[1:04] What a cash.

[1:25] There we are. Okay,

[1:37] » all right. Thank you, Bill. I'll open up this evening of the mayor town the

[1:42] planning work of town mayor. Today's date is uh August 25th 2026 and the time

[1:47] is 7:05 p.m. All members here are present in town hall. This meeting is

[1:53] being held in hybrid format which means that board applicants for public can

[1:59] participate here in town hall or virtually through Zoom. Please note this

[2:03] meeting is being recorded.

[2:08] So let's go to

[2:13] item two and we will I believe they will reopen the public hearing for

[2:22] street but I believe the applicant has requested a concealment. Uh

[2:27] » yes, Mr. Sure. The um Ryan Clemens is here and um they I believe he's going to

[2:34] uh request a uh a continuence. There's some material that was sent today. Um it

[2:40] was it was circulated to the board, but at last, you know, it was a little bit

[2:44] short. Um and uh I did recommend that um that uh

[2:51] request a continuous for maximum effectiveness the applicant so you guys

[2:56] can have a chance to look at over changes and if there's any suggestions,

[3:00] questions or um things that you need that uh you'll have an opportunity to

[3:07] provide it to the applicant prior to the September I think it's 8 hearing.

[3:13] So that I'll turn it over to Mr. Clemens unless you have any questions for me.

[3:17] » No, I don't. Mr. Clemens, just for the record, you identify yourself and then

[3:20] confirm that that's all correct. >> Absolutely. My name is Ryan Clemens of

[3:24] RAW at 255 State Street in Boston here tonight on behalf of applicant Daniel

[3:30] Souza for the site plan review application for 16 WAM Street. And as a

[3:37] quick recap, we come before you uh at the request of the building inspector to

[3:44] uh for the site plan review and uh following review from the board and

[3:49] comments. Uh we took the plans back to show excuse [clears throat] me took the

[3:56] plans back to show parking, snow storage, lighting,

[4:00] and uh trash and recycling. uh which we've done. Uh as the planner noted, we

[4:05] had sent those plans to you today and as discussed at the last meeting, too.

[4:09] Board indicated they would like a couple of days in advance of a meeting to

[4:13] review subsequent plans. So tonight, we're asking for a continuence to your

[4:17] next meeting on September 8th in order to give you enough time to review the

[4:22] plans that we submitted, which do show the six parking spaces, the snow

[4:26] storage, the trash and recycling, and the building lighting. Uh, and with

[4:31] that, uh, happy to, uh, jot down any questions that you may have now that we

[4:36] can answer at the next meeting. >> Mr.

[4:42] » No, that's pretty much it. Um, I would say uh, I I have received a couple of

[4:47] comments uh, from the board primarily regarding

[4:52] dimensions on parking and some questions about the parking. So if the uh the

[4:58] board or um has any questions um we'll go ahead I'll ask them to provide them

[5:04] to me and we'll forward them directly to you. Um so it uh should be very clear

[5:10] and unless there's any other questions the board have

[5:15] at the moment. Um, I'll make a motion to continue the

[5:20] hearing until September 9th at 7 p.m.

[5:28] » Oh, sorry. September 8th at 700 p.m.

[5:34] » All in favor of the motion to continue the September 8th, please.

[5:40] That's 5. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McC. Thank

[5:45] you. Appreciate it. Thank you,

[5:51] Bill. Let's go to item three and we will >> Are we continue? Is it continuous,

[5:57] right? >> No, this is a new This is a new This is

[6:01] » Yeah, we just to refresh the board. Let me open up the hearing for 26 road. Uh

[6:08] this is a request for modification for the planning board for a spect

[6:14] that was originally approved on February 27, 2024

[6:19] and uh we did have um a determination of the age modification previously by the

[6:26] planning board sometime this summer and now this would be the public hearing for

[6:32] the modification. I get that correct? >> Yes.

[6:35] » Okay. Go ahead. Uh and the board has directed the applicant um to um prepare

[6:42] an updated elevation demonstrated proposed changes.

[6:48] Uh the board did review the changes and and largely determined that the um

[6:54] provided that the footprint was to remain the same um that design review

[6:59] would be the core of this review. Uh, consequently we have um I think I'm

[7:06] guessing we have Amy from Arrow Street is on I think we have Adam St. Adams on

[7:13] Adam Stack is the uh developer and we have

[7:18] James Jaros sorry that name uh who is uh Mr. stacks

[7:26] um architecture. And with that um I think that's everybody that we have from

[7:35] the team. >> All right, let's we'll turn it over to

[7:36] the African you guys. Um Adam, could you guys just identify yourself public for

[7:41] the record, please?

[7:45] » Uh James Jazokus, architect uh with Jazokus Architecture Incorporated.

[7:51] Um, do you want to go through with Adam and um, Arrow Street as well or do you

[7:57] want to just >> This is Adam Stack

[8:02] applicant for 2-4 Perm Mill Road.

[8:10] » Hi everyone, Amy Corte with Arrow Street. I'm an architect doing the

[8:13] design review.

[8:17] We also have um in person tonight uh uh dire executive director of office and

[8:23] news for services Steve Sy uh president if you have any questions

[8:29] that I can't answer from other areas of the approval.

[8:33] » Thanks Steve. Um okay um happy to turn over to you

[8:39] guys um for what I understood your presentation.

[8:44] Uh, okay. I'm going to just share my screen. So, it's probably easiest to uh

[8:49] talk about this request.

[9:05] Okay,

[9:08] » great. >> Thank you.

[9:14] » So, let's see. Just want to make this big enough.

[9:21] So basically we uh presented a design change to the exterior

[9:29] and Arrow Street came back with um some comments that we were happy to address

[9:37] and make the appropriate tweaks. And what you're seeing is the result of

[9:45] those changes. I can go through uh the majority of them pretty quickly. Uh

[9:51] basically we um put in the drawings uh people in cars and everything to give

[9:58] this better scale of how the building would appear in closer to reality. Uh

[10:05] the uh there was comments regarding some of

[10:08] the green. Um the hunter green would be uh more in line with a glazed brick,

[10:16] more of a soldier course. We definitely would uh

[10:22] utilize the uh all the different techniques to make

[10:27] a brick building look good with coins on the side and belly bands and soldier

[10:32] courses and different um uh elements to make it pop as opposed to just a boring

[10:41] flat brick building. Uh so we're happy with that. Uh the windows

[10:49] are uh designed to be more of a residential

[10:55] window. Uh the commercial element on the first floor was removed so it's more of

[11:00] a residential space on the first floor and we kept those windows appropriately

[11:05] sized um for that. You don't want a giant

[11:09] storefront and in your bedroom especially on the first floor level. Um,

[11:16] the entrance is more predominant. Uh, we have an A-frame protecting from the

[11:22] weather. We get more rain than Seattle, so we definitely want to protect people

[11:25] from coming in and out. Uh, the um

[11:36] walls, all the sides will be all brick. It's not going to be where the water

[11:42] side doesn't have uh the same details, but no, the intent is all sides will

[11:49] have the same details. Um,

[11:53] and

[11:56] see,

[12:00] and I I yeah, I believe that's that's just about it for the comments. Um, if

[12:08] uh I'm sorry, Amy from Arrow Street.

[12:13] » Yeah, >> it cap everything because be happy to

[12:18] change anything else, but

[12:23] » yeah, I mean, I can just offer my responses. Um I think the biggest change

[12:28] that James and Adam made was really um in response to our comment about the

[12:34] front entryway. Your design guidelines um require basically primary entrances

[12:40] are principal element um and are more connected to the street. So what James

[12:45] did was recess that entryway, put a canopy over it. I think my only question

[12:49] would be I think you guys should just make sure it's not going over the

[12:52] property line. And if it does, you have the appropriate approvals for that. Um,

[12:57] and then, you know, somebody on the planning board in the city, the town

[13:01] side had mentioned that they weren't sure if the green glazed uh color really

[13:06] worked and matched with the historic uh downtown Maynard. Um, there is there are

[13:12] some elements of green. We went back and looked at um the brick buildings and

[13:16] some of the existing uh buildings that you have. So there is uh precedent of

[13:23] these types of tones being used in different ways as accent colors through

[13:27] your downtown. Um so it really comes down to as the team is picking the brick

[13:32] colors and the materials that you make sure that you like it in the final

[13:36] permit review and the CD review. Um the materials are definitely high quality.

