001e e e good evening everyone and welcome to the Ashlin planning board meeting of Thursday December 19th um the meeting is obviously being broadcast and is also being recorded so we have two public hearings tonight this should be um kind of an abbreviated meeting that were actually meeting just to to cover these certain topics but before we get to that I will call the meeting to order at 7:18 and we will first have the clerk's report Kate thank you madam chair I did not have time to report I know there was one email received um since the last meeting which was responded to by the town planner all right great thank you um next on our agenda is public comment obviously we have no one in the audience but we may have people online um
002is there any public comment this evening all right I see one hand uh Mr Mark D Mr Mark D I'm going to ask you to unmute unmute we okay thank you um this is through the chairman to Mr Peter if I can ask him a question one is the um we were somewhat together Monday night on the comprehensive plans meeting you were involved in a lot of ways and the other one was the uh I was at the one Tuesday night didn't see you there figure a question mark yeah it's it's com up to question and um I just was wondering how did the other meetings go but I was went well we got done before eight and some of the some of the other companies groups got down little bit after that's a question
003that's one question to Peter I got another one after well the meetings was very successful month um you know I was at both of them on Monday night were successful um and uh the three meetings on Tuesday night uh I I I heard all good you know positive feedback okay and uh I sent you an email about economic business and well the mill building project did you get that I have not had time to respond Mark but yes I did see that com into my email box okay I came into the office yesterday and was I was G try to catch up on that with you but you weren't in I saw alv virro there but everything else went well okay and um to the chairman the other than the dog park and the ATT
004Tower is the rest of the agenda going to be the same from from what it is on on the sheet of paper that I saw those are typical things that we put on our agenda in case we have you know for longer meetings in case something gets cancelled but we are not going to be going into any of those other um any of those other things tonight this is a basically this is for basically for the two public hearings a special kind of online meeting and then um I for one will need to leave the meeting I assume others will as well given that it's a holiday season okay and on that on that little note there I say to the to the board have a good happy holiday Christmas Han and all and I
005thank you great thank you Mark thank you Mark all right so first on our agenda is the continued public hearing uh for the ashin dog park um I don't think there's anyone um able to attend from from the dog park though yolan Yolanda was going to maybe try to be able to get on but Peter you um we obviously have the um decision and you had um gone through various things with the landscape architect is that right yeah so you know since the last meeting uh myself and Michael rner who's not able join us tonight due the conflict um we did go through um all the plenty of board comments um we went through the design Review Committee comments uh that that all that information was sent out um there was an updated plan that
006I'm happy to bring up and I apologize if I if I I think I forgot to add it to the Friday email which I just uh learned of so I apologize for that but um that that that updated plan came through um the design Review Committee notes uh I mean responses were were sent out I just want to make one note I think there was a typo on my end there a miscommunication um the type of material that is preferred by the dog for the dog park um and um from the Stanton Grant is rice Stone and not P Stone I know in my in the response it said it had a had a had it stated P Stone I think uh that was a typo on my end just a miscommunication on on material
007rice Stone P Stone it's it's they're very similar they're just a different Stone different size um so with that said that was corrected and that was confirmed with the uh landscape architect then further I can state that the uh Conservation Commission uh did meet uh since have met since the last plany board meeting and have approved the plan um but the the the revised plan from the last meeting I'm happy to bring it up and share um it did does have all the evics that were were spoken about uh about B last any board meeting so um I did draft that agend that decision I sent it out and if there's any questions by the board members I'm I'm happy to answer any questions um do we does anyone from the board want to want
008or need to go like just through the drawings again with any questions so the I just wanted to make sure our documents are correct because one thing I saw and I I I think it might have been on um a followup saying the 38 stone or something like that and then it went back to the rice Stone but I think in between we have a document saying I believe we got something that said the Stanton Foundation prefers 38 but now it's saying rice Stone so maybe we didn't refer to that it was just in an email I am positive that I saw that and like maybe a typo but I just want to make sure we have all the documents um it's a reference okay do you want me to pull up the decision and
009go through it or I don't yeah that I do have a there's definitely um I guess a little more than a typo on that too but I don't think we refer to 38 or rice gravel or anything in the decision so I'm okay with that it's the backup documents that we to so I edited that I I did edit that and I just took and I took out that measurement I just put R Stone because that's the common that's been that's been the common term used um by by all parties yeah so I think what happened and correct me if I'm wrong Peter that Peter was in conversation with Michael and going Michael the landscape architect Michael rner and going through the list of the design Review Committee but Michael or sorry Peter was doing
