. Is that Yeah. And and our kind of general approach was to permit the master plan. You know, we also haven't fully designed, you know, the back fields and and what all that could be. Um but to to be really transparent about what we think like kind of the maximum use would be. Um but I think it's reasonable to say, you know, we don't know what that shed looks like, so it's hard to, you know, present it. nor do we know when uh

107we will build it. And so I think it would be reasonable to say we could provide, you know, documents what it's going to be um obviously in advance of applying for a building permit. >> I'm okay with that being a condition. Is everyone else? We don't need to know what the shed looks like right now. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Moving on. So >> 37 to 40 all relate to drainage report and I'm guessing that's more details that's coming off in the latter piece of the project. >> I just wanted just to go back a minute to 23 because it's in red that a 5 foot wide pedestrian sidewalk has been proposed along Memorial Drive. So that just isn't proposed. That that's definitely a part of the plan now, right? >> That's what that

108was what we saw in the drawings. >> The the sidewalk all along Memorial Drive. Okay. >> Is that the one that you were this Scott was asking? >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't just being proposed. >> He's got it listed as there's no resolved in front of >> Scott's walk. >> Yeah, it's there. >> It does. It does say resolved. Yeah, I meant um I I meant the the dark blue GCG kind of going back with their um >> No, the red at the red right at the top right above the 24. That's >> Yes. Yeah, but the red the red is is is the red G I thought the red was >> red's GCG. Yeah, all the results come from GC. >> The red is GCG, too. Oh, >> okay.

109Um, all right. So, where did you say we were, Deepa? We're at >> 27 to 40. It was too technical for me. Um, >> right. Yeah. So, those are all >> drainage report related. >> Right. And I think they're all >> say resolved. They all say resolved. >> I think they're all resolved. >> Yeah. Um, >> well, I don't know if the 40 one on 40 is resolved. They all defer to the comment below which resolves with number 40. >> Is that how you should read that? >> Yes. So from 37 it says see comment below. 38 C comment below. 39 C comment below. Number 40 recommends removing the rip wrap armor at the FS outlet which is too close to the edge. So, I don't know if that's resolved, but giving you a direction

110of what should be done. >> Andy, can you maybe opine on this a little further? We're confident it's resolved, but can you just confirm since you went back and forth with GCG? >> Yeah. Yeah. All these issues with concerning drainage have have been resolved and have been closed out. That was just regarding a little over prep apron at the end of a pipe which we were which we've removed. And were all these end comments or those uh ones that were was that part of um >> these are all concom's approval? >> Were they a part of concom or things that the >> things that they went through with concomrainage and >> I whatever >> no >> whatever has been approved for drainage with conservation would be reflected in these comments from Mike Carter. >> Okay.

111Yeah. I mean the um concom >> Yeah, there was a concurrent there was a concurrent um review for for drainage for storm water and drainage that was being done by GCG for both planning and conservation. So conservation Monday that they're >> yeah conservation gets the same reviews that we do we do. Yes. >> But they are looking obviously of things that are in their right >> purview and it was approved I believe. Okay. So, and then there are a few things in here. Deep, did you see anything else or anyone else that um >> there are the DPW related? >> That's what I was going to say. There's DPW related things. I the fire uh police and fire are all resolved. Is that right? >> Yes. Yes. >> Um >> and then the 70 I

112guess it's the same landscape buffer that we're talking about here. I think >> um what is this? Yeah, that's I think that's 70, right? 70 is the same >> buffer, >> but what about 68? 68 um is looking for trees in the parking area. Um so if I un and I may have gotten this wrong, but what I think happened is that was going to be the snow area, then they paved it, which created 26 more spaces. So, because there's 26 more spaces, then technically we could ask for four more trees. Am I understanding that correctly? >> That sounds reasonable. >> So, is someone from the YMCA can explain that one to us? We're on 68 where it says board approval required for 68 about trees in the parking area. It's look, it looks like

113GC is >> I mean, I I guess I guess I I understand. And I feel like we're getting we're getting punished for doing what we were asked to do. But if it's going to take four trees, we'll make it a condition and we'll add four trees to that parking lot. It's not a big deal. >> Does it have to be that parking lot though or can it just be like >> That's the intent is to break up the pavement. So that's why it's specified how many trees per pave per parking space because it's meant to not have an an island of parking. That's the intent. I I don't see the need for that. And just seeing the winter we just had like those I just those 26 spots along that back row aren't going to

114be enough to hold all the snow for this huge parking lot between you know if you're if you're trying to store all the snow in that one spot um from all 289 spaces um that's be really tough if it's a winter like we just had. I think it's just to prevent heat islands, it is quite a bit of >> but if you start jamming all the snow into those trees like >> I mean I'd rather if it didn't have to be in that that's I mean it's also if I'm if I'm not wrong that's up against the um what is it that called the retaining wall is going to be right on the other side of that right >> correct >> do we have a planting drawing. Have we seen that? We had a design

115review board who did that, but >> I think this is the >> Yeah, in one of her slides earlier, she mentioned how like the front row only had to have >> x number of trees, but they really have 49, you know, across the front. >> Um, and some other notes like that. So, there's a bunch of trees. I'm just saying in these specific areas where this snow piece is supposed to be, I think it'd be weird to try to force the four trees into that specific space. >> And I think that's why the number of parking spot calculation is important. Um, do we have more than what we need? >> You mean total trees? >> No parking spots. I think he was saying, "Do we have >> more parking spots than we need?" >> Yeah.

116In that ELC area, he mentioned earlier that they only needed >> 30 or 40. >> Yeah. 30. Yeah. Exactly. And they have actually 89 over there. But of those 89, 26 are that um snow section kind of where his hand is right there going up and down that whole west side. I think that's the west. >> I thought that was the snow section and now it is not. Now it's parking spaces and snow, >> but they're going to be putting the snow there when it comes down is what they're saying. >> Happens to Yeah, we have we have a new we have a new snow storage area to not overlap with that. >> Yeah, that was part of that response from GCG is to actually not use that as snow storage and use it as

117parking. And then so we were proposing to push the snow over the far side of the curb. Yeah. There. And then along um some of the other areas in the parking lot, the the bigger parking lot um where we have um space between trees and and shrubs that aren't going to get impacted by that. I mean, I think the reality to your point, I mean, that would be a great spot to put the snow in winters like this, right? And I think extreme measures um may happen when there are um situations like that. Um but yeah, the goal is, you know, to just take it off the parking lot altogether since those are now considered parking spaces. >> They're parking spaces because you were asked to do that to add parking spaces. >> We we

118can't hear you. >> Who suggested you to do the parking spaces? >> Parking spaces. So GCG had suggested, we had shown an area that was the size of 26 spaces and proposed it to be unlined so that we could use it for snow storage. And GCG had suggested that if we were going to pave it, we might as well line it. And so we tried to find a new spot for snow storage. I mean, I would also be happy with the idea of letting it be lined and also letting it be used as snow storage. But I think to get back to the point though, the overall analysis of the parking capacity for the use did did contemplate that. So we would not want to remove spaces and >> go against the changes that have

119been made and kind of reviewed. >> Yeah. I think um I think that the question is really just about the four trees, you know, that we're back to. I think that >> right >> that in in any kind of winter when we have a snowstorm like we just had >> you're going to take up parking spaces for for some snow at least temporarily happened at my building you know so because where do you go with this stuff right until you can remove it >> so um but but the question at hand I think is the four trees um Scott you had made a point that a very early slide said that along the front 29 trees were needed But I think 46 were planted or something like that. Am I making those numbers up? >>

120No, that sounds right. >> It's in the ballpark. I'm not sure exactly. >> There was a slide, one of the first slides you showed this evening. I think show that. >> Right. And I think that's what the comment refers to about board approval is we we do have, I believe, over 200 new trees throughout the site, most of which are in the parking lot. So that's where your ability as a board to say maybe it's not appropriate to have one per eight in that section of the parking lot because they're not viable or there's already the tree line that exists, you know, to the west heading towards the the path. Um, so I think that's why GCG mentioned that would need board approval if deemed appropriate because there's enough trees throughout the site. >> I

121think this is a question where I would love Becca, if she was still on, to weigh in. Do trees in these little islands where there already have two of them in that parking lot, you know, do they survive okay there? I mean, there's obviously see a whole line right across the parking lot of >> of trees in this little median. Um, and how well do they >> do? But the point is to break up the concrete heat island effect, but I I don't have the knowledge to kind of comment on that. I I I'm not 100% sure we need to remove those >> to remove what >> I mean what's the concern with the four trees exactly >> that we would be adding they're missing four trees from that parking lot so should they be

122put they should we they be put in should we lose a couple parking spaces or plant a few trees in that around that parking area um >> I mean the >> how many parking spaces are we going to lose >> area yeah area that he showed as or whoever kind of zoomed in uh where you were proposing snow storage. Yeah. Right where your cursor is. That's an area where you can just add four more trees and call it a day and then you leave your flexibility of 26 parking spots or snow storage. But is there anything that would prevent you from adding just four trees there and just I think the snow storage kills the trees if you're going to actually snow. >> Well, you're going to use the parking spots as 26 parking spots