[13:41] That was one of your design review guidelines. Um full brick is not

[13:44] something we typically see on a lot of apartment buildings. So you are, as

[13:48] James said, getting a um a well uh I say detailed building. Um assuming the

[13:55] details are done for the for the CDs. Our only additional comment and James

[13:59] and Adam, I didn't you know we forgot to put this on the the Excel file. Our

[14:04] suggestion would be to look at a building. Um 74 Main Street is actually

[14:08] probably a good example in downtown Maynard with how they do the cornice. Um

[14:12] it's a bit lighter. um it doesn't project out quite as much as your

[14:15] cornice especially on the front side and has a little bit more of that um I call

[14:21] it historic lighter touch to the top of a building. So um that would be our

[14:26] suggestion as you move it forward into CDs. Um there were some areas of the

[14:30] rendering where the cornice the revised rendering the cornice pops out a little

[14:34] bit more on one side of the main entry vertical volume. If you zoom into think

[14:41] the upper left image, you can see it. And just pulling that back, making it

[14:45] probably a little bit more flush with the top and then uh pulling it out at

[14:50] the very top of the building. I can share my screen as example if that's

[14:54] helpful. But overall um the building design seems Yeah, that's it.

[15:01] » Yeah, >> there's just a Yeah. Yeah.

[15:03] » Right. That's pretty easy. >> Yeah, yours is more a more modern

[15:07] interpretation. I think you could probably flatten it a little bit more at

[15:10] the base and then keep a more modern interpretation at the top.

[15:16] » Yeah, we we've captured that detail a couple of times. It it just with 4x4s.

[15:22] It's it's really pretty easy to mimic that with just what's available at Home

[15:28] Depot. So >> yeah. So I mean I think overall our our

[15:32] feeling is this will come down to the final details in the CD drawings. um how

[15:37] those soldier courses and belly bands are detailed and the the connections

[15:41] between the details, but it's a pretty simple building. Um it's all brick. It's

[15:45] very durable. Um and it seems to meet your design guidelines.

[16:08] happy to turn over the board to start comments may have

[16:14] I'd like to hear some discusses.

[16:25] Did you did you hear that comment? >> Yes. Uh the

[16:30] well the what all it's basically always been there in the original design. Uh

[16:36] the building above it disappeared. Um and we kept the covered parking area

[16:45] um to keep it covered as well as uh provide

[16:50] a covered walkway to it. And um it was just features that

[16:57] um if we took away may trigger more of a major um uh review

[17:06] by conservation and other boards. So we it was an element that we just were okay

[17:12] with keeping. It's basically providing cover and once again it's um

[17:19] uh New England, you know, we get tons of rain and snow, so it's nice to have

[17:24] covered parking.

[17:30] » And what are the materials that are used there? Particularly the um deck on top.

[17:35] » Uh it's just a roofing element. um probably do a 20-year uh IDPM

[17:41] uh with um steel

[17:45] framing that would be painted very close to the

[17:51] awning, the um

[17:57] the cap as well as come close to matching the proposed glazed brick belly

[18:05] bands.

[18:16] Not there.

[18:20] Was it serving [clears throat] the effect?

[18:35] You are you referencing the walkway along the river?

[18:39] » No walkway. There's a new walkway that comes out on the outer hill.

[18:47] It used to be just a little narrow landscape strip and now it's

[18:53] walkway that somehow connects to archway.

[18:59] I'm not really excited

[19:11] left of the building. >> Correct.

[19:14] » No, they um the the landscape strip will remain. Uh it's just that the proposed

[19:23] building back in 24 has been narrowed in that narrowing left

[19:31] it um the strip. Uh just see

[19:37] » where does that go to? Does it does it terminate into the parking lot?

[19:41] » Just goes right into the uh parking area. Yes.

[19:48] So that would be a walkway for people exiting the building

[19:52] to walk back into the covered parking area,

[19:56] » right? You could go to your bike. You can go, you know, there's bike parking.

[20:01] There's um other areas.

[20:07] » I'm not going to follow it. You have to exit the building to get your parking

[20:13] straight. No, there there is ways to get to the parking through the

[20:18] uh underside of the building. It's just multiple ways. I mean,

[20:25] » it just strikes me that that's an opportunity for

[20:29] adding more landscape in order to shift the building away from residential

[20:37] shifted closer and more more tight with the other commercial

[20:44] building.

[20:56] Um,

[20:59] we we can and this but

[21:04] um

[21:07] Can you tell me a little bit about the screening um of parking that is next to

[21:13] the gate on the um That is

[21:20] what was originally agreed upon um back in 24

[21:28] and it still remains. There's just no building above it. There's still the

[21:33] gate. There's still all the elements that was originally proposed.

[21:43] I think my brain is having trouble comparing to the last one without the

[21:47] don.

[21:50] So yeah,

[21:57] » this part of my too is

[22:02] plan. Are we getting on?

[22:07] » Um the that was a situation that when we discussed this originally, we limited

[22:14] this to a landscape plan and a um a limited design review basically uh and

[22:22] lighting where it was going to be uh removed or replaced. Um if the the the

[22:29] essence of this was that the footprint wasn't going to change not just because

[22:33] it was um to maintain the existing uh dimensions but also because of

[22:39] conservation commission um considerations. So I think that that if

[22:45] the board wanted a revised um

[22:52] dimensional plan that that would be basically what you have already um the

[22:57] elevations and the landscape plan I think would be the modified component.

[23:03] The board feels different of course in the kind

[23:08] of people

[23:11] modify

[23:16] especially that lock

[23:20] seems to me that wipes out the park space and now I don't know

[23:26] good whatever

[23:31] tell me tell Blackstone prefers to have a struct

[23:47] or something.

[23:52] I I don't think I understand the question. Why why did conservation

[23:55] reprove it the way in the current configuration? Why does conservation

[23:59] want canopy over the park? Why are they requiring more

[24:05] infrastructure?

[24:10] It It's not so much that conservation wants it, it's what they had approved

[24:15] and we only presented minor modifications

[24:21] to what conservation's uh was seen as the footprints. So that

[24:27] we only eliminated a couple of columns versus wiping out all the columns on

[24:32] that side.

[24:37] The footprint by removing all of the coverage it would still require still be

[24:42] a major modification bill from likely is that a problem? I don't

[24:49] know that it would be a major modification, but I I think the um

[24:55] positioning was critical to what they they felt maintaining the positioning

[25:00] was critical what had been proved before and would prevent

[25:05] um a further series of hearings to how made the movie. This was where it

[25:11] was originally placed. And I guess the thinking wasn't why why would it be

[25:15] approved two years ago and they want to change it the position.

[25:27] And back to the walkway. It does look like the lighting plan

[25:32] shows the proposed changes u of that walkway to the west of the current

[25:39] building. Is that correct? >> Um the the lighting plan did not change.

[25:47] Uh even the light at the front door, we most likely will just have two or three

[25:53] lights underneath that walkway. >> Okay. So, what does the paint represent

[26:00] on this figure? that that is what was the 2024

[26:09] footprint of the building that's being reduced to

[26:13] back to this column

[26:23] set back.

[26:28] Um, see,

[26:33] uh, I think we have it all the way it to the

[26:38] original. Um, I I know this plan is a little deceiving where it shows pink in

[26:43] front here. Uh I believe we have the building coming right to the street.

[26:49] » But at the same time, James, there is there is a feature on the front that uh

[26:58] there's there's a prominent feature in the front where the door is which

[27:02] definitely protrudes out from the face of that.