010that typing on his end and mistakenly put in the the PE gravel instead of the rice Stone which still which still continues to be in the drawings as R Stone and which I think Michael was pretty clear at the last meeting talking about that that was what the Stanton um Grant people preferred so on the design Review Committee that's where the the typo is that Peter's referring to um because I I just pulled it up so in so this is a little bit something we have to on the record applicant response P gravel 38 inch is recognized as industry standard yes so that used in dog park so the applicant's telling us 38 but now we're saying rice but that's the part that Peter misinterpreted and no I understand I'm just saying I physically have
011a document that was issued by the that's why it need to be corrected I think the I correct I believe we sent it out today okay that you sent out the corrected version I asked Alber Alvaro to send it out but I'm happy to bring up that document Kate okay because I did edit it I did not get it Alo sent two documents and it wasn't I trust you I just want stuff to all match and I see Karen Dan who I know is involved with the dog park has her hand raised so uh maybe and maybe she has some clarification on this so Peter do you want to unmute um sure I just ask Karen to unmute hi hi everyone this is Karen Dan I'm with the dog park committee um I was able
012to jump on a little bit late so I apologize and I'm just getting uh in part of the conversation that's been uh that's been discussed you're right through through both parties uh through the design committee um but the Stanton Grant um wholeheartedly supports the use and and it's becomes highly recommended to use um the rice stone versus the gravel the PE the pstone gravel as it is a little bit smaller and uh uh the feedback has been from several Parks surrounding the area that stting Grant has already provided for that they use that stone and the feedback has been um responsive been very good with that that product great thank you yeah sorry about that I didn't mean to interject I'll no I'm glad that there was someone on uh from the dog park who
013could add to that um that narrative so when we our decision refers to memorandum from Michael rner addressed to Miss Jen ball no sorry I'm reading the wrong one applicant response to design review comments received planning office on December 13 there's really a REV one of that which I guess doesn't specifically matter I just want to make sure this is all clean so so I can take that you know I think this came up and I I I think it was misinterpreted of me we I did talk to Michael rer today I revise that awesome output yeah and then I I can make the change of the decision um I have a document here I I I did update that um and I'm happy to share it with you and I'm happy to make the
014update to the decision as well um with their revision of that oh so you're going to put a new date like today's date or something correct November I think that's a good idea then there's no confusion um because it was circulated I got it I'm not I I'm not to make an issue just making sure it matches I get what you did and but we should just say issued today then the 19th instead of the 13th on the decision okay so that would be what letter is that do you know uh I I I see okay yeah so that would be uh yeah December 19 corrected to December 19th um and that's a a document the corrected one that you can circulate recirculate right Peter yes I'm happy to recirculate um okay so um so
015do we want to bring up the um drawings of the dog park or has everyone sufficiently review that and we can bring up the um bring up the decision and to go through any corrections or changes or suggestions that any the drawings change from our last meeting uh the drawing I'm happy to share them I did update the numbers because Michael so this I did share the decision with Michael and the date was updated so it does so it reads 129 and I can share those updated drawings too so I think okay I'm very confused now because the draft I'm looking at says 1213 drawings which I did look at so I now I'm just confused like because you know what because that Michael put the date on yeah for date so he issued those
016right prior to the conservation so then he edited those and sent them to myself and the conservation agent and I think when I was writing the decision I was using 1219 so I changed those to match up with the conservation files so we're all working off the same plan C yeah that is the goal of this I okay so sounds like they're new drawings from our last meeting so can we bring them up if they're not I don't want to see them they are I think we should see them the on Al sent this afternoon is also from uh 13th okay which is not date Peter has on the new decision that's what I don't understand because the this is what I'm getting from Michael rner yeah so when I email Michael rner today he
017he corrected he looked at the decision and he made the note that the final decisions approved by the Conservation Commission read the 12 read the 9th I apologize for this confusion but the ones Alo sent say the 13th so we really haven't necessarily seen the correct drawings yet you know what I don't I I was I was working on a bunch of stuff today so I think I just asked Alo to send them out so so maybe we we circulated the wrong decisions and I didn't have time to to to pick up I did not pick up on it so I apolog no that's I think it it's it's fine it makes he would take latest drawings the 13th really they're the nth are the latest it sounds like um why would the ninth be
018the latest drawings and not the 13th don't no but that's what Peter's saying the new decision says the nin drawing so we'll see when he pulls them up with they're dated I'm just trying to find them right now I apologize I thought that the the decision I'm looking at the drawings are labeled 1213 24 the issue date is that they yes they are but Peter just pulled up a document to look at for the decision that said 129 and he said something about they got reissued because they that was the set approved by the Conservation Commission but I don't know I agree I don't know I so we have after so the Conservation Commission met and I'm sorry for this confusion the Conservation Commission met on December 9th and they Michael rner submitted plans after
019the planning board meeting which was on the 5th right and it said 13th and so the Conservation Commission could not approve plans that were that were dated the 13th because their meeting was on the n9th does that make sense so these plans right here are revived no 9th can everyone see those yep okay and then I have an email I can bring up confirming with Michael rner that the ninth are the date of the approved conservation plans and the most upto-date plan and so that's why they went back to the ninth instead of the 13th because the conservation couldn't approve anything onstead of the 13th on got it that makes sense okay but this is what we've seen on or they changed again based on meeting with conservation nope these CH these are the most