123for snow storage. So, it's not really not pushing it in that corner. Now, realistically, nobody's going to you're going to need those parking spots to actually store snow. That area that was highlighted is not going to be sufficient for the kind of snow that we got recently. It's a good example. Well, even >> yeah, but I can't that I mean those are like emergency situations and that's not how the document can >> Well, even like six inches of snow would overwhelm that that section. I'm just I I I'm saying I don't think we need to enforce the four trees. That's my recommendation is not to enforce the four extra trees, >> but that's just my >> is not to what? enforce the four extra trees because I think that they've added there's more trees in

124all the other areas of the of the parking lot above and beyond what they required. >> How about we park this? And I don't know I know um you had a concern about how many trees were coming down and how many trees were kind of put back. So, uh, I don't know if that if we took that to the finish line. Maybe we kind of have that conversation at that point and figure out if these three needs are added or not. >> So, it sounds like we're concerned about the four because they might we might lose a couple of parking spaces. How many are we losing? Are we talking about like six? Are we >> Can I clarify? >> Yeah, I'm getting >> I think I don't think it's talking about losing spaces. I think

125that there's a a tree recommendation that you would put x number of trees per x number of spots because we were asked to create these spots. We theoretically with that calculation of whatever one to eight or whatever it is, we would be required to add four more trees to the parking lot. And I think the point is that they don't really fit. We're okay with adding four trees or actually being given that relief given that we've we're planting 46 where we only need 29. But I don't think we're talking about losing spaces. >> Okay. So what if what if we move those four somewhere else? >> That's kind of defies the intent of it though. >> So the intent was to to kind of redistribute the trees inside the parking lot. >> Yeah. >> Okay.

126>> It's just to reduce the heat outlets. >> I understand. And the reason that there's relief being sought is I'm still perplexed. Is the relief being sought because we need space to store snow or is the relief being sought because we need a few more parking spots. I I'm still not really understanding why the relief is being requested. I >> I would say the latter because we were advised to make those full-time parking spaces. that triggered the need for the four additional trees which weren't reflected on the plan. And because of the snow storage, the pavement, and then obviously the wooded forest area directly to the left already, there really isn't a prime place to plant those. Um, I think Carrie's mentioning we're okay adding four trees on the site or we would certainly accept

127the board's approval that in this case, we've already added over 200 trees. that that's you know sufficient where I think if you go by the 1x8 our 289 gets us somewhere around 36 trees in the parking area and obviously you can see from the plans you know we kind of far exceed that already. So sometimes this flexibility to allow a condition like this where it's just not appropriate to put the trees there or they're going to die or be shaded by the forest to the left already. So, let's put them somewhere more functional or which again we've kind of already done with this distribution of trees proposed in the main parking court. >> So, what I'm hearing Jasmine say is moving those four is counter to the whole point of having them be integrated in

128the parking lot. What I'm hearing the applicant say is having those four there doesn't quite work for the design of the parking and the snow removal. So to me, four trees can somehow creatively get a new home somewhere on the site that works for the applicant. I'm okay giving them up in that one little location. And I don't know if the solution is just don't plant the four. I mean, it's four trees. I'm not hearing enough of a case that we just get rid of the four and don't worry about them because there's other trees on the site. I say just find a different location for them. >> Yeah. given that the I mean when we when we make parking regulations for trees and parking lots, it's it's kind of taking into account that it's

129a sea of asphalt and you're trying to break that up. In this case, yes, it's a sea of asphalt, but the whole um what is it? Western edge of it, northern edge. um where the uh um where the retaining wall is is forested. So um and trees are being planted along the early learning center. So yes, it's it's a lot of asphalt in the middle. I'm not sure. It helps to carve that up with a few trees actually. So um I guess I guess I would if if we're going to do that, I would I would want Becket away and like how useful is is that um I mean we're doing it other places but >> and it's also the west side of the swan so it's not like you are going to get crazy

130heat island effect there if it was south it's a different thing but that's also west of the property so >> that's going to be >> yeah so I don't know if it's a deal breaker technically >> all right Um, I think we're okay with the four trees. Can you find a home for them? >> Sure. >> Can you plant them somewhere else? >> Yeah, we can. We have a whole backyard to plant them. >> Okay. >> Just don't have enough island space in our in our parking lot. >> All right, let's let's let's look that we find them at a nice little house somewhere else. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, okay. I see waiver approval required at 70. What is that one? Um, oh, that's the 50 ft again. Sorry. That's the same uh same

131re site relief on that tricky corner. Um, I don't see anything on the next page. And then I have the drainage report that goes from pages 14 to 20, which is yeah, got even more technical. Um, but looks like it was fully resolved. >> Did you see anything that we >> nope >> missed? I didn't I didn't take that. >> So the DPW ones. >> Yes. So what's remaining is the DPW questions which we'll have to go to them. What would >> So the first one I think is 67 that may have been the only one. >> Okay. All right. So, um, so it looks like we got through this, which was the big thing that we were looking for. Um, obviously, we're not going to be going through the decision yet tonight, but all

132of this will be everything that's we talked about being conditioned will be conditioned in the um in the decision. As I said, we're going to have to go back and look at the changes made um relative to I don't know if especially Anna and Deepa if they got a chance to look at that decision. It was just sent in the past couple days because with the changes on it, it differs significantly. It kind of from our typical decision. Um, and I'm not sure we're ready to do that on a whim versus >> I think it was just a different way to put it, a different format. So if I may if I may madam chair through you just to explain. So I drafted the decision and then I sent it to Matt Eckle and he

133and I worked together to get the draft that is before you now. >> Matt Eckle is the applicants um attorney. >> So uh we work together on this draft and it is very untypical to go through every single criteria and answer it individually. It makes for a very long decision and the conditions are really where you're holding weight in a decision. So to go through in each criteria and say individually and answer it, yes, you've met it instead of answering it as a whole at the end of a section is just very unique. So we had drafted it the way I'm with standard decisions have been drafted. So that's why it is different. It's not that any of the intent has changed. It just makes it a more manageable document for everybody that has to

134work with it afterward because to go through each line item and say yes, this criteria was met and this is how is not typical to a decision and that's not what's held up in it. So you the conditions are what's viable and what then the building department and the DPW and everybody else works with after. So it just makes it from like a 27page document to a 12 to 15 page document is the intent of it. >> Yeah. And I I understand I understand that thought process, but having been um >> I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I was just explaining how we got there. Yeah, I I I appreciate that explanation because it was a little bit of a surprise to me and just um just knowing the history of the board and

135how we got there >> and it was really about um over years it was a thought about being accountable to the residents and to the public about the bylaws that we were intended to uphold >> and that we did specifically think about every criteria that the bylaw >> um mandates that we think about and so that's how we came into that format. So that's why I that's why I don't take it that change lightly. Um and um while we'll have to take another another look at it. >> So I I will say I appreciate the applicant's involvement and energy. Matt Ekko would be the attorney representing them who who I'm sure is excellent, great firm. >> Um but I I do have to say like it's our decision, not the applicants to draft >> for

136certain. I always work with the applicants with their decisions though. So that way we're not nobody's surprised and everybody's clear. That's very common practice to work with the applicant. >> Somewhat unusual for us as a board. I don't recall us ever doing that with the applicant's attorney ever in my time at the board. >> Um so that also gives me pause because it creates a precedent where obviously this is a very unique special exciting project. Um but once we start treating a project with sort of special attention where we're like well with this project we're going to work directly with council to >> common practice for me >> and and it might be for you and but this this town this board has a lot of pride in transparency and I for one would be

137extremely cautious to create a precedent where um our planner sits down with t with a council excellent attorney by the way >> or an applicant to draft something >> um without a lot of caution. I'm just going to underline that. >> I I am going to say that um given that uh that for the past five years before Jasmine came on board, I did work closely with the town planner. And I I can't speak for all, but I know many of those decisions were sent to the applicant and to the applicant's attorney so that they could review. >> Absolutely. >> And if that's what happened, if Jasmine drafted this and she just showed them a draft, that's one thing. But what I heard was that the format is completely different from what we've done before.