[27:07] Is that correct? [snorts]

[27:19] second here. >> So, we just need clarity whether the the

[27:24] building is on the property land as previously approved or if it's been

[27:28] modified building has been pushed back to allow

[27:34] » we we will have it. Yeah, it'll be set back to not require

[27:41] um it's easy to modify the back of the bus here to accommodate

[27:48] not bleeding over the city sidewalk. So, yes, it would be set back the couple of

[27:55] feet. >> Do you have that is it you say a couple

[27:59] feet. Do do we have a sense of what what that dimension is?

[28:04] Um it for

[28:17] just to be on the safe side 3 ft

[28:23] with the door inset and the a cover only needs to protrude maybe 18

[28:32] inches. So we get a good 5ft cover so the doors can swing out, not hit people

[28:38] on the sidewalk.

[28:59] » Yeah.

[29:04] I mean it just wouldn't help if we had a very simple site that highlighted what

[29:08] is it. I don't want to read talk about everything

[29:13] » right check box say okay let's do what they got.

[29:22] » Yeah. So the original concept here was that planning board was not necessarily

[29:28] requesting uh to modify all of the site plans because

[29:35] the intent was to not change the building footprint. But we we do see

[29:39] that the building program is changed and we just need to know what we're

[29:44] approving and they and they can't and the site

[29:48] plans I think the site plan we needs to be updated to show the

[29:53] change in the building program. >> Okay.

[29:56] » At least that's what I'm hearing from the board. Do I hear that correctly

[30:00] board? I agree. It's been a little hard to figure out what's existing

[30:06] in the past, what's supposed to be proposed.

[30:13] Those differences. Okay. So, let's move on to lighting. Um, James, you said that

[30:19] the lighting scheme has not changed at all. Is that correct?

[30:24] » At the moment, no, it has not changed.

[30:30] And you know the I do see the lighting plan has

[30:38] obviously light location shown on it. Um and just to make sure the the

[30:46] architectural renders do not show lights but obviously we defer to the lighting

[30:51] plan. Correct. >> Right. Yeah.

[30:57] Uh

[31:01] And these are the exact same lighting condition.

[31:07] Also the condition um for the lighting just to be clear for the board. But one

[31:12] of the conditions was to add one additional light. Um

[31:18] that's designated in decision. So that that all if the board chooses to move

[31:23] forward, we would keep that condition consistent. Other

[31:42] questions

[31:48] about side

[32:09] Yeah. Um I didn't quite hear that question. Sorry.

[32:14] » Yes. So on the on the river side it's some building structure that's going

[32:20] away

[32:37] » what's happening in these green areas that we're proposing to remove.

[32:41] » Yeah. and just um

[32:47] the landscaping that is there is going as proposed is going to stay as

[32:55] proposed. Uh all there's no proposed structure on

[33:02] the ground level other than the one two three four five six columns. So

[33:11] it was originally proposed that the paved walkway would be in this area. So

[33:18] that's what would be in that area. Paved walkway and sidewalk here.

[33:22] [clears throat]

[33:25] And this would be a proposed parking space.

[33:40] Amen.

[33:45] Approvals.

[33:48] Yeah, it's originally proposed hardcape that's going

[33:53] that we're proposing to stay.

[34:02] » The site plan that just highlights what is different.

[34:08] So those brain spots were always hard to see with building above but no other

[34:16] » correct.

[34:21] » I will note that some of these green areas where there's building columns

[34:26] being removed there are light fixtures

[34:32] shown light plan attached. So we

[34:37] the light plan is not not the accurate balance for the building. So basically

[34:42] in the top left of that light plan you show there are light fixtures that I

[34:47] believe were attached to the building that has no longer been.

[34:54] Is that correct? Um

[35:02] the only there's S1's

[35:08] proposed on this column, this column, this column and this column. And the

[35:15] only column that's going one of the lights and column is proposed to go

[35:21] away. >> Right? So there won't be any place to

[35:26] put a light picture that right >> other than

[35:31] um

[35:35] » because the the image above with with the red and the green shows that

[35:42] the building is being removed above

[35:53] Right. Uh let's see.

[36:05] » So we're we the plans just need to be modified to show that that the landing

[36:12] plan that Okay.

[36:24] » I think the render shows it covered by the building.

[36:56] Okay.

[36:59] » Where are we on the gate for the emergency access?

[37:08] » Yeah. You talking about the roll up gate, Bill?

[37:11] » Yeah. So, what we talked about where we left this at the last approval, um the

[37:17] fire chief was not wild about the roller gate. Um but we said that the um that it

[37:22] would be installed on the uh the garage uh but the color of material

[37:28] aesthetically consistent blah blah blah. In the event the fire chief does not

[37:33] didn't find the rollup gate to be adequate or sufficient um an alternative

[37:38] gate will be provided to the planning board chair for approval. That's how we

[37:41] left it. So, I don't know um if if uh Adam or John can speak to any recent

[37:50] conversations with the fire chief, but I would say that's probably

[37:55] um something that for now anyway would want to, you know, I would want to keep

[38:00] in conditions. Um that we we just we debated that quite

[38:04] a bit, but it was my understanding fire chief was not

[38:08] comfortable with that. I could be wrong. And I'll I'll defer to Adam on

[38:12] that. You may remember what happened.

[38:19] » So again, we didn't like go back to the fire chief about this because it we're

[38:25] not changing anything that is physically on the ground footprint.

[38:31] Um so anything that was approved before is staying in this permit. And that's

[38:36] what we're trying to express that this footprint is staying the same so that

[38:41] parking stays the same. So that the snow storage stays the same so that the you

[38:46] know all the dumpsters all the things we had to fit onto this tight location

[38:51] stays the same. Um we're only asking to change the building above the first

[38:58] floor and that's why it shrunk down to make it more economical to build right

[39:03] now. and for the one-bedroom units that we're trying to do. Um, uh, so that's

[39:10] why we were trying to leave everything on the ground level that was approved as

[39:13] is and just get the changes above if if that makes sense. I think that's what we

[39:19] tried to express last meeting and that's what we wanted to talk about this

[39:22] meeting. So, we weren't really trying to start a whole new

[39:27] um, permit here >> and and Adam, that's what we understood

[39:32] as well. But what I'm seeing you propose for example on powder mill is that the

[39:37] building front is going to um go into the site by what we heard to

[39:43] be about 3 ft. So building barriers being closed chain and

[39:48] » in my from this is for me seeing that this is either an oversight on how that

[39:54] was drawn or not but that that that should that line at the at the sidewalk

[40:00] should not move. Nothing should be moving here. So if Jim put this uh

[40:06] covered covered entry in because Arrow Street asked for it, that's kind of

[40:10] where that came from. And if that's going to adjust the whole building, then

[40:14] I would ask then is it that necessary to have this three-foot covered entrance to

[40:20] get in there or can we just have basic entry door because most of the people

[40:25] will be going on, you know, into the building from the covered parking

[40:29] underneath because to move the building back three

[40:33] feet just to have a covered entrance doesn't make any sense.

[40:38] » I mean, I can respond to that. Um, you know, we had asked for We thought your

[40:43] previous design of the recessed entry was sufficient. So in our opinion, I

[40:49] think recessing the entry gives it enough cover and denotes the primary

[40:53] entry and would be okay. I I do have a different question. This is the first

[40:57] time I'm seeing the site plan. So on the left side where you have the orange

[41:02] zone where I guess the canopy is, if you look at your rendering

[41:07] in the lower left um of your new renderings, it looks like

[41:11] the brick wall comes out and basically continues that orange line on the left

[41:17] going through the word building. And so I'm just curious, it looks like your

[41:22] site plan shows planting between that screen wall and the green screen on the

[41:25] lower left. And then where that green canopy starts is rendered as all

[41:31] planting in the site plan. But here it looks like parking.

[41:47] See what's going on. It looks like it's just

[41:52] » Yeah. certainly

[42:08] understand that that ground floor is trying to not be changed

[42:12] significantly so as to you know allow conservation and everyone to you know

[42:18] stay the same as a 2024. But when it does change, we can't sign our name to

[42:23] an inaccurate plan when we're so um that that's the reason having updated

[42:31] site plan if there are going to be changes which there are.