020these were approved by the Conservation Commission and you know they Incorporated all the comments that we had on the fifth and the ones that were sent out today at least right because I think Alvaro selected the wrong set of plans and I apologize for that so the only thing that's a little confusing to me about that is I recall at the meeting they got the they got the design review they said yes they agreed to that stuff they said yep we're going to move some Landscaping we're going to do this and that but when did that happen if they're actually going back to a 129 date I don't I I guess I just I totally understand everything you said up to then but now I'm saying I don't I'm trying to wonder if I've seen
021these and if I have I'm okay but if I haven't then we kind of have to scrub them for the changes we talked at that meeting okay so so so let's go through them that casate I think that's the best thing to do or we can scrub the uh we can we can move this into the to January 9th where we have to hear uh application on a special permit um for the for the site alteration um so so if you want to go through them I think we can go through them I apologize that these weren't these weren't the one circulated but I can tell you that these are the most up-to-date plans um and they were approved by the Conservation Commission okay i' I'd want to go side by side with ones from
022the fifth because I know like there was some landscaping and trees like maybe one tree or five trees where their move doesn't matter but we all talked about and spent time talking about it and I don't know that they're on here they in keeping with that the applicant very much was wanted it to look nice too um for screening but there were quite a few live changes made at the meeting that I don't know are on the set live changes meaning agreements to changes of placement of quite a few substantial number of things that people left happy with um so if they never got to these plans I'm not saying they didn't I just I have to scrub them I'd want them side by side so I can do that okay I I don't I
023mean people want this meeting to be quick and I think it should be and so that can't probably be done tonight but if there's so how does that work are we voting on this on these plans but there's another one like I don't I'm confused about that part because there's a whole other uh approval needed right correct yeah so if we're waiting till the 9th like are we supposed to vote on this state or do we just wait till the 9th anyway then no we we if I may Cher show on on the 5ifth we decided to meet have this special meeting tonight yes to to try to tie up any Loose Ends so we don't carry them into the calendar year um and it was discussed on the 5th that the the St in
024Grant you know we have to move uh as the town the applicant to you received this this grant right we talked to the stand Foundation um and they are they know where we are in the permanent pering and and so they also know that we have to come back here on the nth they're in favor of this um they know where we stand but we do have to come back on January 9th and that was there because of the um the advertisement dates in the newspaper regarding that that application um that you made note of at on the 5th um so therefore we do have to come back on the 9th and vote a special permit this was just being continually to be reviewed to move everything along um so we weren't carrying it over
025into the new Cal so I would uh Karen had her hand up again just a moment ago can we see what she wanted to add into that to this thank uh Karen would you like to step for oh sorry about that yes um I was my understanding those do look like the final designs that you just had there by the way um but I understand aate why you'd want to make sure whatever was discussed in that design meeting is also um you know carried over into any of the final designs you're right there were discussion about moving um possibly some plantings and um also some things over in to the uh I think the the there's a water runoff um on on the left side of that parking lot there was a decision to maybe
026plant some things over there but that design hasn't really changed I could tell by the fact that we had the um the ada8 we had the handicap parking close moved closer to the gate entrance and also um the parking spaces was brought down from 20 to 16 um and I'm not sure if we had chance to scroll down to further design pictures but we might have seen that uh we have plantings between the parking lot and the r as well that um that was also covered through discussion um I was under the impression that this meeting was also for the for the D um but maybe that is also the other date you're talking about then maybe that is the January date for the the um the d d signage needed for the part no
027the D signage would come from the conservation department okay um yeah that DP number would not come from from from okay so then we we might have that already then okay yep I think you guys already have we already issued that okay great yep so Peter obviously what we're we're trying to get to what this was supposed to be about what was confirming the final design so that they would have that for the Stanton Grant which is apparently needed by the end of this month right so where are we on that obviously we don't want to lose the Stanton Grant so so we've confirmed with the St Grant we're not going to lose a St Grant they know where we are um and and we have some you know was once thought uh that we
028to have everything done by December 31st I think we've reached out to them they know where we are in per they know you we are with the planning board and they have given us some flexibility um as long as we can go to bid um early I would say late to late January early February and I think we're still on task to do that as the applicant the town um but with that said we do have to come back on the ninth if there is confusion there's no harm to to move this to the ninth and and just kind of continue on and uh after the meeting I can send out the most upto-date um files and and we can kind of move forward and that would give us obviously a two additional weeks to