138So that pause. >> Yes, that was my that was my >> in that case I'll take what I say back. If Jasmine was the one who takes responsibility for changing our format that we had developed over decades and the applicant had no idea and just went along with it, then I take what I say back. >> That's sorry I missed. So, and that gives me a different kind of concern, which is ultimately that prior format, like Trisha said, is due to our really hard work and transparency with our bylaws and being super clear with our people that >> we are really following the bylaws. Exactly. >> Yeah. And and and that said, I don't want this to turn into a discussion with the Y because it's like that's not it's a discussion with the board,

139but it is something that I have actually even before Jasmine came on board that said, you know, and maybe it's because of me dealing with decisions that I know about in other towns that we really should look at ours to see if our decisions um if if if they're reading the way we want them to read and that that it's something that we should look at in a board, that kind of format. So, I don't think it's um I think it's a little heads up that Jasmine's giving us that, you know, you guys do things a little bit outside the norm, which is okay, but we should be aware of that and make sure it's a conscious decision. But again, not something that's relative that we're going to hang on the wise shoulders or on

140around the wise neck. Not their problem, our problem. Um, so anyway, I'm thrilled that you all were back here today. You had your team. We got through this GCG report. We went through all the details and then we'll be looking to put that into into the decision um and um and then next time um be looking at that decision um to make sure it says everything that we talked about today, everything we wanted to say. Um does that make sense? Any questions? Anybody? Yeah, thank you to this team for being patient and going through those comments because that's going to help us >> go through that decision faster. >> Yes. >> Than wondering what we talked about six months ago. So, thank you for being patient there. >> Yes. Our our board is famous for

141not closing uh the public hearing until we are really really really sure we want to close it, which is usually at the very last minute. So, um, don't take don't take the not >> may I just confirm that the only thing I heard that you hear that I heard that we need to get to you is just a a clear representation of uh not only the calculation of the building height as it's an average of a around the perimeter but also what is the view from the street and what is the view from the backyard is that correct >> yes so that we understand those heights and I think deep did you still want some breakdown of the parking numbers if they exist and Um, sure. That would be I think because you want that

142as a special permit, especially the heights and I think having that kind of that would help. >> Parking spots. >> The parking should be pretty clear on the site plan. >> You're I think you're good now. I think you gave us some numbers, so that's good. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Can I just get a clarification? The draft that we're talking about is the one that was attached to >> the February 24th email. >> That sounds right. >> Okay. No, there's a email like >> No, you should have gotten a new one like two days ago. It just has one minor like two minor edits in it, but that's >> um Let me send tell you the exact date. Sorry. >> I think the original emails were dated around the 24th, which is what I

143was thinking. >> If you went back in the emails, >> just want to make sure I'm looking at the right draft. >> Yeah, the one from two days ago has the last little minor changes. >> Yeah. And I think there were two there were two files, one marked redlinined and one marked clean. >> Okay. So, I think I'm looking at the right thing. So just so >> it's a February 24th draft though. That's the problem. So if I'm looking at the February 24th draft, that's not the most recent is what you're saying. >> It was sent yesterday at 3:16. >> Okay. >> And there should be like Scott said, two versions, red line and a clean version. Do we need to go through the traffic studies as well? >> You you've done that previously. That

144was done a long time ago. That's why I'm asking. >> Yeah. >> I was that when was that traffic report? Is it more than a year? I think there were already there were already the things that I think affected things um as part of this, right? Sight lines and >> um uh the sidewalks that went in. Um >> we didn't have anything on the decision on those. >> I don't think so. We can we can look at it ourselves between now and then. >> Did you do you want me to resend it, Anna? Sorry. Would that be helpful? >> Sure. I I literally just need to know the title of the document. >> Oh. >> Um, >> you just search under her name, McCain. >> Okay. >> So, what's the timeline then for us to

145give them the decision? Like I I don't know how this works. So, >> um, well, uh, assuming that they will just be continuing to two weeks to March 26th, right? >> I'm assuming you would be Right. >> We'd like Yes, please. >> Yeah. So that um you know, as soon as we can just get through the decision. Um so hopefully we'll we'll work to get that out as early as possible so that people have time to read it. Um the conditions are usually the most important part and those will just be outlined here. In fact, we maybe those you can work on right away and just send out that section of conditions. >> Yep. Um, >> and then so if that's all good and we all like it, then two weeks from now we're give

146the thumbs up type of thing. >> Yeah. I don't >> Awesome. Cool. >> Yeah. I just wasn't sure like where we're at. Thanks. >> Did you get it, Hannah? Sorry. >> Oh, you said you just resent it. >> Are there tried but sometimes it takes a minute. >> Any further questions from the Y >> Sorry, was >> that's Paul. Was that Paul? Do you have a question? >> No, no, sorry. I was gonna ask, but I don't have a question. So, >> I appreciate you hanging in there, Paul. >> Yeah, I'm trying to move around because I got construction going on behind me. So, I apologize. >> To be clear, these are the exact versions I was looking at, and they're both saved as February 24th, even though they're from a few days ago. So,

147my level of confusion was not me being an idiot, but it was the fact that the only versions I have available are literally dated February 24th. So people kept saying there's a new version from two days ago that I absolutely did not receive and does not exist at least in title. >> So we're all on the same page. >> Okay. Then I think we are ready for a motion to continue this to the 26th. And at that time hopefully we'll be looking at decisions. Madam Chair, if I if I may, not not to belver this any further, but um the one thing I think that we would hope to get a little bit more conversation with and uh clarification is the charity bond. You know, the town has a a precedent for larger projects to

148to impose that. Uh GCD GCG did provide one. uh we have some somewhat conflicting numbers, not not apples to oranges, but slightly different. Um so I think we just want some clarification and this doesn't have to happen now, but maybe some some thought whether it's with the town manager or whatnot, uh about forms of that and and an ultimate number and how that will be conditioned. There is a a placeholder condition currently which contemplates perhaps, you know, splitting it up in the future since this is a phased project and and what method that'll ultimately be. So again, I don't know that we have to dig into that too much further tonight, but we would hope to obviously not have that be a brand new issue in 2 weeks and then have to continue again because

149there's uncertainty. >> That's that that makes sense. And and typical typically I think that is written by um our town council um or has been in the past. >> Okay. So this this particular instance, we did receive a quote from Mike Carter, which is typically you receive the quote from peer review and then is being reviewed by a town manager's office right now. Yeah, I meant the verbiage and not Yes. Sorry. Yes. >> Okay. And not the not the number. >> Um, yeah. So, I I I don't actually know too much about where that is, but I think it's fair that that gets discussed in the meantime so that we're Yeah, we're not held up on that. >> Absolutely. So, the town manager is currently >> discussing that number with >> the with town council

150and the peer review. Okay. And we're also working with our treasurer to see that there's certain different types of bonds or shies that you could put in place. So we're trying to see what is the best okay >> for this project and it may be something that can be released in phases or there's a lot of moving parts right now. So >> okay so that I would assume we would be getting a recommendation from them. >> Yes, >> it is out of my wheelhouse completely knowing where that number should be. So I would be very much looking for a recommendation from the town and town council about where that should be >> which they're working on. And I believe also there um is going to be a condition um we talked about a condition with

151um town council about um you know being the design being in such an early stage which is we we talked about before >> and um you know how how we um regulate that how we how we determine you know if if something is a major change from what we've seen when when is that line crossed that we need to see it that on planning board and so town council was look working on some kind of flexible verbiage about that as well. So >> EV parking spots this is a project in the future. >> They have them EV ready already capped. >> Did we have count of how many EV? >> Yes, they ready spots were there on out of the 289? >> Yes, that's marked on the plans. Um it's It is on. >> Yeah,

152it's on here. Um I think it's 20 spots right there on the like that lower level. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't know if there's more other places, but that's just the first one I saw. >> I think that's all of them. >> Okay. Okay. So anything else we can >> the only other thing I would add just to be completely transparent um and I think you all know this but we are not prepared to build this entire master plan day one. So if there are conditions that need to be considered um whether it be through the shity or other conditions that are related to you know kind of interim conditions um I think that that would be important. uh the the Y is looking to get going immediately on the um early learning

153center, but um you know there may be a situation where that is built but the membership's not. So I just wanted to put that out there because I don't want that to be a stumbling block either. >> Yeah. I mean we want it we want it to be and that's why that's I think the primary reason why you know when we get back to decisions that we want um the applicant attorney to to look through it to make sure those ex those special circumstances are covered >> in the way the conditions or you know are proposed. >> So um >> thank you. >> Yeah. So we definitely want it to to work for for all parties. So >> yeah. Would you put that as part of your decisions about phasing so that trees are not

154brought down? >> Well, the clearing is intended to be part of phase one. So, the entire site is meant to be cleared in the initial phase. So, they only have to bring in the equipment one time. >> I I think >> something to think about. >> That's all hand the erosion control measures are phased in their storm water management. >> I I think the question is more about do you plant trees in an area where you're going to be doing perhaps more construction, right? And and again, I think that's where the I think that's where the applicant attorney takes a look at that and says, "Hey, we need something to to cover this condition, you know, um because of the way it might be phased or it might be built or, >> you know, to

155make sure to make sure we allow for that, you know, expansion and contraction of the in the in the decision. So, um >> thank you. >> Is that fair? Okay. All right. Then I >> I will say I kind of sh I actually heard Deepa's point slightly differently and I am kind of thinking about this project now. So we're going to clear this chunk of land. We're going to potentially put the daycare center on it >> and then maybe not build the rest of it for a significant period of time. >> That's the intent of the bond is to keep the town in in case they never build the rest of it. >> So then we're going to have empty land in case nothing gets built. There's a bond in place to remediate it if