[42:39] » Well, we don't want site plan changes. So, if we have to adjust to the recessed

[42:43] entrance like Amy had just said, then that's what we have to keep it as.

[42:48] There are changes beside just the recess entry. I mean,

[42:59] I struggle with just looking at the rendering. That's my only indication of

[43:03] how how the site is changing.

[43:14] » So, for for another example on on the the color rendering on the top left.

[43:20] You know, there's building moved in green,

[43:26] there's columns being removed, and we just need to know what's being done with

[43:33] the lighting there because lighting was being attached in that area. It seems

[43:37] there's no longer a building for columns to attach the light to.

[43:46] So if if that green box in the top left is is going away,

[43:52] um we just need to know we just it could it's now in conflict with the landing

[43:56] pl. know what will happen to Alexa.

[44:16] All right. So, the light that was here

[44:24] um will go away and Unfortunately, the renderings do show

[44:30] this element here over here

[44:35] and it's really should be back here. >> Can you elaborate on that? I didn't I

[44:42] can't follow. >> Yeah. Um,

[44:45] can you see my cursor on the screen? >> Okay. So, there was originally a con uh

[44:52] comment regarding this is where the gate is.

[44:56] And then there's a planter here. And this is a planter here. But in the

[45:02] rendering, it's showing them in line with the gate. But in reality, it's

[45:08] proposed to be not here, but back here. >> So to clarify, earlier when I asked

[45:15] about that and I was told it's the same as it was in 2024, I'm not crazy. It's

[45:20] not the same as it was since I don't Yes.

[45:24] there. Okay.

[45:45] Can you help me understand what the final procedure ends up being with this

[45:53] for the modification. We have all new bindings

[46:00] for approval. We have do we need a new set of conditions? Do we edit the

[46:06] existing condition? >> Yeah. No, it's a good good question. Um,

[46:12] basically when we've done this before, what I'd recommend here, this is a

[46:17] modification. uh we would want to review the conditions in a in a fashion that

[46:23] are they unchanged from the original approval. So looking through them for

[46:27] example and I have a couple I have a couple questions I want to ask the

[46:30] outcome before we leave but um for example obviously the dating of the the

[46:35] architectural plans or whatever are going to change of course um but in the

[46:39] findings some of the findings will will change but you look at like um the we

[46:47] want to talk about the affordable units but that aside um most of the stuff I

[46:52] looked at would stay the same. I have a couple of questions. Um, but in general

[46:57] they stay the same. If they needed anything I would say uh the the findings

[47:02] remained in uh the same as the original approval with the exception of number X.

[47:08] Uh in the um conditions of approval there's um looking through them there

[47:15] was a a question I had but but not really anything that I saw would change

[47:20] uh to two of them. And that one was specifically about the firegate that we

[47:24] had talked about already and the second is about the light that I brought up

[47:27] earlier. So, um, in my opinion, what I could see

[47:32] this saying is I, um, a, uh, similar to what we did at Major Crossing, for

[47:40] example, whenever we amended, the original approval dated blah blah blah

[47:44] is superseded in conditions this that or whatever the case is, and all other

[47:49] conditions not specifically amended by this action uh, remain the same. That

[47:54] would be my suggestion. Uh, may I ask the applicant a question?

[48:00] Mr. Chair, >> could you answer Bill's question?

[48:05] » Is that unsatisfactory? >> I don't know.

[48:09] um kind of

[48:13] because I don't really understand

[48:20] the action on this have its own set of no I

[48:25] find I would like >> well it it's true but giving another I

[48:32] mean is it is it effective and uh fair to reexam exam and the condition is

[48:39] still met. So if we said, you know, if we do we really want to change something

[48:44] that says um no problem

[48:50] some of these conditions are a little fuzzy and they could have been fixed in

[48:53] the last two and a half years but it's also the findings the findings

[49:00] will change because the projects change the

[49:05] change >> they may

[49:08] right No, I agree. >> Wiping out the old findings and cleaning

[49:13] new findings or it's up to the board. They could we could go through the whole

[49:17] thing and do it again. >> To me, I like I said, most of them from

[49:21] my glance from them, you know. I mean, there's some the spirit of most of these

[49:27] is the same, but there's I have a couple of questions that I'm going want to

[49:31] clear up, but in general, if the board's more comfortable than that, we can

[49:34] certainly do that. We could run through the and when we got to the conditions,

[49:38] we just go through the conditions and see does it is it still exactly what we

[49:42] want to approve. This is a a a major modification as we said. So, it's

[49:48] essentially a new permit and the board and the permit's open so the board can

[49:52] change how it is. Um but I would say that you know

[49:58] a level of prudence should be exercised on seeing as the

[50:03] permit is what three years old or whatever. I mean, but uh sure,

[50:07] whatever's easiest for the board, I would be happy to go through, but uh so

[50:11] we can do it either way, but the findings would to

[50:16] circle back. You're finding that the uh site plan uh and special permit have

[50:23] been modified at by X the and we have a special permit condition. Uh we have a

[50:29] special permit condition for the DoD. And then there's some uh in the

[50:33] conditions there are uh some specific um site specific um conditions that the

[50:40] board worked down quite a bit uh in the last approval.

[50:45] Uh the other thing that that might uh I might suggest was to to um

[50:52] maybe move everything would be uh we could uh

[50:58] continue with our if there's a design questions that are going to require um

[51:05] the design reviewers present. You know, maybe we want to we want to get

[51:08] everything we can with that done if we can. But just however the board feels,

[51:13] you know, is most effective.

[51:20] » I got

[51:24] that canopy. It's um

[51:30] » between the adjacent building corner and the building

[51:34] » well

[51:46] seems

[51:54] I mean the building in front of it in the corner there has a flat roof as

[51:57] well. So, it's just basically the same plane as that.

[52:03] Remember, there's a there's a building in this corner that's covering all of

[52:07] this area.

[52:34] Happy to say I like

[52:38] our consultants like a little about integrating that better

[52:48] the capping.

[53:00] And just to clarify, so to the left of the roll up gate or whatever ends up

[53:05] being subject to approval by the fire chief is not a screening feature. It is

[53:12] a couple of parking spaces and then screening featuring.

[53:17] Correct.

[53:43] I'm sorry. What was the question? >> My question was just to clarify the roll

[53:50] up gate on >> Yes.

[53:53] » Street. Um to the left of it is not a screening feature. To the left of that

[53:58] will be several parking spaces with screening feature at the back. If you're

[54:03] looking at it from street, >> this is rendered correctly. This is

[54:11] rendered correctly. This element here is actually

[54:16] back >> Yeah.

[54:18] » to this plane. And there's proposed landscaping in this area.

[54:23] So >> it would um

[54:32] » is it is it >> so this this is all landscaping

[54:36] in front of that area? >> So the parking so there isn't a parking

[54:41] space there. >> There's no parking spaces there. It's

[54:45] all there's a there's a walkway. There's a path, a meandering path with

[54:53] uh trees all around or bushes all around it.

[54:59] That little green square that's become land

[55:04] or is that the heartcape like the other green patches?

[55:18] I'm sorry. I'm having a little hard time hearing a question.

[55:23] » On the draw little green square.

[55:27] » Yes. >> Is that going to be more landscaping or

[55:32] just hardcaping?

[55:37] that um

[55:44] dealer's choice. It doesn't affect the parking. So, that can be um

[55:52] hardcape or um

[55:56] » I think that would be a mixture of both because that's going to be a

[55:58] continuation of the marine the walkway to it. The two in the back will be green

[56:04] space, not hard space. So, the one that he had his uh cursor in front of,

[56:09] obviously part of the walkway is going to have to be in there and part of it

[56:13] will be green space. Uh towards the back towards the river, more uh green space

[56:20] unless instead of hard space is what conservation is looking for. So, if that

[56:25] answers your question >> and building codewise, this is a remote

[56:32] second means of egress. I just need to be able to either get to the parking lot

[56:37] or to the street. Either way,

[57:03] Okay. So, um this the the updated the updated drawings should show

[57:12] what the final answer is on those hardc

[57:17] um so that we have a correct record. I would suggest that the best approach

[57:24] to the lighting is to simply

[57:29] update the lighting plan to show

[57:34] how we're going to handle the top left bites and top left figure, but also

[57:40] the lights on powder mill. um that if the

[57:45] building does shrink, obviously the location of those lights will probably

[57:50] be modfired. One of the conditions was that a light fixtures got to also be

[57:56] placed on the the southwest corner of the building, which in this figure is

[58:01] the bottom left and so it should there's also a light there. So we should just

[58:07] see what the new light figuration is. I I I would suggest that the best way to

[58:13] do this would you have light in each corner and then you know lights

[58:16] proportionally um located in the middle as as needed.