029to review everything um and then move forward in confidence at at one you know one meeting which will be on on January 9th so if that's a proga of the clinning board I think it's it's acceptable and it's understood okay well the thing I want to do that I still want to do is I think we should open up the decision because I think the questions really have to do with hey is everything in this set of drawingss I know that I looked at the set of drawings and but again again yeah I guess you know because the date changed is hard to say which side of drawings I was looking at and I noted in the details um that uh the comments that I made were Incorporated but it is kind of confusing um
030to have these various dates so if I understand I understand yeah so if that's okay that we wait till the ninth because we have to have make sure we're all looking at the same drawing which has been provided to us in advance without and we we're okay with the ston grant let's at least go through the decision okay and because we haven't done that yet see if anyone had comments on that um so that that is all wrapped up for the for the ninth as well and and that's other information you can give to the Stanton Grant people if you know if needed that we actually went through the decision we we took a we could take a preliminary vote to see if we're feeling okay with it we just need to confirm the drawings
031I want to give them as much information as much that we can that that act that you know about our feelings on this project so so I pulled up the draft decision I'm I'm happy to go through it okay yeah changes to this document since um since I circulated it okay so just for the board um I was given as fairly typical in what we do you know Peter gave me an initial draft of this I went through and edited it and tried to keep it very close to um what is asked for in the site plan language um and so um I I gave Peter my edits and then he um sent it out to the board so so Peter make sure that the date on the set of drawings this one has December
03213th so if we are referring to n9th let's make sure we correct that thank you and is this a location that you would also change the date on the letter [Music] from um that's a memo yes it's down I so that should be the 19th and a lot of the drawing revision dates also at least the set on the 13th does not probably we need to make sure that these dates match okay yeah those the the um I assume the the engineering drawing the utility plan and things like that probably hadn't changed and we you know with the other things that happened on the landscape so that's probably why they have a different date I assume Ah that's correct yeah yeah okay I did notice that the I think on some of those drawings they
033continue to show the little built structure um in the first location but I'm not sure that that matters to their work so they didn't update it right so um but that might want to be confirmed uh everyone good with the the the the the documents yeah I think I'm done with the document this is a finding location has anyone has everyone have a chance did you already have a chance to read this we don't need to pause if if we're just looking for people's um notes on their own copies um I have on four I have a comment on four you want to take out those Extra Spaces while you're there Peter goad yeah uh yes Kate so um okay it looks like that might have been changed on the caliper of trees it said
034the rear section both large and small underbrush with a caliper of 4 in will removed and then so remain is that oh yeah it still says that okay so it should say small large and small dog areas underbrush and trees with a caliper less than 4 in will removed in so instead of 4 in or less it should be caliper of less than four inches yes so if you hit four inches you get to stay this right is the basic uh no next sent yeah right uh yep four inch the first four inches there you go okay so what it is uh in the rear section okay both under brush in trees with a caliper of four inches or less no less than four inches will be removed four in okay or can be removed
035I guess because I wouldn't mandate to remove any trees myself that just can be remov yeah that's fine but you need the word oh okay you got it yeah I haven't accepted the change I CH all right then it's kicks us off ah there it goes un less than four it just can be removed yeah I'll clean it up at the uh the end Okay so any stops any additional comments from the board correct I mean the only thing I would do I I read through so I didn't Redline anything I feel like the general project conditions are are standard for like a building so they feel like um maybe they could be cleaned up but I'm not sure it matters they're there's nothing wrong with them I don't think oh yeah the um well
036under building materials um General project conditions number two yeah I mean stuff like that doesn't need to be there but but I think that wait a minute I think all that actually needs to be changed is the word siding to the word structure yeah um because I do think there's roof there's structure there's Roofing and there's trim likely on that little Pavilion so but there is not siding y um the structure is very visible so it would make sense that that we put that word in there um I don't know what kind of there there will be some kind of trash pickup and rubbage rubish pickup at the site right I I think that there's waste cans there I assume so does this get a building permit is that what it's the permit is that
037called building permit though it will get a building permit yeah that structure will get a building permit and uh we'll also get a road or opening permit um as as water uh will have to be um pulled through to the the side of the road did that first sentence then on one prior to the issue of any permits like since it's um it's really the other permits are more important than the building permit that structure possibly could fall under not needing a building permit size and actually the reason why I asked is that building permit repeats itself in literally every other sentence in this conditions so taking out you take out the is there a hierarchy that's what I was trying to understand if there are other permits that's more important for this versus the
