Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-29-PB-min PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MEETING OF June 29, 2022 Minutes of the Lexington Planning Board Held on June 29, 2022, Virtual Meeting at 6:00 pm Present: Robert Peters, Chair; Michael Schanbacher, Vice-Chair; Robert Creech, Melanie Thompson, Clerk, Charles Hornig and Michael Leon, Associate Member. Also present were Abby McCabe, Planning Director, Molly Belanger, planner and Carol Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Land Use. Robert Peters, Chair, called to order the meeting of the Lexington Planning Board on Wednesday, June 29, 2022, at 6:00 pm. For this meeting, the Planning Board is convening by video conference via Zoom. LexMedia may broadcast this meeting live and will record it for future viewing. Detailed information for remote participation by the public may be found on the Planning Office web page. Mr. Peters conducted a roll call to ensure all members of the Planning Board and members of staff present could hear and be heard. Mr. Peters provided a summary of instructions for members of the public in attendance. It was further noted that written materials for this meeting are available on the Town's NovusAGENDA dashboard. ****************DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW****************** Draft Comprehensive Plan Review Public Work Session for the following Sections: Goal 4: Sustainability & Resiliency: Ms. McCabe explained that the draft plan presented tonight was revised and the Board has a staff memo that incorporated all comments and edits received from staff, Board members, residents and others over the past few days. Additional comments received and discussed tonight will be incorporate into the next draft. The final updated draft will be done in September after all sections are reviewed by the Board. Ms. McCabe presented the updated draft with the new recommendations. Board and Public Comments and Questions:  Mr. Peters suggested that the net-zero goal year should be specified as 21 years from now in Objective 4.1.  Mr. Hornig said that we should use the State’s target of 2050 and trying to achieve it on our own is impractical since some of the things that are regional that are not available now will make it hard to accomplish. We should be explicit with the definition of which net-zero we are trying to accomplish. Ms. Arens of Sustainable Lexington Committee agreed that net-zero should be explicitly defined and to set an aggressive goal of 2035.  Mr. Creech agreed with Mr. Hornig.  Maggie Peard, Sustainability Officer said the Town has a plan for getting to net-zero for 2035 that was approved in 2018. Page 2 Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022  Mr. Hornig said we could strive to achieve the net-zero goal as soon as possible rather then set an actual date.  Mr. Leon asked for clarification on what was included for the net-zero policy created in 2018.  Ms. Kowalski, Assistant Town Manager for Land Use, suggested they cite the work that was done by Sustainable Lexington to date and include the project plan date they set for consistency as we did in the Open Space and Recreation Plan to reconcile this challenge.  Mr. Hornig said we could reference the existing resources and not tie ourselves to a specific date and definition of net-zero and in the objective implement the recommendations of the Sustainable Lexington plans.  A town meeting member (TMM) expressed concern with not setting a specific date for that goal that would hold the town accountable and not allowing the process to just morph into more and more years.  Mr. Hornig said the first action in 4.1.1 should be located in another section in 4.1 under resilience and wanted to add an action in 4.1.3 for increasing solar energy.  Mr. Hornig said in section 4.1.4 there are a lot of things under it that aren’t about net-zero but are about different aspects of sustainability and maybe we need to relocate them or add a whole category for these items.  Mr. Hornig said in section 4.1.1 action 6 could create a conflict if left here and should be somewhere else and in action 5 the word “free” is inappropriate since it will need to be paid by the town.  Mr. Hornig suggested that tree related items should be relocated to 5.4.  A TMM and member of Tree Committee strongly recommended keeping the provision for large shade trees and other green infrastructure items in the sustainability section and also in the resiliency section.  Ms. Arens suggested pointing to the Climate Action Plan.  Mr. Hornig said to expand 4.3 to include the building sector. Goal 5: Open Space & Natural Resources: Ms. McCabe presented the updated plan for Goal 5 with comments and edits received. Board and Audience Comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig said a lot of the objectives could be conflicting. We should state in the head note that many of these objectives could be conflicting and that they will need to be balanced and weighed against each other by the town in order to achieve the goals partially and not call it out in every objective.  