[58:21] But I think four lights in total would make good spice here.

[58:29] Um those change those changes should be

[58:35] and then um

[58:45] then the the walkway to the west of the building

[58:49] to so the pink area to the left of of the building here is is that all

[58:56] is that going to be a concrete walkway? way similar to the other walkway

[59:00] constructed.

[59:04] » Yes. Right. Right now that is how it's proposed.

[59:09] » So if it's not and forgive me if I can't see it, but if it's not noted, we should

[59:14] note that that walkway be concrete similar to the other constructed

[59:20] walkways.

[59:24] » Okay. And obviously this plan if if the building facade on powder mill is not

[59:30] going to be recessed as discuss as shown then obviously this you should modify

[59:36] figure so that facade is matching the sidewalk as was

[59:44] previous.

[59:49] Those are the changes that I heard from the board tonight. Was there anything

[59:54] else for clarity that the board would need to see?

[59:59] » I guess question to the planning director. Is is it worth incorporating

[1:00:05] any of the conditions plan? Is that something done other

[1:00:12] modification major mod? >> I don't think I understand. I'm sorry.

[1:00:17] So we have quite a few conditions. >> Yes.

[1:00:21] » Yes, that's correct. >> Is it worth incorporate since this is

[1:00:24] the modification we're dealing? Yes. Is it worth

[1:00:28] » incorporating those into site plan for clarity?

[1:00:33] » If you're going to open a site plan and it would eliminate a condition, I would

[1:00:37] say yeah, it would be a good move. So in other words, like if there's a specific

[1:00:42] aspect of the conditions that can that we could eliminate a conditional

[1:00:46] approval, if they're going to open the plan anyway, the site plan,

[1:00:49] » it sounds like we need to open >> and I think that would be I think that

[1:00:53] would be the best um the most efficient for the applicant and the board

[1:00:59] » if the board agrees.

[1:01:05] And if you're making changes, let's let's get it right up. We're talking

[1:01:08] about one of the scones. >> Yeah, I mean it's not it's not

[1:01:12] » instead of doing this makes sense.

[1:01:15] » Well, that would be I would recommend that. I think I think I can't speak for

[1:01:19] the applicant, but I mean I I believe he would

[1:01:23] if he's got to make an amendment. Let's let's get rid of whatever we can for the

[1:01:27] conditions or stop. I think it's just light and um what else?

[1:01:31] » Guard rail. >> Oh, the guardrails. Yeah,

[1:01:35] » the gate. Well, the gate I don't know. Um, it's not going to be yet

[1:01:41] prior chief. I don't know without a gate. I I I um and that may change, you

[1:01:47] know, as as the time progresses towards is constructive. I I I don't know that I

[1:01:51] would change the gate now. >> Okay.

[1:01:54] » I I I like the idea of having the fire chief and and if there's a problem

[1:01:58] » for sure. And then and then >> and then Chris can talk about what's

[1:02:02] that >> the width of the gate

[1:02:08] » that should be on >> that should be on the site.

[1:02:13] » I don't know what

[1:02:17] they need for I have to check their previous comments

[1:02:22] because they did review this. I think they may have I don't know if I can do

[1:02:26] it right now. I I'll make a note to get that out.

[1:02:30] Um my suggestion would be the light sconce condition 16 is an easy

[1:02:37] add to any update plans. I would suggest that condition 171 19 guard rail

[1:02:47] I think those are well written and um can be

[1:02:53] can be considered and do not need to be >> which ones I'm sorry I'm I'm virtually

[1:03:00] fine with not modifying any plans to remove conditions except

[1:03:06] of the guard rail I think those are well And um it can it can remain as is just

[1:03:14] be submitted.

[1:03:18] » Okay. But that should

[1:03:30] » condition 20 sheet. So that back back to the

[1:03:38] uh so the board needs to understand what needs to understand about course. So I'm

[1:03:43] going to go back to court. I listed a few items previously. any other items

[1:03:47] that we would need to see for clarity to understand what was being.

[1:03:57] » I I just I mean not being part of the original decision and seeing the

[1:04:01] conflicts between the renderings and the site plan. I just think it'd be

[1:04:05] important to show an accurate site plan and in renderings and be clear about on

[1:04:10] the revised site plan what those revisions are. make it clear what's

[1:04:14] changing clouds.

[1:04:22] » Yeah, cling.

[1:04:26] » Yeah, the clouding simplifies for everybody. I agree. We put that we

[1:04:31] recommend that in our

[1:04:36] » Does that make sense, John? >> John, but

[1:04:43] James. Yeah. Yes, that that all that all makes sense. I can definitely talk to

[1:04:48] Adam and uh get this all clarified and cleaned up and

[1:04:53] so so it'll be nice and easy to approve. >> I apologize, James.

[1:05:00] » from if need some waiverss.

[1:05:05] » Yeah. Well, that's my I had Yeah, I have two questions.

[1:05:09] really good. >> I have I have a couple of questions

[1:05:12] about that. That was one I'd like to if I can speak to the applicants about

[1:05:15] that. I have a question. >> Yeah, let's Okay, so I think we're good

[1:05:18] on the sort of um plan review for the bill. You

[1:05:25] can you can ask your questions on waiverss, but then let's move on to

[1:05:30] finalizing this for tonight. So, we got a plan.

[1:05:37] » Yeah. Um, Adam, um, and I I think in the original

[1:05:44] request for minor modification, you were you still proposing nine

[1:05:50] affordable units or are you proposing to use the reduction

[1:05:55] uh to five units at 60% AMI? I could you clarify that for the board?

[1:06:02] Now I I I remember that with a minor modification

[1:06:07] we had to take that out because it would have made uh we would have had to alter

[1:06:11] the decision. Can you clarify what you're proposing as

[1:06:15] » we do? We do want the reduction. That's correct.

[1:06:21] » He does want the reduction. >> Okay. So, just to be clear, board, that

[1:06:25] would be something else. We're looking at using our um our 60% our new 60%

[1:06:31] bylaw. Uh and that would give the applicant

[1:06:35] reduction five units at 60%. So, that >> the original had five

[1:06:42] original >> uh the original has um

[1:06:47] » four. Yeah. This is Well, this was prior. This was a bylaw change that made

[1:06:51] to encourage 16%. Um,

[1:06:58] I really hope I'm not hearing that less than

[1:07:03] that's supposed to be. Not very excited at all that we're no longer getting our

[1:07:07] first 60% AMI3 but our first two 60% AMI but well I think

[1:07:19] by consideration >> so are you saying well the board we just

[1:07:23] as a board now remember we did

[1:07:28] our breakdown originally to be clear We had it was nine units

[1:07:37] um with four at at 60%. That was the

[1:07:43] original 80. There was five nine units required.

[1:07:49] Five units were at 80, four units were at at uh 60.

[1:07:56] » Do you remember the makeup of those units in terms of number of bedrooms?

[1:08:00] » We didn't do we didn't get into bedrooms.