038building permit I mean and that's a good I think if in this case it looks like you're isolating to that structure by saying building permit and it's actually project site's more important I think I think any work on the site though is also a building permit like I don't think there's a landscape permit to I mean um that I'm aware of um am I wrong on that Peter I mean um no you're you're you're 100% correct usually landscape drawings usually landscape drawings and civil drawings are and are all included in the construction set and you apply for a building permit for the whole thing that's electrical drawings Plumbing drawings um this is really the permit per se for the landscape so if you would like me to change it you know please you know I'm
039happy for input um I'm happy to take any input I think um yeah I'm like I said I'm not that that's been my experience I can't say it's it's Universal um and I also thought building permit is more about the act of building than the object of a building um but um but I I don't I couldn't quote the law on that or anything so yeah I don't know if there's like a specific language for infrastructure work versus building uh when you say building permit obviously it's also the access and in to a building and that's when the surrounding areas come into play but I wonder if there's another word like for infrastructure this is more infrastructure upgrades versus uh a building building permit right so I don't know if that's the right word for
040the permit but when when we have a build a big building to do um and there's always um infrastructure and site work yeah and everything that needs to be done and we use this document and call it a building permit um in this case the the the building is very small and the infrastructure maybe I don't think the infrastructure is actually very big too but it has parking and it has yeah some Plumbing and you know some water and um but it has those same components um that a that a building would um so I'm not sure it's just a different type of project I I don't I don't think there's a an issue with that so was there anything else on um in the general conditions that was sounding like uh like that's something
041left over um or that is not applicable here I think most of them um I think most of them really are about any kind of any kind of site work about um pre-construction meetings about recording it at the registry of deeds about making a chain link fence for safety about not parking vehicles on M Drive traffic so all of them really are actually pretty um applicable to yeah you know to any type of to any type of project yeah the one not I could say I could say you know looking at condition one you could say you know prior to the issuance or I would say you know prior to the commencement site work um final construction drawings must be detailed and submitted with the you know the planning office the conservation office office and
042it shall reflect the Civil drawings and Architectural renderings as approved obviously those are all kind of what we're approving here within this permit right so it's kind of a you know one step over the other uh we do just put building permits and yeah that's a boorder plate from our typical our typical permit so that's the Peter wait a minute were you suggesting that uh your your first comment was saying something about prior to the prior to any site clearance or the issue issuance of any building permit is that what you that was like the first thing you said yes is would that be would people like to add that in just to kind of acknowledg that it's a little different kind of project I think that's a good idea I I just while we
043were you guys were talk and looked up like the state seems to imply building actual structure for building permits I think it would be good to add that and we don't have architectural renderings for this right I know we saw an example from another project but should we take that off because we we not holding to any architectural renderings for this um there there's a a landscape a landscape rendering like a landscape plan rendering because that I don't think that should we say that instead of the architectural renderings yeah I think we could do that or maybe you should say landscape drawings versus renderings even that's fine yeah landscape drawing probably color drawing so yeah it's a it's that's more in line with the with the project okay and then just take out the word
044renderings oh yeah um yeah and actually and put an S after landscape drawings because there was the a color render there was the colored drawing but the landscape drawings include details and and a lot of things you know in that in that set so I'm assuming this is like a boiler plate format right so we don't have to get it because like there are so many prior to issuance of building permits prior to issuance that literally repeats so often it feels like there's no hierarchy every sentence starts with that I don't know if this's this is just a boiler plate this one we can leave it and not really mess with it yeah I mean this is um like this is the this um decision obviously this is a um reduced set from the larger
045set that we have when for like 501 Pawn Street and that kind of thing but as I think Kate has mentioned in the past it could use another passed through I've gone through it pretty crazily a few I mean a few years ago now um to try to like put it in order in kind of like chronological order about how a project happens but it could use it could use it it's certainly some repetition in there and it could use another pass for sure but it is our typical boilerplate as we have it right now okay so okay but is there anything if there's nothing else and I'm not saying that there're not trying to end the discussion but if there's nothing else um we can um you know obviously then this this will go
046to January 9th but hopefully you know we just get the the set of drawing drawings we'll get this final edit and then we should be we should be good to go we'll have Marcelo and um and uh Anna you know review the tape you know of this meeting and I know I know we've done it before but I will just open it up for public comment I'm not sure there's any actually I'm not sure there's any Bu from the public really there so oh Mark is still there I didn't see Mark Mark you are now unmuted yeah I when with this project first came up I kind of was on the fence of this now and um I'd like that all this building permits talk about about it it makees it more official and more