156necessary. >> And what's the remediation if let's say this project cannot get fully funded within a few years? Are we going to put a private project on this thing? >> No, we would just reforest it or just maintain stabilize the site. So there's no runoff. They probably wouldn't be able to reforest it to the extent that it is currently forested with the bond that's proposed, but it would just be to maintain the site as it is naturally. We wouldn't the bond isn't to >> naturally that we've deforested, >> right? >> Yeah. I'm not in love with this. I I'm just going to throw it out there. That makes me extremely uncomfortable unless unless I have some sense that this project is actually going to happen. I for one feel like clearing a huge chunk of

157what's currently public land >> is a problem. If we are literally just building a daycare, clearing it out, putting >> private land, if they own it, >> private land. Okay. >> They can they can clear it if >> and they can choose to sell it. Thank you for reminding me. So then the only reason we're doing the the the the shorties is for what purpose then? >> If for some reason the phasing doesn't happen and they never build the YMCA center that they only build the learning early learning center but the entire site was cleared. Now we have a bond in place that we can at least stabilize the site and maybe enough to redo some planting so that way the cleared site doesn't completely run off into other sites and that we're we're left

158with an unmanageable site that's been cleared with no recourse if for some reason it doesn't. The intent of the maturity is to be released at the end of the project. It's just a safety >> a standard practice. There's a risk in every single construction project, right, that things don't go forward. I think there's less risk in this one. >> I mean 9 to49 Homer had a bond on it that was >> 501. >> Yeah. >> You know. >> Yeah. It's sitting there empty right now. >> Yeah. Exactly. Which is why you have the shity on it. So, all right. So, in any case, we're not going to solve the questions tonight. I am going to make a motion that we continue the YMCA whatever it's called site plan review and special permit um to March

15926. Is there a second? >> Second that. >> And a roll call vote >> I skip. >> Montino I. >> All right. And Trisha Kendall I. Okay. 26. We are moving. We are shaking. We're going to get this thing done. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. Thanks for coming. >> Thank you. Good night. Okay. Is >> that the red line draft of the housing production plan or the clean >> red red one? Yeah. >> I never even looked at the title. I just saw the two attachments. That's why I kept saying it was a day ago. I didn't I didn't read that. >> My brain likes to look at the correct version. So, when you kept saying there's another one two days ago and the attorney's email indicates there's an edited version and

160the only one I'm receiving is from February 24th. Either the lawyer did not change the title or I'm looking at the wrong document. >> Yeah, they just didn't change the title. >> Okay. So, uh we're at other now, but we have one of these is significant planning board task list. We're not going to do design review committee. Is there any verbiage from Lisa yet that >> I have something >> Whoa. >> I have something very draft that she It's It's literally just essentially we've changed two lines in it to make it so that it would essentially be an ad hoc committee of >> two lines. >> No, no, no. We're just changing two lines in what's existing. So essentially instead of saying that you appoint five members on a one, two or threeyear rotating term,

161we replaced it that you would have three members with up to two associate members that were appointed ad hoc by the planning board for the duration of one application and can be reappointed for following reviews by the planning board. >> So can can we look at that and get that in our rotation to talk about so that we can make the warrant? You already put in the placeholder for the warrant. >> Lisa just hasn't confirmed it yet. That's what we had discussed last Wednesday, but she hasn't looked at it and said, "Yes, that works or no, it hasn't." So that's why you don't have it yet. That's the only reason because she may come back and say, "You can't do that, Goober." And you got to change it to this. And I'll go, "Oh, okay."

162So, but that's what we've got right now. >> Okay. All right. Great. I just wanted to make sure it's still I'd really like to have that on this town meeting. >> Oh, yes. It's on it's it's on as a we've got it as the notice of intent for a placeholder. Okay. So, if we hold a public hearing for it anytime in April, that's more than sufficient time. Okay. And we only need one public. >> You only need one public hearing. >> Okay. And it's just a small ch. Okay. All right. I'm just going to keep I need to keep an eye on that housing. Okay. So, housing production plan. Um that's that's the thing we need to um go through. Um >> can and Paul um you are sitting at the airport. It was great

163that you were here for this that public hearing, but if you need to like actually get home. >> Um, please feel free to do so. >> Yeah, no worries. I'm good for now. I'm good right now. >> Okay. Um, uh, because you you were there for the the really important part that we needed you there for. So, okay. Um, so, housing production plan. Um, I'm going to uh don't mean to throw anyone under the bus, but I don't think anyone submitted any comments back to the housing produ housing production plan except >> comments from yourself >> except for me. Um, so as we go through these um, and I think it I've been kind of going through them and comparing it uh to the draft I sent, they really took care of uh picking up

164a lot of comments. I didn't I didn't go through all of them. Um, but mostly I think we can just scroll through and I can explain a little bit about things I had um found or noted and and they're not all my changes. I don't know why the whole I think just the paging changed there. So, it's just page numbers >> um >> or you know and maybe it's not even worth going through. I could go through. I could like say so much. >> Like your version is cleaner to to look at. I wonder if we can put yours on screen. >> Why don't I do that? Why don't I pull up the version that you sent them? Is that better? >> But I know people should know that. Yeah, but you can they can

165look at the red. >> Yeah. I don't >> Well, what's the best way? Do you think? >> Well, we're supposed to um we either need to vote on this tonight or we need to be on their meeting for April 1st, >> right? >> no, they're not meeting April 1st. >> No, I guess their next meeting. >> Who's not meeting April 1st? Don't we have a joint meeting? >> We have a joint meeting on April 1st about um >> Albert's plan. >> I did. I'm sorry. I was thinking of the fourth of this month that they didn't meet. I'm No, there's there's another meeting they were supposed to have that they didn't have. But >> so it would either be this or the first. I mean, you could you don't have to meet with the select

166board on it. So you could vote on this on the 26th when you're there because you're just voting to make your recommendations to JM Goldson. So you don't have to wait until the first. >> Okay. >> I thought that's what uh JM told us the last time that each board could do it individually. >> Right. Exactly. So you don't have to do it wait until the first to do it with >> it was just it was just about wanting the timing. I guess let's go with that because I don't think we're going to have time to go through everything. Let's assume we can do that and then we'll we can always call off. >> Do you have a lot of changes? >> No. Well, it's important to understand that I submitted my changes, but other

167people did too. And so >> board did as well. >> So the red lines that you've gotten are some of >> I mean >> my changes and then some are >> other people's changes, but you should probably you can probably see where they make sense. I guess you can see what they were questioning. >> Um, so if we want to go through mine, mine are almost >> Yours are just yours. >> Mine are just mine and they're more more related to planning board, right? And from planning board perspective. Do you have a copy of mine? >> I do have a copy of yours if you would like me to share that one. I said I can give me just a moment. Sorry. I can. >> And who were the other individuals who made changes? >>

168I don't know. We sent it to the select board and they either would have sent it directly to JM Goldson or through Susan. So I wouldn't have been privy to who it was just you and the select board that were offered to make comments. So it would only be from you and the select board at this time. >> So yeah. So if we're doing that, I think we can go for through very quickly and then if people want to go through on their own, they'll be like, "Oh yeah, Trisha talked about that one or >> and can I get an understanding like lately the materials I get for the meetings like for example for today there was an attachment with documents but that draft is not in there. The housing protection plan uh the decision

169that we had discussed a few minutes ago was not in here. So part of part of where I'm struggling is to get organized for these meetings. like some stuff is in an email, some stuff is in this folder. I think we had some conversations about using the folders, not using the folders. What's our like what are we doing? >> The housing production plan draft and this decision both came in after we sent out the meeting materials. So that's why they came in separately. >> I understand. >> Is it possible just to keep dumping stuff into that folder then? >> As long as you can access it. >> I mean like you and Melissa like can >> Oh yes. Yes, absolutely. >> Because I think that's part of the challenge I'm having where I think originally

170we talked about the folder. I was like let's not do it. Now we're doing it, but then we're still getting things over email. The whole point of it was to avoid last minute things coming in, but we're getting them. >> Yeah. It's never to avoid last minute things because that's unavoidable. But I think having the folder and then when we get something last minute, >> just reshare the folder, do you think? >> Yeah, you could the folder just becomes updated. >> Yeah. And just let you know this has been added. >> We can certainly do that. >> Yeah. Or it could be sending and putting it in the folder. Whatever is easier. >> Whichever is easier. as long as people are kind of notified right away and the folder is up to date, however that

171works best, right? But >> yeah, but personally, I've really been liking the folder because I keep going back to it and everything's in one place mostly. >> That's the intent, right? >> Okay. >> So, you're going to bring up mine? >> Yes. just uh I could bring up myself, but I don't know how to even >> And to be clear, the one I'm looking at is the one with the February 20th date on the bottom left hand. >> Like your >> Yes. Yes. >> And so when you say other people had made changes, those would also be in that version. >> They would be in the version. Yeah. that that um because JM Goldson put everyone's comments and sent it out. >> Okay. >> And you can look at a the messy com >> this