[1:08:02] » Okay. And and because this was something that the development agreement was being

[1:08:06] uh it was in process at the time, bedrooms were not the the clear the

[1:08:11] change now for bedrooms to be clear the um was based both on market demand and

[1:08:18] on availability of services and in water. Uh we changed our bylaws last

[1:08:25] year uh in order to incentivize

[1:08:30] 60% units and there's a reduction allowed

[1:08:36] for a provision of 60% units. Now conditions have changed and if the board

[1:08:43] doesn't feel that's what they would like then so be it. But

[1:08:49] I think it would be no different than if the new project came in for the what

[1:08:54] we'd be requiring of them. But that that's up to you. But so far that's why

[1:08:59] I wanted to clarify that one point. Uh so you heard the applicant is

[1:09:04] proposing that it's up to them when they do it at the second question I had uh I

[1:09:11] want to make sure uh we're still the waiverss I think were for is it was for

[1:09:17] to allow a reduction from 40 parking spaces I believe. Um is that waiver is

[1:09:23] that still what you're proposing your 40 parking spaces?

[1:09:27] Yeah, the parking requirements should stay the same that we're going to need

[1:09:32] the same waiver to keep the same we have.

[1:09:36] » So that waiver would remain. Um

[1:09:42] and um the other waiver was uh

[1:09:49] not many. >> Oh um yeah. Well, then this goes back to

[1:09:56] the provision. Um, the waiver was for the 1,500 square feet um

[1:10:04] of lot area for the density bonus. Now, I would I mentioned remember while it's

[1:10:11] true uh there is a a density bonus being issued, the board is

[1:10:17] discretionary on the board's point. However,

[1:10:21] um if the board, you know, um goes by the request, it's to use our 60% AMI.

[1:10:30] Right now, the current breakdown is nine units and they are four at 60% AMI and

[1:10:41] five at 80%. So, if the board is wants to keep that, that's their prerogative.

[1:10:48] the applicants requesting is 60%. So I I think um

[1:10:54] » applicant is requesting five to 60%. >> That's my understanding. That's what I

[1:10:58] just want to clarify. Correct, Madam? >> Yes.

[1:11:03] » And the previous was so we're losing uh we we're gaining a 60% unit but we're

[1:11:10] losing four 80%.

[1:11:18] At some point, can you confirm on this 36 units on what 36 units?

[1:11:24] » Yeah, process size.

[1:11:30] Let me see.

[1:11:34] I don't have that either.

[1:11:54] Interesting.

[1:12:15] Yeah, I have to work out. So, I'm totally going to count still at

[1:12:21] 36.

[1:12:24] » Correct. Units 36. Now, one thing I will note is that at the time of the

[1:12:31] decision, um there there was requirement for nine

[1:12:36] density.

[1:12:42] » Uh I I honestly can't remember how we

[1:12:47] worked out the the AMI, but I don't remember.

[1:12:50] » So, I'm just reading I'm just reading what

[1:12:53] » Yeah. What we decided on >> number one here is that um that it that

[1:12:59] has met the requirements for density bonus by provision

[1:13:04] » right I don't remember how the we didn't have a 6% requirement then I don't know

[1:13:08] how that I can't remember >> I understand that so what I believe what

[1:13:12] occurred is that the special permit it was there was there was a voluntary

[1:13:17] element here to have some units be at 16 right so that was the special that was

[1:13:24] part of meeting special. >> Yeah.

[1:13:28] » Um so to you we just got to period because to then

[1:13:36] remove you to go down to five units is not just a change in calculation. It's

[1:13:41] changing how the spec was would justify.

[1:13:47] No, it would change would it would >> because the 60% units were volunteer,

[1:13:54] » right? We didn't have >> That's correct. We didn't but we didn't

[1:13:58] have the provision in the zoning bylaw which have been updated.

[1:14:02] » Right. >> So were this a new this a new project

[1:14:05] the board had never seen before. >> I agree with that. What you're saying is

[1:14:09] that >> it helps meet the special permit

[1:14:12] criteria by providing 60%. >> Absolutely

[1:14:15] » right. The 16% is yeah it was not required to do so requirement.

[1:14:20] » So correct in this case we would be changing what was being presented.

[1:14:26] » Yeah and that would not >> correct. I I you're correct and that

[1:14:33] would uh for the um that would affect waiver number one as Philip had asked

[1:14:39] about. >> Yes.

[1:14:41] » Would be >> okay. So those are the waiverss. Yeah,

[1:14:44] if you could could speak with the applicant offline about that. Make sure

[1:14:49] that the math is correct and all this >> about the waiverss.

[1:14:52] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:14:52] » Just make sure that it's all correct.

[1:14:55] » I will speak with the applicant as soon as it's available tomorrow.

[1:14:58] » Yeah. Um and so we have what the board advises to update on um site the plan

[1:15:06] changes. Um

[1:15:09] and this is the the plan here is what the board would like to see updated.

[1:15:13] Correct. to the package because it's not just

[1:15:16] this one, >> right?

[1:15:17] » That's what's being what's being presented.

[1:15:23] » Um >> James, you're clear with that, right?

[1:15:28] » Yes. Yeah. We'll go over with with Adam and we'll

[1:15:33] um adjust everything that needs to be adjusted.

[1:15:43] And it sounds like that whatever zoning changes that happened in

[1:15:48] the last two and a half years now apply to this. We should check all that stuff

[1:15:53] to make sure new thing

[1:15:58] for example part is new

[1:16:04] it or not. This is a modification. So, you know, I don't know that you would it

[1:16:11] would be to anybody's advantage to depending on I guess depending on some

[1:16:14] board's discretion, but it is the modification of the attention keeping

[1:16:18] things is similar to what the board approved a

[1:16:21] few years ago. But I could run through them again for sure and look at anything

[1:16:26] that was lingering like that. But I I

[1:16:37] Well, no. I would say that because what we're saying what if you remember when

[1:16:42] when we're talking about what I would do to modify this permit would be, you

[1:16:46] know, um the the planning board is modifying the

[1:16:51] original decision dated such and such. um specifically in this area, this area,

[1:16:58] and this area. Uh rather than just say and and all other conditions not

[1:17:03] affected by this still apply. And that's that's how we did like the only one

[1:17:08] we've really done a lot of these on like made across. And that way keeping it the

[1:17:12] same, you know, it it it simplifies it. And if

[1:17:18] it's beneficial, then I mean the board can change it like like you know, and

[1:17:21] and use it. And if it in the case of uh you know like a modification like the um

[1:17:28] the twobedroom or like the uh I'm sorry the 60%.

[1:17:32] You know if it works it's the board's discretion but um I mean if we went

[1:17:37] through the whole zoning code and I don't know that we find anything

[1:17:41] specifically but we might. Um but in this case it's reduced parking already

[1:17:46] in the DoD. it meets the DoD um

[1:17:52] reduced parking goals. Uh but uh I can certainly give it

[1:17:56] another look as you asked for I would ask for consistency. So either

[1:18:02] we apply new changes to the bylaw for project meaning if we're going to apply

[1:18:09] the affordable housing calculation

[1:18:14] well it's an option application. So it's like are you going to do you want to

[1:18:19] just

[1:18:22] what was approved before? If you're keeping it and adjusting A, B,

[1:18:27] and C, do you want to adjust CB and after? I would I would I guess have a

[1:18:33] little bit of I have to think about it a lot. Start

[1:18:37] basic matching things that were previously approved

[1:18:41] versus what is a new zone. I see. And then and then of course if that was the

[1:18:47] case then the the applicant could just stay with his nine units as they were

[1:18:51] approved. >> I think you made it very complicated to

[1:18:54] start going through and figuring out what's the same, what's different, what

[1:18:58] was the condition, what wasn't, what is, what should be. Maybe maybe not

[1:19:03] depending on I think some of it could be but some of it could be need

[1:19:08] complicated. I I don't think but depending on the issue you're right. Um,

[1:19:12] and like I said, the out manager should stick with what he has. Maybe that's who

[1:19:15] he wants. >> All right. I think we have about this.

[1:19:19] » Um, and one other comment I can make sure

[1:19:24] I asked Silver Silverstein

[1:19:29] to come in tonight. Um, just to give you a base and the board had asked a couple

[1:19:34] times updates on um the development agreements so we didn't have to yank

[1:19:39] them back. uh next time. Um are there any questions specifically for Steve? I

[1:19:45] think you've seen that the outline is more or less the same as the previous

[1:19:49] draft. The board will have an opportunity to approve this and sign it

[1:19:55] and as a select board, but any questions

[1:20:01] can you board members that are not part of this decision originally. Can you

[1:20:06] just explain what the DA is for what it covers and

[1:20:11] what's the statally?