047and more structurally talked about because that's what what I was asking about the first time but overall what will be the final after you sign this document to go what could how would this be going to the state for any reason that's my question no need to go to the state only bylaws and things like that go to the state so this is just local it'll be local building permit okay that's it thank you thank you and then I would say um I mean we only have four people here but um I would ask us to take an informal vote until we get this about just so that um if the dog park committee needs it that we have a general sense of of where of where this is going so I would just like
048to um take an informal vote about what um planning board members Amanda this is informal so if you're able I you can um vote as well um if we are in if you as an individual member of the board are in general support um of the dog park so de start with you sha just one thing I was just Googling to I was curious about this building permit and actually it's called Park permit versus building permit so maybe we need to kind of confirm that it actually is supposed to be called park building permit because when you just Google to see what uh Dog Park permit requirements are it actually says Park requirements versus building permits so maybe Peter is that something you can confirm with Doug um can you please can you please send
049me what you're looking at and I'll sure I'm just random I just Googled because I was very curious it was bothering me a little bit so I was like I just go it says actually Park permit versus building permit but I can send you what I'm seeing here yeah great yeah obviously look at it and and and talk with Doug and see uh um yeah if we just want to have the right terminology in there okay yep we'll take care of it but did you want did you say we are voting kind of yeah it's just an informal vote I just would like to know where I mean I think I know where people stand but for the dog park um to be able to tell if there is any discussion with Stanton about the
050members we had here and if we're in general support or or or not I guess I want them to have that information I support the project thank you Kate uh yeah this is great all right Amanda I support it all right and that is I do as well so that is four of the of the members we have here which is including our associate member all right thanks for that um so I make a motion to continue and then the question is I'm assuming the answer is no we probably don't want to close Hearing in case because it's a lowrisk item but you could still have something so probably don't close the public hearing I don't think we should close the public because also because two of our members aren't here and what if they
051have a question okay yep yeah I make motion that we continue the public hearing for Ashlin dog park to the January 9th 20125 meeting there a second okay and a roll call vote Katherine Jersy and I'll say Trisha Kendall I um so we will continue that uh till January 9th thank you Karen for uh coming on all right so um our next agenda item is um the public hearing for 400 Cedar Street this is the cell tower and Peter I think we have well we have someone here today I don't know if there's any additional um we have information uh there's been no additional information uh uh there's been um I did write to decision I did circulate it um at the note um I just want to make a note that I did add
052the three um bullet points a b and c from Greg eldridge's letter I thought I did but I think I miscommunicated so um I was able to do that uh when Trisha alerted me today um so I'm happy to bring up that decision but other than that uh Mr Tim Green is here uh representing the applicant and there's been no other changes to that decision um so um Mr Green do you want to step forward um do you have any updates that you would like to provide the planning I'm asking you to unmute uh no nothing has uh changed since the last hearing um same project all right right um Peter do you want to bring up um the decision y if anyone has any questions any questions from the board um please let me
053know I will again just open it for public comment Mark you are public do you have any public comment on this one I think Mark needs to unmute yeah I got Mark I'm asking you to unmute okay now I I know what the C and all the other T gone through the FCC and whatever the question is from regular citizens won't have any bearing on the final decision but I just wanted to just make sure that in the in the future of AT&T I know they they are going for 5G which this is 5gc 5G so I kind of understand what's going on with that but I just want to make sure that it takes in the public warning signs from um the FCC and the Board of Health to to keep it keep keep
054approaching them and in case anything comes out from the from the that that the board of health is going to be listening to them that's it thank you Mark all right so um this is our fairly standard um cell tower decision um except that as you can see on the um on condition number one um we have added in the the letter from Greg Eldridge of Haley and Ward I I have a question about I didn't really understand the way that's worded so AT&T shall ensure all required STW work be incorporated on a new set of drawings that should be peer reviewed so like we talk like is it about drawings or about work or both because that's I can't tell from that condition way it's written I I think it's ex it's almost taken
055exactly I believe from Greg Al's letter um let's see I have it open here somewhere I can open it up and show you yeah that's that'd be a good idea so they have so does this mean that the drawings aren't really final I guess so we're making we we're we're making on drawings that are going to have to be changed that's what condition the one saying then that seems a little odd I thought well let's open it up um the sorry I don't want to interrupt the drawings have been completed per what Greg Aldridge wanted those are the ones that were submitted to you however he hasn't given His official um concurrence that we did what he asked us to do although we did do what he asked us to do so the drawings are
056not going to be changed you have the latest drawings okay that's what I kind of thought because I remember so then that condition needs to be probably slightly changed how it's fored this is the letter from Greg Aldridge and I believe this is our the this is where the comment comes from so we're saying that the he's saying that the um the existing studs were tested and anything that needed to be changes anything that needed to be changed has on the drawings has already been changed that is correct we did the stud testing over the summer okay um but Peter did we receive anything from Greg aldri saying that that work had been completed so I know so Greg Aldridge has has I know plans have been submit I I do not Greg has not
