[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.