[1:20:20] Yeah, the DA is for anytime the board uh grants a permit under uh downtown

[1:20:26] overlay reduced uh lot area requirement development agreement is uh essentially

[1:20:33] a private agreement between the town and the developer. Purpose of it is to

[1:20:40] ensure that um um everything from mitigation to any um

[1:20:50] negotiated items remain as part of the agreement are enforcable by a civil

[1:20:56] action as opposed to just a land use. It's not a it's not a zoning art. So

[1:21:02] it's a separate agreement. That's why it's done separate. uh it's a

[1:21:06] requirement uh by the um zoning by to have it for when we use reduction

[1:21:12] typically when there's a reduction in lot area there it's a give and take so

[1:21:17] whatever is given you want to make sure it's memorialized

[1:21:21] um what's typically found in that we we try we've been trying to scale them back

[1:21:27] somewhat because they're not you know we've had some really long

[1:21:32] development and it's just asking for stuff to get missed

[1:21:36] But typically what we would put in there was any specific mitigation um um

[1:21:42] specifics about a um a requirement. So for example in this

[1:21:48] case um if there is um uh anything pertinent that's sight specific or in um

[1:22:00] any sort of other um mitigation that may be called out it would be

[1:22:07] memorializing that something like our our um our uh open space requirement.

[1:22:14] This is also uh necessary under our uh bylaws. That's something we call out

[1:22:20] already in the decision. So that wouldn't be it typically because it's

[1:22:24] number that we revived at. It's very simple.

[1:22:27] So that's the gist of it. So it's basically a private agreement between

[1:22:32] the town and the uh applicant and it's uh it's different

[1:22:38] in that it's a silly agreement. Um,

[1:22:44] and so Steve uh had a skeleton of one that Megan had been working on, I think,

[1:22:50] and it's it's basically more or less the same. And it's different now. Okay. I

[1:22:54] haven't seen I don't know if the is the seen previous of it or never seen

[1:23:05] I mean, but not

[1:23:09] » Oh, just a TA in general. Well, we have the previous round of negotiation if you

[1:23:16] will took place probably the end of 2023 2024 when we resumed talking um

[1:23:24] things in the overall environment had changed. Uh so the intention was to make

[1:23:30] it more simple than it had been in 2022. So, a bit of context. Uh, the applicant

[1:23:37] in 2024 had engaged with the town in discussing some specific improvements

[1:23:43] that would be made at the intersection of Waltham and Park and in discussion

[1:23:49] with director of public works and planning director and myself. Um we had

[1:23:58] really been considering that the applicant himself would do the

[1:24:03] construction uh improvements to that intersection.

[1:24:07] Things have changed. You know rising cost of materials

[1:24:12] applicant desire to engage in work other than work to be done on the site has

[1:24:17] changed. So, we figured that to make it simple, we would just go to the planning

[1:24:22] board rules and regulations and ask for a monetary contribution against the

[1:24:28] bonus units that the town is giving to the applicant. Um, which is quantified

[1:24:32] in your rules and regs. Basically stipulates that each additional unit is

[1:24:39] worth $9,800.

[1:24:43] Includes an inflation factor of 2%. So 9,800 is indexed to FY21 or FY27. We

[1:24:52] increase the 9,800 to its appropriate amount, multiply it by the 20 units.

[1:24:57] We've arrived at a number which is 220,000. So essentially that amount will

[1:25:02] be given to us town and with that money we'll make improvements to open space

[1:25:09] that intersection um and continuity between

[1:25:13] believe to give people access to main screen

[1:25:19] spaces from wall from wallam and into your intersection

[1:25:29] » that was what we had discussed previously recall agreement

[1:25:35] sounded what >> open space

[1:25:39] and >> yeah so guys we're not as far as I

[1:25:43] understand we're not opening um any modification discussion of the VA

[1:25:49] through this request and I but it factors into my mind it's a

[1:25:57] democrat of a when you have to discuss the product

[1:26:01] yet. >> We're not being we're not being asked to

[1:26:03] modify any of that. We're just being asked to modify

[1:26:07] what was being discussed for some of the site conditions. So from my point of

[1:26:12] view any changes to to what was proposed prior is not up for discussion.

[1:26:21] That's my understanding. Did I miss something?

[1:26:27] Well, I disagree because development agreement is part of the requirement.

[1:26:33] Now, we've chosen to take it post approval when you're really supposed to

[1:26:37] be approved currently.

[1:26:42] So, I still think it's important change.

[1:26:48] All I'm saying is that I don't I don't agree with that.

[1:27:02] Well, I say

[1:27:08] I'm not condition that

[1:27:19] » it's it's we've done it both ways. It's um there's advantages to both, but um I

[1:27:25] mean if the reality is that the approval requires

[1:27:32] an agreement develop a development agreement before the the permit is

[1:27:37] valid. And so um that's pretty much as as

[1:27:46] direct as it can be. doesn't um but uh in in this case, you know, look

[1:27:53] at the complications from this from this project are clear. Everybody knows

[1:27:57] what's been going on with it and and and the uh difficulties and try to improve

[1:28:03] this intersection have been and it was been able to tackle for 20 years. It's

[1:28:08] it's a big undertaking and um but the development agreement is um something

[1:28:14] that is required by the bylaws but I don't think it's a question of evading

[1:28:19] it. It's a question of sequencing it and um if the board doesn't like it they

[1:28:25] don't sign off on it. Um however it's your it's your choice. you know, you can

[1:28:29] do it however you want, but I I would say it right now um you know, we have a

[1:28:35] uh an opportunity to improve this corner sign

[1:28:41] and the development agreement can do that and it needs to be negotiated and

[1:28:45] needs some time to do it. Fine. If the board,

[1:28:49] you know, feels circumstances changed since their last approval,

[1:28:56] but um it uh I think the only reason I brought Steve in was not to open it and

[1:29:01] not to give any sort of sense of opening. It was to give some

[1:29:05] transparency that here's what the story is right now. Also, I would point out

[1:29:11] that the board has um in the past uh typically worked with you know um

[1:29:21] worked with the development at least one member or something like that together.

[1:29:25] Um, so far as significant change, what was

[1:29:28] poor? That's something I >> Well, let's clarify, you categorized it

[1:29:33] as if the circumstances have changed, then the board was to change their mind

[1:29:37] if appropriate. >> Yes.

[1:29:40] » The terms of the development agreement are changing. That's what's changing.

[1:29:44] » Well, there it wasn't ex intent of the development agreement as

[1:29:50] we had understood it has changed. How's that going? What particular?

[1:29:56] » Well, if the funds are being given to specifically improve that intersection,

[1:30:03] » then that's different than the funds being given to generally improve

[1:30:07] pedestrian experiences in spaces in the town.

[1:30:10] » Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I I'm I can't speak to that.

[1:30:15] » I know you can. >> Right. Right. But but I I understand

[1:30:20] the legal counsel to see if that needs to be stipulated in the development

[1:30:23] agreement which I don't think it does. It doesn't really concern the

[1:30:28] » for sure to to be clear to the applicant right now.

[1:30:31] I guess this is maybe an internal conversation.

[1:30:35] I just want to make sure that if the intent of the improvements near the

[1:30:40] project are to improve that intersection,

[1:30:42] » that's what I want to happen. And we have struggled with this in the past

[1:30:46] with development agreements. So if there's a way to make it actually

[1:30:49] happen, that would be great. And I don't think saying improvement of pedestrian

[1:30:53] experience is going to do it. So maybe we can figure something.