172is just these are just mine. Um which >> the thing about thing about mine is that mine are just comments like theirs are correcting mine are taking my comments and giving the information. You know what I mean? Yes. Some of these weren't incorporated. Exactly. Some of them weren't incorporated at all. Right. >> Well, mine are just they're they're just questions, so it might actually be better. I hate to >> have you shift gears. >> No, it's okay. Now that I've got it, this is the red line here. So, I can just Yep. This one's the red line. I just had yours. >> Let's keep the Let's keep the red line. >> Okay. Where do you want to start? Sorry. >> Um I think page five. >> Okay. I think page five at the Yeah. So,

173it's bath. Basically, the question here was um and some of our residents who tapped, you know, said this too. Um there were it says that there's sufficient water and sewer capacity. So, you know, my question was, you know, how do we how do we know we're we're below capacity? Does this include all the approved projects? And so, they re they relooked at that statement and kind of made it more um you know got into some detail, made it more clear. Um again, I think people should kind of go through this red line and see if those things those corrections still make sense, but it's kind of telling you what um that they did add that tried to add that detail back in. >> I think it's really confusing the way it reads. >> Yeah, I

174don't think that's well written. No offense to whoever wrote it. >> Yeah, I'm not sure. And I I assume >> I don't even know how to fix that. >> Well, I don't think we need to. I assume JM Goldson wrote it, but >> I I would say that's the most confusing. It meant to be in a document normal people can read and I don't understand. I'm definitely not a normal person. So that was self-deprecating. No one laughed fact. Like I'm telling you that's really badly written. I don't even know what that means. >> Well, I would say >> how how do I interpret that margin? >> Title five versus mass D totally different margins. Like what what do what do you do with that? What margin? Like this should be a lot more clear. I

175mean the last sentence is good. You should be concerned, but where how at what point do we get concerned? >> Well, again, you have to remember that this isn't I mean, I'm not saying it's not confusing, >> but it's it's it's not a whole report. It's just one few sentences on that issue. >> Yeah, I think the prior sentence with the gallons needs to be cleaned up. >> Thanks, Peter. >> Have a good one. >> I see. Um so but but the original concern >> the original concern was that um it was just stating that water and sewer are operating below capacity. So >> this actually defines it. Yeah. >> Yeah. Capacity is great. I'm just saying that like to the public that couple of sentences is going to create >> you're swinging from 80,000

176gallons per day to 11,000 gallons per day. It's like a massive like one's eight times larger than the other. Like >> Yeah. Yeah. So maybe it should say there's multiple different standards that can create some ambiguity. Here's potential standards for communities to evaluate. Town of Ashlin should take into consideration these different standards and determine when capacity is a problem. Like break this into normal English, right? Otherwise it reads like a panic, like confused, confuzzled panic. Like I don't know. Sounds scary. I don't even know what it means. >> Yeah. Does like the 11,000 gallons per day on the, you know, the the narrower margin, does that allow for another thousand households or does that allow for 20 households? >> I will say I love this in the sense that like I have never seen anyone

177try to tell us when we should be concerned. >> So that to me this is magic. Like I really appreciate that the consultant is finally giving us language and I'm not criticizing the consultant team because it sounds like this is really hard to explain >> and it's a technical term. >> So note made that it needs to be more clear. Let's go on. >> I would not take it out. I would just edit. >> No, it can't be taken out but you know we can't we can't really change this. >> Correct. Um um in fact I'm pretty sure they wanted us to vote on it but um we're gonna you know um because there is a timeline involved as we talked about last time. So um page six um they were looking to explain um

178the first text just talked about compliance with state housing targets and I was like what targets? What do you mean just like 40b? And so they they changed that to states 10% affordable. Like they were just more specific about it. This whole next section, if we if you scroll forward, um all that red line, you see how they're taking out those paragraphs and just putting the little first line. >> I I think I'm going to take credit for that one because my comment was it seems really competitive to have these goals, these these paragraphs listed here and then when you get to this is page what? 67. six, seven. >> I know my kids will love that. And then when you get to page eight, nine, see how they were just repeated in full. The

179whole paragraph was repeated in full. And I was like, why am I reading this twice? So, um, so they they just labeled them and they described it later. There wasn't any problem with the text itself. It was just that it was doubled. Um, my next thing besides typos 11 was kind of a just a typo thing. Uh, it's a long document. Oh, um, >> it is. Yeah. So, page 16, this is just a little thing. They were they were talking about different sites. Um, and I noted on when they were talking about MBTA communities, they talked about a a one town owned vacant parcel that was currently under the um MBTA communities. I'm like, no, that can't be because those weren't allowed in MBTA communities. So, they they changed that. I think it was just

180a >> I think it was just the road basically that they were counting. Um so um they talked about they made a comment. This is on page 18. Um couple things on page 18. Um first of all they they looked at a possible zone for redevelopment was uh was Ashlin Lumber. And I said, and I think someone from select board must have said the same thing because there was language there that I didn't come up with, but it was a note that's saying, "Hey, this is an important local business. This is the only one we have in Ashland. That's a lumber. It's it's a hardware store. It's a lumber yard. We don't have another one." And looking at that for as a as a hey, this would be a great place for redevelopment is really

181taking something that we kind of use, right? So what why is that thing? >> It's funny. >> So I just don't think they were familiar with it like knowing every person in town. >> So um >> for a consultant to come in and be like >> well I think it looks like a lot of open space maybe you know. So anyway I think that's I think that's probably coming out because like I said someone >> I say we have too many coffee shops. Let's tank one of those down. >> True. Um, so someone I think on select board commented the same thing. >> Um, >> I'm with you. I'm with you, Anna. Don't take the coffee shops down. >> No, I was saying if we're going to remove something that we have too too much

182of, that's one thing. >> I do I do have a question about the the list of these possible sites. Has anybody reached out to these business owners to let them know they've been put on these lists? >> I I I don't know, but it's not really about that. It's like it's like and the MBTA zoning like we didn't reach out to those properties and tell them that we were going to put them on zoning. We decided because it was the best for the town. >> I I just wonder like you know Rick over at Ashlin Lumber finds out his property's on this report and is not aware of it. He's going to be quite aggravated that nobody reached out to >> it could but there it's not associated with any zoning. It's it's private property.

183It doesn't, >> you know, he might be like, "Great, maybe I can sell for a lot." You know, I don't know, right? >> I don't know. >> I think he knows that. >> But um Okay, >> another note I made was that um within this report, they had talked about the photo photovoltaic installation overlay district. >> Um and it's it always said which prohibits residential uses and I'm like that doesn't make sense. So, they they took that out because that doesn't have anything to do with residential uses or non-residential uses. Um, a lot of different properties. This thing, this thing they did not change yet. This is the green box or blue on page 22. It could be they could be slightly off because they remember they changed all those page numbers. >> I think

184you are further down. Yeah. >> Right there. >> In the second line at the end of the second line they say associated with former school property and I don't know what that's about. >> So remember I asked that question >> the Valentine's tape. It just talks about feasibility studies. >> Well, because I asked like where where do you actually like is any of this even feasible? And they're like, well, a lot of towns do this where they give up like old school buildings and they give it away for free so that the developer can come in because I was saying how do you make it affordable or how does the builder become, you know, they're not going to build it if they lose money, right? So, how do you make it so they can still

185make money and trying to get them to affordable levels? and they said, "Well, sometimes towns can give the building or give the land and then that makes it obviously that lowers the price of the cost of it." Um, but we don't actually have any >> Yeah, this to give away from >> To me, this seems like a comment left over from a different statement. Like, I don't think we have any school property that like what former school property? >> Well, I I think they just meant it as an example, not as Ashland has one that's just sitting in >> Right. But it it doesn't make sense in the sentence. Anyway, I'm going to let them know. I think it I think it it's supposed to be taken out, but I don't um >> it's an

186example, but that's supposed to that's general conditions and it doesn't make sense in the context. So, >> you passed over the maps. Are they going to update those maps? They mentioned that updating them before. Um if you go up the next >> updates were you looking >> Can you go up again? Uh, sorry, one more. >> Yeah. So, like those pink Yeah. The purple and blue, those are not actually available. >> Yeah, they had no >> Seven Pine Street, the Oregon Road ones. Those are not actually available. >> Yeah, I assume they were just focusing on the text instead of the graphics because I noticed that in other graphics, too. Things >> were asked them to update those. Yeah, >> because we also they did confirm that that they would take those off. >> And

187then like I know like the one in the center of town, if you go down one more, you know that that big one in the center. Yes. That's like the end piece is where they do the um the farmers market, but the rest of that is the parking lot around the Needm Bank. So it's not like you can really throw up some affordable housing in a Needm Bank parking lot. Um I well at least I don't think so. But I don't know. >> Yeah. >> Little tiny >> but that I know that that piece was that was purchased by the CPC, right? That was for under affordable housing thing. >> Yeah. So I mean it is possible that housing would go there at some point >> on top of what? >> On top of the