Ms. Kowalski said they should consider doing both.  Mr. Leon requested that board discuss on some of the actions who should be addressing the next step.  Mr. Hornig said in objective section 5.2 change wording “affordable housing” to “other uses” so it includes Recreation. Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 Page 3  Mr. Hornig said the section 5.1.1 action to connect the wildlife habitat should be in section 5.3.1 which addresses connections.  Mr. Hornig said the 2nd action in section 5.1.1 should be moved to section 5.2 for acquiring more open space.  Mr. Hornig suggested sections 5.2.1 and 5.1.1 be merged.  Mr. Hornig said in section 5.2.2 action 1 identify undeveloped parcels should be expanded to also include developed parcels possibly for school sites and placed in Goal 9 Public Facilities.  Mr. Leon said in 5.4.1 there was concerned the site disturbance threshold requirement is low and should be looked at.  Mr. Hornig said the first action in section 5.4.1 bullet 1 is problematic and the second bullet should be under stormwater not zoning.  All Town needs should be considered when there are undeveloped parcels.  Mr. Hornig said in section 5.4.2 get rid of the wording “when new homes are constructed” to apply to all construction. Goal 6: Historical Resources: Ms. McCabe presented the updated plan for Goal 6 with comments and edits received. Board and Audience Comments and Questions:  Mr. Leon said in section 6.1.1 there needs to be clarification if the house is an old home or a historic home.  A Historical Commission member had concern in implementing some of these suggestions since we have no staff. She said they are looking to expand the demolition delay from 12 to 18 months and bring it to Town Meeting in 2023.  Mr. Creech asked for clarification if these implementation goals would be given to a working group or committee to determine what would be needed or if it is doable.  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification if rules should be attached to 6.1.5 for a Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) to provide more information.  Ms. Kowalski said the Planning staff will work with her to reword this section.  Member of Historic Commission and chair of the Turning Mill NCD said page 4 did not reference the NCD bylaw and should be more front and center.  A resident asked for clarification on if the NCD bylaw would impact the creation of more affordable housing?  Mr. Hornig wanted to add a new strategy to 6.1 to look at the Historic Districts to correct boundaries and rules and possibly adding a new Historic District.  Mr. Leon said in 6.1.7 there was consideration for expanding the scope of the scenic road statute to add the scenic vistas and vistas protection near Page 4 Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 public ways and the endnote has some issues that may require more work and thought in terms of legal authority to regulate the various goals.  A resident suggested in section 6.1.3 to add the Historical Society as a partner.  Ms. Thompson said to change the word “Associated” to “Association” of Black Citizens of Lexington.  Mr. Peters said any further comments can be sent to Planning@lexingtonma.gov. The Board recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. *******************DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION******************** 21 Tower Road - Street Adequacy Determination (SAD): Ms. Belanger presented the staff memo regarding the road improvements for 21 Tower Road. Mr. Gilgun, attorney was present and said the applicant agrees to the recommendations for improvements and conditions as presented. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board determine that Tower Road in the vicinity of 21 Tower Road is not presently of adequate grade and construction to provide for the needs of vehicular traffic, but will be adequate with the improvements and conditions as outlined in the staff memo as on the Novus Agenda. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. 16 Hayes Lane - Street Adequacy Determination (SAD): Ms. Belanger presented the staff memo regarding the road improvements for 16 Hayes Lane. Present was project engineer Limuot Tiv. The applicant requested a waiver to not require the road to be widened to 20 feet. Engineering staff and planning staff agree that widening the road would not be feasible. The Fire department felt the road should be widened to 20 feet. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Creech agreed with the waiver to not widen the road to 20 feet.  Ms. Thompson supports the staff on this presentation.  Mr. Schanbacher agrees with staff on not widening the road.  