057given me anything in hard writing since then this is the last big uh upto-date uh email except a couple email exchanges with Greg saying that he's reviewed the plans and he has and he feels confident within the plans uh I think this is just kind of one of those those items that are that some that will kind of um obviously more things you know I think TNT did submit new plans correct correct Tim yes okay yes we Greg has the new plans we've also gone forward this we're kind of running a couple things concurrently I don't know if this needs to be in the zoning decision it can be it doesn't matter to us at all but regardless of that we need to there's going to be a final letter and a final sign off
058by the water department before we can get a building permit so the zoning part of this is basically the concept of we're going to make changes and the detail work is going to really go to the building department again I don't have a problem with the the wording that you have there because we've already done it um but there's kind of a he's talking about a revision date of May 4 2023 and over the last year we've done some change we've we had to do some testing to the tank that finished in late probably late August and we made those changes to the drawings and move forward with zoning and they're well they're aware of it we just haven't got the official letter back from Greg all right so um I thought we had that
059already so um it seems like then this condition is um that either there's a condition in here um stating that the that the board's approval is um contingent upon Greg's final review and approval of the current of the documents because we haven't received that um or we get that and we take care of it on January 9th so so I I think that needs to that condition needs to be cleaned up up one way or another and then if there's something else that needs like sign off like I get that the building department has specific things we're we're making it a condition have to prior to the issue a building permit they have to provide the name and contact information of the contractor to town which this sign off by a town seems even more
060important than that right you have to give you an emergency contact so if we bother to that I feel like like um final town requirements referring to that just something can be generic um but I I wouldn't feel good about skipping that as a condition do you want to put that um document back up Peter I'm sorry so condition one can't that be changed to so I'm assuming this is all talking about 10 17 24 drawings that are decisions based off can it say that a condition is a approval by Greg Eldridge of haly ward of the 10724 drawings because we have not received that apparently I guess you could take out on a new set and just say stud work to be incorporated on drawings that shall be peer reviewed by Greg Eldridge prior
061to isin building permit that would cover it he has them we just need the letter is that the 10 10724 drawings yes yeah those are the latest so the there's I'm still the one thing is that's part of it settled but sorry what was the date of those drawings it wasn't he said she said 1017 that's what the that's what the decision says I didn't them to go check if it is but that is what I the dates of the newest drawings that were submitted to Greg alri okay and that should be peer-reviewed and approved one thing is it's on the drawing but it's already on the drawings but is this physical work like that's the way that's worded so they shall ensure all required Work Incorporated on the drawings and then he's going to
062peer review and approve but do we care if the work like those are separate things to approve drawings or the work and I'm not clear what's going on with the work and do we the planning board have to care about that or is that moved on to the Building Commissioner I'm so this says they shall ensure all required work be incorporated on a revised drawing set that Greg eldrs has to peerreview and approve the drawings it doesn't say he has to peer review and approve the work and I'm not clear if that is supposed to be a condition or not I talking about peer review peer review the the com the construction work it seems like there was some pre-work that needed to be done right like physical work and is that that's what I
063don't know what someone's trying to say with that sentence it's very confusing I think that I think the pre-work was done um uh see there a confirmation email that was sent uh out out on Friday sorry in in Peter's email that went out on Friday um the 13th um they talk about Greg eldri's peerreview letter which we were just looking at and his confirmation email so the confirmation email um that he sent on October 9th says that the review is done we need a copy of the stud inspection report I suggested AT&T ensure the required stud work be incorporated into a new set of drawings so the contractor knows what needs to be done that work that work should be confirmed at the precon meeting as also so that was an email from Greg eldrich
064on October 9th I okay so I what you just read to me I don't think is what that sentence says if that's what we're trying to capture I'm I'm I'm just not following so Greg eldris asked that the required stud work be captured in a new set incorporated into a new set of drawings this the the set we saw which came out I guess on October 17th apparently incorporates that stud work but Greg eldrich hasn't reviewed those drawings with the in their required stud work on them so I'm I'm I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying Kate I'm just looking trying to find those reports in uh email I mean maybe you can just say AT&T shall ensure that um drawing shall be peer reviewed and approved by Greg Eldridge of alien wood prior
065the Ence of building permit I mean they have the stud work the stud work is already specific though it's just a last thing I don't know if it needs to be a a specific condition the stud work but I mean we put it in there was nothing that really came of it and again Greg has it and we made the changes to the drawings after that email um where you got October 17 so it's kind of a formality but I have no problem with you know peer review by Greg at Halen wood we've been working with him for two years now so it's um a copy of the stud inspection report that's review is done it's the peer review I need a copy of the stud inspection report and then this is saying the AT&T