188bank. >> No, on on the other end of it >> the bank is zeroed out. You can you can still have the bank there. It's good. You can just go all the way around the bank. No more drag. >> So, what's page 27 for me, which is several pages after for you because I'm not sure. So, some of that read like I don't know. I didn't do that. I don't know. Okay. Someone >> Yeah. So that but that paragraph is talking about like just different ways to support home ownership or um >> so it must have come from select board >> but easy to read through for >> I mean look that changed where I said it's oh sorry go ahead >> um I'm looking for number 12 on that chart. Yeah. So, that was

189my look at number 12 and originally it said responsible entity planning board and I'm like I don't think we do that, you know. >> Oh, we don't do outreach. Yeah, probably not. >> Um and then especially this kind of outreach. >> Yeah, that's what I mean for >> and and now they've put planning board in into a supporting entity and I still don't think we do that. >> I don't think that is planning board. I don't think we talk about those things. Like we do outreach but not about those not about seniors aging in the community. That's not what >> Yeah, that's seems like maybe. >> So I think yes. So I think planning board should come off of that entirely. It just doesn't fit what we do. Um let's see. While you're scrolling, I

190mean, technically, we could vote to approve this tonight with a couple of changes as our as our vote, right? Yeah. And that can then go to where? To the select board, right? >> We actually vote and then the select board will vote on >> Yeah. I mean, so far clarifying without taking out the gallons, getting rid of that school word and removing the planning board. These seem really straightforward. >> I thought they were pretty, you know. Yeah. >> Um >> Yeah. And one of Okay, my next one is on page 39. It's Well, it's like it's that one. All I said all I said on that one is like you don't have a key, which they didn't at the time. So, they added a key. That was nice. >> That is nice. >> Um Let's

191see. So again, oh, so on the bottom of these graphs, see which one? I'm on page 41, which means you must be I'm on this graph. But my question again was do any of these numbers. I think it they talked about scenario two assuming approval for the three ongoing proposals, right? and they talk about different numbers of units and I said, "Do any of these numbers take into account the planning board approved project for 120 units at 100 105 sorry no 501 H Street or the 29 units at 9 to49 Homer like they're only including they always seem to be including 40Bs but they're not including projects that we actually approved. One of which is in construction and the other one is >> getting funding still moving forward. They just modified recently so that still

192>> Yeah. So it's like it's like they don't mention approved >> but not 40B projects and are those on their radar as well? Not everything's the 40B. >> So that was my question there. I don't think that one really that's one of the ones I don't >> think got answered to me. >> Yeah, that's not >> um >> Is that the first scenario though? Is that the fouse? >> Yeah. I don't um >> Well, there was really slow. I mean, that's the whole thing. Yeah, that might be the majority of it though because they're like what 600 units at Sirrus. >> They do like a median of it. So they'll add them up for that 10y year period or 11 year time frame and then they'll get you the median. So you might have had

193one year where you hadund 20 units come in and the next year you had seven units. So they just give you an average. So my next thing was actually just the top of the next page and people Yeah. So and I think I like to take credit for this. I think they because my my my comment was I said this is a strange way to describe this and to introduce this section. It sounds bad that Ashland is becoming quote less well less wealthy but then encourages the development of lowcost housing which would seem to make Ashland even less wealthy. Is that what you mean to say? Right. Is that what you're is that you're trying to say? And I think the answer was no. That's not what we're trying to say. And so it seems

194like they later on in the text I was actually I think maybe on the next page I was like oh here's what you were trying to say which is something more like would being less affluent mean not economic decline but that Ashland would have a good balance of housing options including for worker class and the elderly that we need for a thriving community. Right? It's like if you're too affluent, no one can afford to live here. The the you know the the emergency workers and the teachers and the the people we need here, restaurant workers, right? We need them here. And so the community is actually less vibrant even though it's more wealthy quote in quotes, right? So, I think that they um and I think they talked about that on the next page, but

195they needed it in the intro. Yeah. So, where all that red is, that's where I was kind of like, oh, here's where you explained it. And so, they moved it up. >> So, >> um >> I do like the the use of the language deep deep affordability. I think that's good. >> Yeah. >> In this document, >> this one they didn't correct on page or or change uh it's um this one uh standard 40B. Yeah. So, they talk about um um the AMI low limit 80% for a oneperson threshold is $92,650. This means that approximately 70% of householders aged 65 and older living alone earn below 80% of the AMI. And my question was, I mean, and maybe I'm just way off base, but 7% didn't seem too bad to me, did it? Like only

196I would almost be like they don't see they don't comment on here whether that's bad or good. I mean, obviously we want >> obviously we want everyone to be above average, but >> but the rest of >> Well, like above Yeah. So, um, so anyway, that I didn't really get an answer. >> Well, I think the bad part here, this is like a thing that doesn't give you the truth, which is a lot of those people have left, >> right? So, so these are the folks who might have community support that makes it viable for them to remain. So, it seems like, oh, there's not that many people who are in this group, but this is the group that essentially is on their way out. >> And that's why I'm wondering if maybe it needs

197an explanation because I read 7%. I'm like, >> no big deal. >> Wow, I thought it'd be like 50% or something, you know, not seven. >> That seems really >> good and fixable or anyway. >> Yeah, I think a lot of this data can be confusing because it >> what does it mean, right? >> This is also based on an old consensus. Yes. Census data. >> I mean, it could be um >> was it 2023? >> I mean, it's very very clear from if you look at the price point of average rents that people in that category cannot be here. literally they can't exist in national. >> So, but you have to almost like use your by the time you get to that paragraph, you have to like remember what does this actually mean? This

198means that there's no people here anymore in that category. That's what it actually means. It's not a data point of like great only so many so few people are in this category. It's the exact opposite. >> Yeah, I think I just a few sentences in here. It just was unclear the way it was originally written. So, I just asked if they could restate it. So, I wasn't really getting the meaning or it took me a while to figure it out. >> Okay. Um, I'm at page 49. It looks like this. >> Oh. They're really good. They really They really looked at this stuff thoroughly because now maybe you guys know, but I had to Google wholesale trade like a sector wholesale trade. I'm like, "What's wholesale trade?" Right? So, I had to Google what it

199was and so I asked for a definition and they put in definition. So, very responsive. I'm impressed. Are are are these their best comparisons >> because they're picking they're picking six figure s like a wholesale trade. You're right. What is a where do we have wholesale trade in Ashland construction? I can see that professional, scientific, technical services. I don't see anything about fire, police, school teachers, DPW, you know that those types of industry sectors by salary. So everything below that they absolutely cannot live in Ash based on salads. >> Yeah, that might be kind of what they're um >> Yeah, I mean it goes on to explain things on other pages, but I think yeah, that's what they were kind of >> pulling out is like what what pays the most for people who live

200in Ashland. >> It doesn't mean that these people are here. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It doesn't mean that these are the dominant industries. just means that if you want to make good money in Ashlin, you better be doing one of these three things. >> Yeah. So, if if you go into >> it says it's based on the 2024 mass um DOE report that these are the top three >> but sectors by salary. So, these are the three these are the sectors by highest salary in Ashlin. >> But it doesn't mean that this is the dominant three three by number of people. >> Yes. Scroll up to the next chart. Scroll up to the next chart. Right there. See that? Now they're looking at um salary by sector in Ashlin. And now it really shows that

201variety that Paul was, you know, talking about like what you know what people get paid in in Ashlin for various um sectors. It's not saying quantity of people. It's just saying you know what if you're in this sector, >> you happen to be in this sector. >> Right. Right. So if you happen to be in those three sectors, you're going to make the most money, but it doesn't mean that you're most people are. We don't know how this breaks down. I didn't even know we have wholesale stuff in action. >> I didn't even know wholesale was. >> I'm guessing it's like one person. >> It's just the person who who answered the survey. >> You know what I mean? If 12 people answered the survey, then that's what the information is. And you're assuming this

202data is accurate because a lot of people in surveys embellished the numbers >> Amazon or something. >> Yeah. >> Well, there was one that had like whole um had um warehouse work in there >> and it it looked about the right number. >> Yeah. I think my only comment in here, I did have a comment in here, but it was about >> in their um in their language through the document. Sometimes they talk about the 40Bs as as present and sometimes it's future. And I know we're kind of right on that cusp, >> but I asked them to be kind of consistent in how they talk about it like in their language because it got a little confusing. Um, more questions about the tents of things. >> Did I see correctly 7,400 almost 7,500 households?