Mr. Hornig asked for clarification if the plan for existing conditions lot lines was surveyed or only approximate and whether any work will be done on private property outside the right-of -way. He asked for the point on the road where the width is narrowest. He said the road width requirement is for public safety, the Fire Department said it was not an adequate width for the road for public safety, and would like to understand from the Fire Department why it needs to be widened and by how much. He does not want a decision made until we get a clearer statement from the Fire Department and wants to work with them on what would be required to meet their needs. Audience Comments and Questions:  A resident on Hayes Lane said they were concerned about speeding on the road, whether with the improvement there will be a safety issue and was worried about Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 Page 5 her solar panels being blocked.  A resident on Hayes Lane said the fire trucks have not had a difficulty with the road in the past and that widening the road would be a terrible imposition not necessary. They like the bumpy road. Board comments and Questions:  Mr. Hornig said they have turned down street determinations for roads that were in better shape than this road and need to know why this situation is different. We need to know exactly where the right of way is and not an approximation.  Mr. Hornig asked for clarification on if the waiver for the width of the road was required to be 16 feet wide. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board determines that currently Hayes Lane in the vicinity of 16 Hayes Lane is not presently of adequate grade and construction, but will be adequate with the improvements and conditions as outlined in the staff memo revised through June 22, 2022, and as shown on the submitted plans. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 4-1-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – no). MOTION PASSED. 69 Pleasant St. - Public Hearing for a Site Sensitive Special Permit Residential Definitive Subdivision: Mr. Peters said it is anticipated this project will be continued to August 3 and Mr. Creech will not be available so Mr. Leon will be sitting in his place. Mr. Peters opened the public hearing. Present were Michael Novak, project engineer; Jeff Thoma, landscape architect; and Todd Cataldo, applicant. Mr. Novak presented the proposed plans for 69 Pleasant Street for a Special Permit Residential Site Sensitive Development including an existing conditions plan, property rights plan, site construction plan, and site utilities plan. Mr. Thoma presented the landscape plan and the tree protection and removal plan. Mr. Novak presented the site details sheet, sight lines and proof plan. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Schanbacher had no questions.  Mr. Leon asked for clarification on why are you using white pines instead of deciduous trees? He said this is basically a conventional subdivision and doesn’t take advantages of the bylaw and just prevents 4 curb cuts but all the other criteria for the special permit have not been addressed and asked how it qualifies for a special permit. He asked for an update for the Pleasant Street and Watertown Street intersection improvement plan.  Staff can work with the applicant on planting recommendations.  Mr. Peters said 40-year old white pines are a challenge.  Mr. Hornig said the land you are selling to a neighbor needs to be excluded from your proof plan. He asked for confirmation that parcel one is intended to be an interior drive and not a roadway. He said each lot will have a setback with protected trees and you need a waiver for that. He was looking for the real benefit for this special permit beyond preserving the existing house and was disappointed with the roof elevations which does not reflect the architectural style of the area which is flat or very lightly sloped roof. There is a lot more work that needs to be done with this project. Page 6 Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022  Ms. Thompson asked for clarification on who will maintain the driveway? She asked what were the lot and house sizes.  Mr. Peters asked for clarification on his position for the preservation restriction as opposed to a deed restriction. He asked for the applicant’s responses to the staff concerns.  Mr. Creech asked the applicant to work with staff on screening species and also requested they plant more trees on the properties than originally planned. He also requested that a path be provided from Pleasant Street to the Moon Hill neighborhood discussed at the sketch plan and asked the applicant to address that. Ms. McCabe said the applicant is requesting a waiver for providing sidewalks and also to discuss the name the applicant requested “Linc Cole Lane”. If the Board approves the project staff would like the name to be on the final approved plan. There were several public comments that were placed in the packet.  Mr. Hornig said it is not a street but an interior drive name and the Board should ask for a sidewalk along the interior drive since it is not subject to street standards.  