066the required said work be on the drawings which is okay AT&T all required that work incorporate on the Revis set of drawings um should reviewed prooved okay that covers that so it's not work that's but it is work because work was done and he wants a stud inspection report what says right on October 9th so did they get a copy of the stud inspection report he did and I've sent it all to him um looking to kind of clean it all up I thought it would all be done by now but it isn't yet but I'm not I'm not concerned about it it's just a matter of Greg saying yeah you did what I you asked me to do because we just had a we didn't have to change the plans we just had to
067add notes to the plant about the stud work that we had tested over the summer which is different than in stud inspection report though right it's the same but the stud we had to inspect we had to go out and inspect the studs on the tank and there had to be a plan if any of them were um faulty to fix them but none of that is is that um you know out of the ordinary but we we we got the stud inp inection report back on August 28th right so how do we need to change the first condition Kate so that it incorporates what your what your concerns are I mean if I I don't know I guess we don't have to care if there's a stud inspection report that they issue but we
068don't have confirmation of and then do the drawing say so I'm looking at Halen words from it's like from the 26th and he's saying it is understood by all parties any studs identifi during the field test which again they've done in August or something and any identified during the wireway removal so I don't know if that is upcoming work will be replaced an appropriate coding system applied to the damage coding system so if if the wireway removal work hasn't been done shouldn't that be a condition should but um I mean we don't want to uh I mean we don't want to do materials and methods here about exactly what is happening on site right don't isn't our sole concern that Greg alrich who has has brought up these concerns isn't our sole concern that Greg
069eldrich signs off on the final drawings that he peer reviews and approves the final drawings I mean if they have a note that says any others will be replaced along the way and he's satisfied sure that's fine that's putting a lot on one person but that's fine job right that's his that's his job it's certainly not ours to to decide what I mean I have no expertise in this in this area right about what needs to be done or not done but Greg does so to me so then why are we even referring to that why don't we just say the final set needs to be I think I think that's what Mr Green actually had just mentioned a few minutes ago that you can take out the stud work and just say that he
070peer reviews and approves the current draw the the 1017 you know drawings or you know the final yeah I think that's what we should do and not try to there's other quote conditions potentially so just make that that Greg alrs has to repute the the 107 drawings that are decisions based on yeah exactly that that's what Mr Green was suggesting um that's he's not just looking at one little part he's looking at the whole thing again or whatever he wants to look at um and um and that it'll be contingent on his final approval so I would say um I say AT&T shall ensure all require I can strike that um I I would just say um the revised I would take out the whole first part and just say the revised set of drawings
071um but you can't say revised you have to say the exact one revise please don't do that yeah the 107 24 drawings drawing set um shall be peer reviewed and approved you can you can just take it it's already there Peter you can just erase what the the next lines right it's it's already there yeah and keep PE yeah keep peer reviewed yeah and then you need to on your second review down yeah you need to take off theed so everything is contingent on prior to the ISS building department that that's that's totally fine because we need that anyway in order to get um the water department to provide the approval to do the work per the terms of the lease so that's fine right and if you're you know if we want we can
072add uh add on the end to that um you know any any significant changes must be brought to the planning bought brought to the attention of the planning board we don't obviously expect there to be any at all but no they won't be is that sounding okay all right anybody uh these two through four came directly from Greg's uh letter um which I'm happy to bring back up again and then moving on these are very Bo plate um conditions that we have for cell towers um obviously I'll change I format this uh then we're just move into vote does anybody have any other further questions if there's no further questions comments concerns we can close the public hearing Kate do you have anything else that you think should be incorporated no okay then um I'll
073make a motion that we close the public hearing is there a second second and a roll call vote keep J um and is Amanda in on this one Amanda haa Amanda is on this and Trisha Kendall I um is there any further comment before we take a vote on the special permit Kate do you want to make the motion you want me to um to bring up decision to get the proper wording there you want me share it sure I can do it too I didn't mean to put you on the spot no I I got um I make a motion to approve the special permit modification new Singular Wireless PCS LLC 396 to 400 Cedar Street was presented this evening I would say as modified uh okay I might present it on yeah on
074the screen live but yes as as edited tonight and is there a second a second all right a roll call vote Catherine jerse a guy Amanda ha and Trisha Kendall I so that is approved thank you Mr Green for your time thanks Mark for being Our member of the public um and as I said at the beginning of the meeting I am I don't think we have meeting minutes to go through tonight no no we do not if anyone has a general announcement I would love to hear it um but otherwise for any further work of the board we're going to wait until the new year does anyone have anything they need to put out there no no thank you all right thank you happy holidays all all right then we need a motion to
075adjourn folks um so I will make a motion to adjourn at 8:32 p.m second and a roll call vote Catherine Jersey Amanda ha and Trisha Kendall I now we can leave Deepa have a great night have a great holiday happy New Year H everybody