203>> That sounds about right. >> So the 7% would be roughly let's say 500 houses. 7%. >> 7% of what? Well, what Patricia was talking about a 7% factor on one of those pages. >> Oh, yeah. Talking about >> 65. >> Yeah. About people over 65. >> Yeah. So, it's not No, it was saying of the people that are over 65 that >> 7% of them were below the 80%. So, it have nothing to do with the total number of houses. >> I'm really impressed. >> They really they really looked at comments carefully. Let's see what this is. Uh okay. So under findings or under number two, what internal regulatory factors impact development potential? It's number two. this what internal regulatory factors >> I don't know if it's above or below >> okay yes so

204I think it was right >> yeah I don't either can you go back up and let me see if you have some Um, it wasn't necessarily a change. I had a comment here regarding that first paragraph under findings. Um, talking about nearly half of the community's land zoned exclusively for residential, 32 for multifamily, 16% that permits them as of right. Um, so my comment was this might this may be part of the reason for Ashlin's quote small town feel that residents like and likely makes Ashland in high demand. What percent of zoning for single family is typical in other communities? How does maintaining the small town feel balance with changing the zoning? Um, so again, it was those were just questions. It wasn't necessarily this is wrong and I don't know if that question was

205addressed elsewhere. >> I mean the good news is that question was was definitely addressed at the comprehensive plan drafting and this is the same team that drafted this document. I mean I I kind of look at this document with some it's a formality really for the state. Not that it's not a great serious document but there's a lot of sort of stuff in here that's already in the comprehensive plan. >> Yeah. >> Which is like yes we need more housing. Duh. This is why we have this plan. But the plan itself, which is sort of consider reszoning, consider streamlining permitting, consider different areas where there's develop, like none of this is rocket science to me. I I think it's pretty standard stuff. >> Did you find this one? I think this is just a >>

206So, I wouldn't overthink it. I feel like we need to vote it, approve it. >> Oh, they took out that whole thing. Okay. >> Okay. I had a comment in there, but but they took it out, so maybe they put it somewhere else. I don't know. See 60. Okay. Interesting. Yeah. So my question here because they were talking about the highest and best used of land. Um and I had my question was Who who's saying it's the highest and best use of land or you know maybe if someone thinks their garden is the best use of land then it is for them right so they put in that the consultant team has determined you know like what things are in their experience I guess which things are underutilized and which aren't so fair enough right

207um 62. Yeah, they keep taking out that that one. The statements about the photo photoic. >> Yeah, it must have been it. It just it just they didn't just have that understanding correct. So, they keep taking it out, which is great because I keep calling it um see lots of maps. this. Okay, let's see if they changed anything on this or they're talking about parking. >> Well, they uh looks like other people had comments on parking, too. I'm at the end of the thing where it says >> actually the next even the next yeah where it says for example I'd have to read I haven't read through the corrections yet. My my point was that >> my point was that I think people want the parking requirement high to reduce on street parking and control

208the size of proposed housing developments. Can you better frame the argument for less parking? How does allowed density relate to open space in dense areas? How do you maintain the small town feel? How do you pair development with open space? So, I haven't read through that and I don't know if other people commented about parking. I mean, this raises some interesting questions that are not addressed, which is like, okay, now we're an MBTA community. Whole concept is you're supposed to benefit from that. In theory, maybe we don't need so much parking. required in that radius. Maybe maybe that allows for more density with open space in partnership because in theory you don't need to get, you know, you don't need to put down that much parking. You can have more, you build taller, denser, but

209leave the open space. you don't need as much parking. Maybe there's balance there, right? In theory, I think that's what the state has in mind. The state is imagining that right next to every MBTA, there's gonna be a bunch of tall buildings. People just kind of live and walk. Creates economic growth and affordable housing. And in theory, you don't really need to park anymore because you're right there next to the train. >> Yeah. I think that that I think they're putting more it looks like they're putting more explanation into it, you know, about so that people can understand the give and take between parking >> parking versus housing. >> Yeah. And parking versus open space and density versus open space, you know, type of things. Those those kind of pluses and minuses. >> You scroll

210down a little bit on historic. Mike, >> they just recommend we redevelop the opportunity for growth. >> I was looking for where if they um >> lumber house and town. >> Yeah. So here they they talked with the community demonstrated an interest in preserving historic resources. So that was kind of my comment there because they didn't seem to mention anything about the historic district that at least had a proposal in front of you know that there is a an interest there. page 74. Oh, that was a little That's Oh, yeah. So, let's see if they took out this thing. Let's see where it said to address this issue. Oh yeah, go down a little bit. Stop right there. To address this issue in 2025, the town approved. Okay, that's the >> Yeah, >> that's I'm

211like what? Because it said the town is debating a zoning amendment. I'm like I I don't think we are actually because that should be in front of planning board. I have to say I did not fully grasp a quarter of our town flooding building parking lots. Okay. And then the next thing is right after the picture of the Mind School is that Yeah. Yeah. Uh, so this is where I was asking, you know, because they said again, Ashlin's water and sewer systems has sufficient capacity. And, you know, my thing was like, we're underwater use restrictions every summer and people are commenting on this. So, explain this to me. Explain this to everyone reading this how those two things can go together, right? But it might be the same. I think they're using the same data

212that they did before on some of it. >> But this now reads a lot clearer. >> This is This is better. I think this is better because it gives you context, but could be wrong. >> Yeah, this is this at least gives some context of what's coming, right? Because we had no idea before when it >> after these projects, >> right? But it it said only the 80,000 or the 10,000 gallons per day. But we had no idea like what was that good or is that bad? Like how many could that handle? So now it's giving the other ones. >> Well, the way I take this is if you the developments we have out there right now, the major projects that add 1300 bedrooms, once those are done, our capacity is going to be down.

213Oh, so after those projects, we're still going to have 80,000 gallons. >> We're gonna have 80,000 gallons per day or 10,000 per mass assumptions. This is the part I don't like I don't fully grasp what that means. Like what does it mean that you're going to have 80,000 under this guidance or 10? Like >> isn't the water there? It's either there or not. Why does the standard change? >> Madam Chair, I don't know if comments would like to Uh, great. >> Sure. You can you can jump in with a comment. >> I apologize for jumping in, but since this was the one that I had asked you asked you to change, I think just to put in some context, >> yes, >> the the gallons per day left, you have to divide that by 19,000

214people. So, you have got literally, you know, well, do the math, you know, it's like one to it's like one one to um four gallons. the the the um the um estimate that I did using exact numbers in the D numbers and the um and the other these two these two um calculations. I don't have them in front of me right now. Um but we have 1 to four gallons per day left per person after all these projects are built. >> John, I'm so sorry. Can you please identify yourself and address for the record? >> I apologize. Yes, Junan Friday, One Shore Road, and I'm on the historical commission speaking as an as an individual resident. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Yeah, it's just hard to, you know, even though, you know, to run those

215not to say that it doesn't, it just it's hard to still say that, oh, that's a lot or that's a little, you know, um, >> it's very little. >> I finally understood what the sentence actually means. Well, that that's, you know, yeah, it'd still be good to have more um explanation about it about that. You know, it it's getting there. It's getting better, but it's not complete. And I still would like that to say something about about the um water, you know, the water bands, like how does that relate? Because that's what people like, you know, we get when there's water bands every summer. Like how can we have capacity like explain the two things that it makes sense to people reading this, you know? >> Well, yeah, because we can guess. So now I

216I comprehend it better. If we applied the mass D assumptions, we're only going to have 10,000 gallons left per day. Their assumptions could be off or how they determine that availability is very different clearly from title five. But we can also plug ourselves into this other system and get extra water and just pay for it and assume we don't never have a problem. Right? So >> I'm assuming this this is based on our own water or our own resources. Well, that that's where it gets confusing. Yeah. >> Like um >> current contracts. >> Yeah. Currently, we can only use MWR if we go below a certain level. And that means we don't even have the 179 110 to 179,000 gallons per day. We're well below that before we can kick in MWR to get back

217up to that. We would have to purchase we would have to do a contract with MWR and purchase a lot of money for a lot of water for a lot of money. >> Yeah. So, let's go on to page 80, which it says something about that as well. Um, >> no. Yeah, I know. I keep forgetting I keep forgetting we're not on the same page. Yeah. So, I think it's right up right there that we just Ashen's wastewater collection. Yeah. System. So that middle paragraph um it's and it's just a section again where my comment to them was that there may be capacity but are there greater costs to residents for using more water and sewage through these systems. I said best not to treat these explanations uh casually as they are of great importance

218to Ashlin residents who watch their fees closely. So, >> um, >> thank you for doing that, by the way. >> You're welcome. Um, >> so, uh, wherever this little chart is. Yeah. So, they they caught the they kept they kept referring to, uh, Mendes as a as a renovation. They were like, uh, it's a little bit more than a res reservation. It was a very expensive reserv reservation. Um, I think we're getting to the end of it. Oh, yeah. Uh, 84. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, >> yeah, they just had it strange. They had it, uh, the way they phrased it was very strange. >> Yeah. So I report to myself. >> Yeah, the planning department in a report. Yeah, it was very it was very strange. It it didn't do anyone any good uh that

219explanation. >> We are bosses to ourselves. >> Yeah, >> it is really efficient. I will say >> um >> the what? Um, >> no, that is that was not me. Um, I did not do that one. Something on 86. >> Oh, yeah. Um, yes, they they Yeah, they had that they had something about things coming before the planning board and we're like, we don't do that. So, >> Oh, yeah. That doesn't under the joint remit of the planning of the ZBA. Yeah, that's still up. Thank you for I didn't say that. Um, and that >> I'm trying to see if I I don't know if I have anything in the appendex. Let me >> uh No, that was my last one. >> Thank you, Trisha, for doing this. >> Yeah, thank you. >> It was