Mr. Leon said this is not a subdivision approval — it is a special permit for a development with a common drive. If the drive is on parcel one it and can be held by the formal homeowner’s association or by reciprocal easements. He expressed concern with the stormwater management issues for the steep slope at the bottom, asked how you would address the sheet flow off the paved surface once you get nd beyond the 2 stormwater structure, and wants engineering to address and work with staff. He had a concern about the steep grade and wanted to know why a sidewalk would not be more desirable in this area. Audience Comments and Questions:  A resident on Moon Hill Road had a question on tree removal and asked if the applicant will replace 100% of the trees on the property and not pay monies required by the tree bylaw.  A resident on the corner of Mason Street and Watertown Street has had two cars in his yard from icing conditions on Pleasant Street and would like to be something done to prevent the water runoff from going in his and his neighbor’s direction so prevent any other vehicles from landing in his yard. He asked that the driveway be moved closer to Route 2 to the south and probably reducing the number lots by one.  A resident on Pleasant Street said the walkability on Pleasant Street has increased since 2017 installation of the new sidewalk. The most dangerous part of the sidewalk on Pleasant Street is the cross at the entrance to 83 & 85 which gets extremely icy and the water issues is a major concern that will direct water across the sidewalk. We want the sidewalk pulled away at 69 and 57 Pleasant and put behind the pole. We would like there to be a small path added from the development to the Moon Hill neighborhood with an easement.  A resident said she recommend that the landscape architect speak with the Tree Committee to preserve as many trees as possible. When the houses are designed they would like them to be high efficiency electric systems since they are not more expensive to do and there are new MassSave incentives that are available and asked how many new structures would the applicant consider doing that way?  A resident of Pleasant Street was disappointed with the site sensitive development Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 Page 7 responsiveness and had concerns about stormwater runoff. He was also concerned with the immediate loss of the tree canopy. A 48-inch oak tree on the property should get extraordinary protection and does not appear to get that on the plan and should get explicit protection.  A resident asked for clarification of Mr. Hornig’s comment regarding the sale of a portion of the property and how would it impact the GFA for those homes.  A resident and member of the Tree Committee said that planting behind the sidewalk is beneficial to the tree if you put a sidewalk in you should plant inland rather than in the planting strip. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Schanbacher said lots E, F, and G adjacent to Moon Hill neighbors should have the architecture also be site sensitive. Look for architecture to resolve some of the topographical issues and reduce some of the retaining walls needed. Regarding the path to the Moon Hill common land, has there been any discussion with the residents to see if they are ok with that?  Mr. Leon had mechanical issues with the stormwater plan, make sure buyers know what they can and cannot do, there needs to be a detailed stormwater analysis on how it will work, and a sidewalk is important.  Mr. Hornig asked the applicant comes back provide a concrete example of legal language for the historical preservation restriction in whatever form can be negotiated with the Historical Commission. Regarding the easement, we need to know if the people/corporation who own the land want public access going to the back of that property.  Ms. Thompson said she was looking forward to your new plan next time with the changes for the sidewalk and walking path and let us know why you chose that street name.  Mr. Peters said if sidewalks can be done on one side of the interior drive without further impacting the trees it would be worthwhile and agrees with connections to the Moon Hill neighborhood but to check with the Moon Hill Association about the easement.  Mr. Creech hoped the neighborhood would have a contemporary flair with not very steep roofs. He said that he felt, regarding the street name “John Lewis Drive/Street” that he suggested at the Sketch Plan hearing, it was not credible that the name John Lewis Drive could be confused with John Poulter Rd or John Benson Rd or John Wilson Ln. On the other hand he felt that the name Linc Cole Drive or lane is very confusing. He also did not see that Lincoln Cole Drive would create confusion with Lincoln St. He hoped they would settle on John Lewis Drive or Street. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board continue the public hearing for 69 Pleasant Street to August 3, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Select Board meeting room in the Town hall offices and on Zoom. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. 17 Hartwell Ave. – Public Hearing for a Definitive non-residential Subdivision: Mr. Peters opened the public hearing. Present were Mr. Frederick DeAngelis, attorney and Chris Lovett, engineer from VHB. Mr. DeAngelis gave a brief history and update on Page 8 Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 what they were requesting for this zoning freeze subdivision and agree to the draft decision. Board Comments and Questions: There were no comments or questions. Audience Comments and Questions: There were no comments or questions. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing for 17 Hartwell Avenue. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the definitive non-residential subdivision plan for 17 Hartwell Avenue with the conditions as set forth in the draft decision. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5- 0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. 12-18 & 24 Hartwell Ave. - Public Hearing for a Definitive non-residential Subdivision: Mr. Peters opened the public hearing. Present were Mr. David Robinson from Allen and Majors, Associates and Teri Ford, applicant from Greatland Realty Partners. Mr. Robinson gave a brief history and presentation on what they were requesting with this zoning freeze subdivision. The only comment regarding the draft decision was regarding the test pits and the draft decision was revised. The two waivers were for the test pits and an agreement allocating the responsibility for costs and maintenance among owners and request it be provided as a condition of approval. He asked if the Board would require a performance guarantee prior to the endorsement of the plan or could it be prior to the release of the lots or building permits. Ms. McCabe said after the appeal period expires and the Town Clerk certifies there is no appeal and then explained the procedure for the zoning freeze. Prior to endorsing the Planning Board does have to accept a performance guarantee in any form, which is typically a covenant. Board Comments and Questions:  Mr. Creech had no comments.  Mr. Schanbacher had no comments.  Mr. Hornig had no problem with the waivers but said we do need a performance guarantee.  Ms. Thompson had no questions.  Mr. Peters had no questions.  Mr. Leon had no questions. Audience Comments and Questions: There were no comments or questions. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board close the public hearing for 12-18 & 24 Hartwell Avenue. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 Page 9 favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the two requested waivers and approve the definitive non-residential subdivision with the conditions as set forth in the draft decision for 12-18 & 24 Hartwell Avenue. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. 10 Maguire Rd. – Definitive Subdivision. Performance guarantee for endorsement and certificate to allow recording for definitive subdivision approved on December 15, 2021: Mr. Peters explained that December 15, 2021, the Planning Board approved the Definitive Subdivision for 10 Maguire Road for the creation of a three-lot non-residential subdivision on a ~260 ft. long cul-de-sac. The appeal period has since ended with no appeal. This request is for the Board to accept the Applicant's performance guarantee in the form of a Covenant. Ms. McCabe explained that the only section that was blank is section 9 with the Title Reference and asked if the Board could accept this now and until the applicant has the title reference Ms. McCabe would hold the document until then. Ms. Teri Ford, applicant said they fine with Ms. McCabe’s recommendation and if changes are needed they could come back to the Board. Mr. Hornig suggested that that leave it to the discretion of the Planning Director. Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board accept and sign the subdivision covenant and issue a certificate to allow plan recording at the discretion of the Planning Director and the chair to review any changes that occur. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. **********************BOARD ADMINISTRATION************************ Staff Updates: After July 15 the law permitting fully remote meetings might expire, the Board may need to have a quorum in person, and want to confirm that there will be an in-person quorum and start at 7:00 p.m. We will still offer the hybrid method for the public. Mr. Creech said there will be times that he would want to be remote. Ms. Thompson said her preference would be remote since Covid is not over and would want it to be play this by ear. The rd August 3 meeting would need three out of the four regular Board Members to be in thth person. Mr. Hornig asked if there would be meetings on July 20 or 27. Ms. McCabe th said it depends on how much is accomplished at the July 13 meeting and keep them penciled in. Mr. Creech will not be here for July 27. Ms. McCabe said Article 17 was not approved by the Attorney General for alternative use of fossil fuel in the CM District. We need to keep that in mind when future articles Page 10 Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 are proposed for Town Meeting. Mr. Peters said the State draft Building Code has been released. Board Member Updates: Mr. Hornig said Mass Housing Partnership had their big meeting earlier in June with talks on housing which is very interesting. The SPRD is working on public outreach and making something happen. The Historical Commission met on 69 Pleasant Street, but there was lack of consensus on how to move forward. The MBTA has rolled out their bus network redesign with some changes for Lexington. This will help on where we would want to put housing for the MBTA Communities guidelines. There is a webinar for the three new building codes coming out at the end of the year on the DOR website. Mr. Creech attended a MAGIC meeting on June 21 to decide what MAGIC will focus on in the coming year: either Housing; Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; Climate adaptation and mitigation; Transportation; or Economic Development. They also discussed meeting preferences and in person was not the first choice. Ms. Thompson went to the Transportation meeting and they are very focused on the new bus routes and LexPress. Upcoming Meetings: th July 13 is the next meeting date with a 6:00 p.m. start. Review of Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2022: Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board approve the minutes of June 1, 2022, as submitted tonight. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5-0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED. Adjourn Michael Schanbacher moved that the Planning Board adjourn the meeting of June 29, 2022. Melanie Thompson seconded the motion. The Planning Board voted in favor of the motion 5- 0-0 (Roll call: Bob Creech – yes; Robert Peters – yes; Michael Schanbacher – yes; Melanie Thompson – yes; Charles Hornig – yes). MOTION PASSED Meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. Lex Media recorded the meeting. The following documents used at the meeting can be found on the Planning Board website in Planning Board packets. Comprehensive Plan:  Comprehensive Plan Review Guide dated May 31, 2022 (4 pages)  Goal 4: Sustainability and Resiliency dated June 7, 2022 (18 pages).  Goal 5: Open Space and Natural Resources dated June 7, 2022 (19 pages).  Goal 6: Historic Resources dated June 7, 2022 (19 pages). Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022 Page 11  Staff memo with Comments received through June 27, 2022 (9 pages).  Staff memo with Comments received through June 28, 2022 (2 pages).  Conservation Commission Comments dated June 27, 2022 (4 pages). 10 Maguire Road:  Subdivision Approval dated December 15, 2021 (8 pages).  Subdivision plan dated September 21, 2021 (13 pages).  Draft Covenant (9 pages). 21 Tower Road:  Staff memo and recommendations dated May 25, 2022 (2 pages). 16 Hayes Lane:  Staff memo and recommendations dated June 3, 2022 (3 pages). 69 Pleasant Street:  Application dated March 1, 2022 (5 pages).  Cover Letter dated April 7, 2022 (1 page).  Stormwater Management plan dated March 30, 2022 (104 pages).  Revised Definitive Plan set dated May 23, 2022 (17 pages).  Waiver request (2 pages).  Draft Covenant (9 pages).  Draft Homeowner Association, easements, restrictions and maintenance requirements (4 pages).  Engineering memo dated June 22, 2022 (1 page).  Engineering memo dated June 24, 2022 (1 page).  Staff memo dated June 24, 2022 (5 pages).  Applicant’s response to Findings of fact dated June 24, 2022. 17 Hartwell Avenue:  Application dated May 3, 2022 (5 pages).  Cover Letter dated May 3, 2022 (1 page).  Stormwater Management plan dated April 29, 2022 (45 pages).  Revised Definitive Plan sheet 6 dated April 29, 2022 (17 pages).  Geotechnical Engineering data report dated April 21, 2022 (21 pages).  Engineering memo dated June 22, 2022 (1 page).  Planning Staff memo dated June 24, 2022 (3 pages).  Applicant response to staff concerns dated June 28, 2022, 2022 (3pages).  Draft Covenant (2 pages).  Draft decision dated June 29, 2022 (8 pages). 12-18 & 24 Hartwell Avenue:  Application dated May 9, 2022 (5 pages).  Cover Letter dated May 18, 2022 (4 pages).  Stormwater Management plan dated May 18, 2022 (70 pages).  Subdivision Plan set dated May 18, 2022 (15 pages).  Deeds recorded dated March 1, 2022 (9 pages).  Engineering memo dated June 22, 2022 (1 page).  Planning Staff memo dated June 24, 2022 (3 pages).  Draft decision dated June 29, 2022, 2022 (9 pages). Page 12 Minutes for the Meeting of June 29, 2022  Draft Covenant (3 pages). Melanie Thompson, Clerk of the Planning Board