[1:31:01] The special permit application says clearly that the project will provide

[1:31:05] pedestrian enhancements include ADA ramped signals crosswalk

[1:31:11] for the wall street inter that was all discussed plans were

[1:31:17] provided that would accomplish that right so so that's that's the bar and if

[1:31:23] that needs to be changed that needs

[1:31:32] So, um, all that said, I think obviously we need to find a continued state. Um,

[1:31:40] uh, Adam and James, uh, we have, let's see, we have meetings in

[1:31:48] the second and fourth Tuesday of September, which I believe is September

[1:31:53] 8th, and the following two weeks after that. So that is September 8th and the

[1:31:59] 22nd. Those are for the upcoming. Do you have a sense of when you may be able to

[1:32:06] finish off the changes discussed tonight?

[1:32:11] » Yeah, we'll be ready for September 8th for sure.

[1:32:14] » Okay. I just want to clarify that and I'll confer with Adam um that

[1:32:22] the lighting plans and the other plans Are we just noting or are we having them

[1:32:33] re-engineered?

[1:32:38] In my opinion, you just need to see a plan that shows accurate,

[1:32:44] shows accurate building, you know, shows everything and we will

[1:32:50] actually be able to accurately know what it's going to look like.

[1:32:54] » Yep. clouds to show.

[1:32:59] I think News.

[1:33:26] So I you guys have two options in the game plan or make it abund

[1:33:32] with um with what the proposal changes are and either

[1:33:40] one of the board will review. >> We'll make it clear for you.

[1:33:50] » All right. Um, now you said September 8th. Just be

[1:33:55] aware that's two weeks from tonight. So then we would need we would need see

[1:34:01] something in about a week. >> Yes.

[1:34:06] » So that staff has time to review. So we need to see submitts by September 3rd.

[1:34:14] » September 3rd.

[1:34:18] Um, well, September 1st is Tuesday. We need a week typically.

[1:34:23] » Okay. So, the first Okay. >> Right. So, you Is that still your final

[1:34:27] answer? September 8th. >> Yes.

[1:34:31] » Right. I'll make a motion to continue. Oh, sorry. Um, I'll open up for public

[1:34:35] comment. Um, Bill, can you check online if

[1:34:39] there's anyone online that would like your public comment for tonight? Let's

[1:34:43] see. Noting that there are no folks standing public comments here in the

[1:34:48] room, we will then go to online. >> If anyone call comments be entered,

[1:34:55] please raise use hand feature or raise your hand.

[1:35:06] Um, and Bill, I'm not seeing any hands being raised online either for public

[1:35:11] comment. Is that correct?

[1:35:15] No, I don't have any. >> All right. Then I will make a motion to

[1:35:19] continue to September 8th at 7.

[1:35:26] » Thank you. >> That's been seconded. All in favor for

[1:35:30] the continuence, please raise your hand to continue.

[1:35:35] Thank you gentlemen for coming in. Amy, thank you for your time.

[1:35:39] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you.

[1:35:44] Let's turn to one meeting.

[1:35:50] » Yes, set on August 11. Very long.

[1:35:58] » They're modact.

[1:36:14] That was a wing. That one

[1:36:19] minutes of August 11. All in favor, please

[1:36:29] update. Um, well,

[1:36:37] I believe that uh on our next I planned on bringing our um

[1:36:46] I'm going to pull one more for our zoning based on some recent

[1:36:51] changes. Uh so uh I'll explain that next week at the our next um

[1:36:59] meeting. But in a nutshell, it's our data center. We were going to have the

[1:37:03] ban of it. I think it is more rework. >> I spoke to Bill about this. Um I think

[1:37:10] it's important to be thoughtful time around because I'm so

[1:37:18] thoughtful about it. >> Right. Um and the the other things,

[1:37:22] let's see, we have uh we're finalizing the ADA update. Uh I think Friday is

[1:37:27] supposed to be the last visit. Um, that would be good. Um, and um, let me

[1:37:34] think if I'm missing anything else. We have, uh, new benches going in thanks to

[1:37:39] Steve on the rail trail. Um, which were, um, has to be have to be approved. Oh,

[1:37:47] right. Okay. He's got the they're going to town meeting, this town meeting to be

[1:37:53] approved by CPC, CPC budget. So,

[1:37:59] from that border to um the corner with Brooks and Maple SL

[1:38:08] three sites roughly along the same lines as the the mile markers.

[1:38:13] » Great. So proportional and that's not thanks to me. That's

[1:38:17] thanks to resident David Brown who advocated for it and the CPC their

[1:38:23] wisdom saw fit too.

[1:38:27] » That was in the mobility survey, right? For sure. They need more.

[1:38:35] » That's right. Well, they're going out to expect the area on on Friday. That's

[1:38:38] what we did. The other thing which does include uh Mr. turns off uh which was

[1:38:45] good. We are going to talk I talked to uh the affordable housing trust chair

[1:38:50] today and um so we would like to um he

[1:38:55] reiterated that we would like to see if we can work with the AHT the portal

[1:39:01] housing trust on um implementing we'll see some of the new uh initiatives that

[1:39:07] come out of the uh housing production plan updates and maybe because we're

[1:39:11] limited in what we can do now with the water and stuff. So, we agreed that a

[1:39:15] closer collaboration with our our our um our our groups would be beneficial and

[1:39:22] could come up with some innovative um some innovative strategies on a very

[1:39:27] small scale, but using uh there's some budgets of funding available and um

[1:39:34] maybe come up with something that works forwarding our affordable housing goals.

[1:39:38] So, I thought that was really exciting and um

[1:39:43] I think that's everything I got. Zoe's going to attend our next planning board

[1:39:47] meeting. I I've asked her to handle the zoning articles to keep trying to get

[1:39:52] her some experience with that and stuff. So, I'm going to have her um when we uh

[1:39:57] next uh in next meeting, I'm going to have Zoe run the zoning part anyway,

[1:40:02] zoning this part and care of the uh projects.

[1:40:08] And I think that's all I got. We have um

[1:40:14] regulations.

[1:40:20] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Chris can Chris you can meet with

[1:40:24] Zoe on that right or you're going to you have the

[1:40:28] » I'm meeting with Zoe about best stuff right and then the the but the ex you're

[1:40:35] talking about the expedited or the uh what do you call consolidated

[1:40:40] permitting for for energy systems yet we're we're in the middle of that now

[1:40:48] » yeah we have a grant for that's

[1:40:56] more exciting than that. There's nothing more.

[1:40:59] » All right. Well, subdivision.

[1:41:03] Oh, yeah. That's that I have to pin that on Wayne. Still, they're not going to

[1:41:09] have it until the spring. >> Okay. So, we're not we're not going to

[1:41:12] be >> No. And I'm No.

[1:41:18] » No.

[1:41:25] Good point. 16 street.

[1:41:30] » Yeah. Who is working on that? Is it the five bus

[1:41:37] involved? Who's going to be who's going to have

[1:41:44] I have my minutes? Um if anybody has anybody 16 Waltham has we've had uh

[1:41:54] » we had we had

[1:42:01] » two meetings >> I don't think

[1:42:07] no did we

[1:42:11] just >> I just want to make sure when we do act

[1:42:16] Well, yeah. Or or if in doubt, we mowing whoever's not in they watch the movie.

[1:42:24] That's not funny.

[1:42:28] The video. All right. Sorry. The talking pictures they watch.

[1:42:36] That's not right. Were there questions that the neighbor and powder mill raised

[1:42:42] about this building that >> I don't think we talk about the opinion

[1:42:47] » but we we closed or we continue the hearing so we can't really talk about

[1:42:54] you talk >> okay

[1:42:56] » can't talk specifics but what I can say is in general

[1:43:00] board members can review the comments roll it into their consideration how

[1:43:05] they go >> I'll be happy to talk

[1:43:08] meeting we told the public

[1:43:13] I'll answer anything we open it up for public comments or for

[1:43:18] public comments those can be provided as well but do you and board members have

[1:43:24] um I personally I I typically don't um any we just we just hear comments you

[1:43:32] know I don't make effort it's up to

[1:43:42] And that is everything we have folks.

[1:43:48] » I'll make a motion to close second

[1:43:55] to close the time. Okay.

[1:43:59] » Thank you. Thanks, guys. Good meeting.

Planning Board 08 25 26

Transcript