220a long read. >> I mean, I got kind of into it once you got going. >> Yeah. like a novel. >> I'm okay. >> I mean, I take back my comment about the original confusion thing with the gallons because I think the later one is better and it's fine >> with the changes that you proposed. I'm fine voting for it with Trish's changes. >> I I think the the the big things I think that corrected in there, which I think they caught all of them, was the planning board doesn't do this. We aren't doing this. we, you know, this isn't our responsibility, which I think was really important to have clear in there. Other things are, hey, this is how I feel about something, but it's just it's it's just me. I'm just making the

221comment, right? So, I'm it's not like all those have to be in there. But, I think they I was really impressed. They did a really good job picking up my comments like that that they paid they really paid attention. Like, they really did. So, I I think that's great. I think that shows something about the quality of the firm. They're great, >> you know, to work with. So >> anyway, um >> I can make a motion to approve the draft the housing production plan with Trisha's edits. >> Second that. >> All right. Uh roll call vote. >> Deep. >> Hannah Tesman. I >> Trisha Kenda. Awesome. Okay. Monday if that's okay. The edits by the end of the day Monday for you to look at for us to submit to Jen. >> Yeah, I didn't

222know how they wanted to proceed with that, but yeah, we can >> that works. >> We can Yeah, look at them. >> Just to make sure I captured everything if that's okay. >> Um Okay. Uh anything on the implementation committee? That's April 1. But I remember and we were all there so somebody refreshing my memory. I was virtual. What I remember is the next step is Yolanda and me I think are supposed to draft something to the comprehensive plan committee to get them to express interest and get some names for our next joint meeting. And I thought we were also going to try to post online for the general public by the next meeting. Did I make that second part up? That sounds kind of right. >> So then I did email Yolanda today because

223I don't know if she's drafting it or I'm drafting it, who's drafting it. So I sent her like a blurb that she could send to the comprehensive plan committee and then I like created an ad that the town could post and I CCed Michael. So I'm assuming if we want to get this done by April 1st, it should be edited, approved, and done. So, I don't know if Yolanda needs to look at it, but I remember she was traveling. Like, I don't know if I'm making that up, too. >> Um, >> she was traveling, but I don't remember when. >> In in April, but it was after April 1st, because we talked about joint meeting on April 1st before she left to resolve it. So, then she could >> Okay. So, maybe she'll get what

224I just sent her and we can get that done. >> And hopefully it's not too late since it's March 12th. I'm sure she can edit it and get it over to Michael and it can be over with. That's the update. >> All right. So, okay. Any anything on the reports? A CPC Metro West comprehensive plan. >> We didn't have a meeting since last time we talked. >> Okay. >> Um, and then all we have is the meeting minutes. I really haven't had a chance. It's the one thing I did not read is the meeting minutes. Um, >> can we put the February 26 up or do we have them in here somewhere? >> They are in there. >> Perfect. >> Yeah. >> So, if we wanna >> can skim them a little bit. >> So,

225this is when we were talking uh >> Goldson was talking about the housing production plans, which is what we were discussing. Oh, maybe it's in the meeting minutes. Oh, here. Board members agreed that the planning board will attend the select board's meeting on April 1st. >> Um, Miss Tesmani suggested that she and Miss Greavves work on drafting communications to comprehensive plan committee members, members of the public to find who's interested. There you go. >> Okay, >> it's in print. >> So, she has my draft. 60 deep. >> Yes, that's his >> Flavio. Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> I didn't remember his last name on >> But thank you for checking. These are very detailed minutes. Very >> Laura does an amazing job. >> I'm happy with them. Yeah, I just skimming, but I don't see

226a I don't see anything I miss. Um Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the February 26, 2026 minutes. >> Seconded. >> A roll call vote. Anna Tesman I >> Montino I >> and Trisha Kendall I >> the March 26 I don't see them in the packet but I remember seeing them in email version that was like when we met with the select board right the March 26 >> oh no that's the meeting sorry >> yeah this is >> that is a future but I think I saw another set of minutes that had to do with the joint meeting with the select board did I make that up >> I think this was our >> this was a joint this This is a joint meeting. >> Yeah, >> not today's meeting. >> No, the last

227meeting. >> That's our last meeting. We're we're very up to date with the meeting minutes. >> Oh, >> she goes really fast. >> No, what I'm saying is I think >> Hold on. This is it. Okay. All right. So, it's the same version. Got it. I'm good. Perfect. >> Um, yes. So, one thing um in our schedule, we don't have to determine this today. Um, our schedule in April, the second meeting falls in school vacation week. Um, I will definitely not be here and we do have a 3-w weekek span in between. So, we might want to just shift it down one week. Um, >> so that's April 23rd. >> Yeah. So instead of April 23rd doing April 30th and then our next meeting still isn't until I think May 14th. >> Um because we

228have that extra week in there. >> Okay. So right now we have the joint meeting on the first. >> Mhm. >> And you're saying the next one is >> well that's that's their meeting I think. >> Right. >> So when is our regular meetings? So we would be meeting >> March 26th and then April 9th and April 23rd would be >> Got it. Okay. >> Right. And so the April 23rd is school break week. And I know I will not be here >> but I believe we have three weeks. >> It's one of those three week gaps. And so if we move it to April 30th, then I'm here if we >> if we need special permits. >> That's a good idea. >> Is everybody okay with that? Any plans? That's a lot of Yeah,

229that's okay. >> And then we go into And then we go into May. >> So, the planning board meeting would be the 9th and the 30th. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. >> With the joint meeting on the 1st, >> right? Awesome. All right. And then the last Well, does anyone else have any announcements? >> No. >> Okay. So, then my last kind of announcement is that after the elections, Deepa has pulled paper for her seat. Paul has pulled papers for his seat. Um, but after the elections, when we organize, when we reorganize the board, I'm just letting you know that I will not be accepting a nomination for chair. I will not be accepting a nomination for chair. I threw it out there before, but I'm rescending that offer. I will be very in support of

230helping anyone. when I came on to be chair, there were no chairs left on the board and so it was just >> chairs. >> No chairs left on the board. Yeah. So, it was all just kind of learning. Um, but whoever steps in, I'm happy to help in whatever way. I figure everybody here has leadership experience. Everybody here has run a committee, you know, at some point. So, it doesn't matter if you're your first year or your however manyth year for you guys. Um, if anyone has questions, just just just let me know and we'll look at making a transition. So, I promise I won't be really mean sitting in one of the other seats. I'll be very nice and polite and understanding. >> What's the fun in that? So, >> and she'll still be

231editing all the decisions. Probably >> maybe. >> Probably. Probably. >> I can't help it. Like, I can't help it. Like, >> I don't think you can. >> Not not gonna lie. If you keep that part of the thing, I think more people would be open to it. >> Yeah, I would too. I am too. >> We have to do that part. >> If you make me edit any decision, >> if Trisha stops editing the decisions, you know, we're gonna have to read them. >> Same. You're enabling us. >> I can't. Yeah, maybe. Just saying. I maybe I I just can't I can't stand something with >> I mean there are I will say there's a lot of different ways to run boards. >> The overwhelming way that Trisha has been doing it is a burnout

232way >> and we do you know what I mean? I'm shocked that you've done it for as long as you have because you you tend to do everything. Um, and so you know the if if we're going to kind of reorganize, there's many ways to do it. And we could take turns editing decisions. We can technically have um chair and co-chair kind of alternate running meetings so that the chair is not always running the meetings. Um, the preparation that's pretty severe and extensive that Trisha does, the chair cannot escape. you're gonna have to work closely with Jasmine regardless. So, I don't think that can be shared by people, but like the other things that Trisha does like editing decisions, running these meetings, I don't see why that can't be done by multiple people. >> I

233think it's just something >> in like a triage of, you know, organized fashion. There's enough of us here that we could probably organize and run this board without putting it all in one person. >> Yeah. I think it's just something for everyone to every that everyone to consider. And like like I said, I don't just opening it up to everybody. Um if you have any questions about it, let me know. I do think there's definitely other ways that we can other ways that we can do things. Um so, but I'm just going to I'm putting that out there. Five years is five years is good. That's a good solid number. >> I'm ready to join the peanut gallery. >> Five years is a long time, Trisha. That's for sure. >> What's it? Five years is

234a long time. >> It's a long time. So, um I I know other people have done it longer. I think Preston did it longer. I think I think there's been other people that have done it longer, but five years is is is good for me. So, um but anyway, so that that's all I have. If no one has anything else, we will >> make a motion to adjourn at 10:33. >> Second that. >> And a roll call vote. >> Anna Tesmanitzki. I >> scoutier I >> and Mr. Paul Montasino II >> and Trisha Kendall. I thank you Paul for sticking with us all this time. Drive safely home. >> Yeah, Paul, thank you. That's the type of uh leadership that goes towards being a >> chair. Chair >> chair. >> Oh, did he sign off?

235Oh, >> I did it. Sorry, I was quick on the trigger. >> I like that though.