[0:08] Thanks. Um, sorry everyone. I think we had trouble here at town hall. Um, Jim,

[0:14] » can you give us a >> Oh, you can hear us?

[0:17] » Yep. Yeah, back. >> Great. Um, I'll just start where we left

[0:20] off. Sure.

[0:57] Question number four.

[1:04] » Okay.

[1:08] Um well, are we still on?

[1:12] » Yes.

[1:17] » Hey, Jim, can you give me um an audio check?

[1:33] I think we may have had a power power issue. So, I just heard a UPS

[1:41] device go off. >> Yeah,

[1:43] » everything looks frozen. James

[1:52] Oh, >> can you hear us, Annie?

[1:54] » Yeah. >> All right. Can we get another audio

[1:56] check, please? >> I can hear you. Yeah.

[2:00] » Sorry, we're having power surges here at town hall. At least it's not a water

[2:04] issue here this week. >> Um

[2:08] » volcano gas next week.

[2:11] » Okay. Um, so what I've taken from this meeting, Jim, is um um some

[2:18] uh changes to the the parking canopy area to as we discussed.

[2:24] Um was there any other changes requested from the board?

[2:31] » They got a walkway. >> Walkway and then the walkway

[2:37] um >> at the end of the powder mill walkway

[2:38] within the garage, >> right? has it um changed

[2:43] update the so that the

[2:57] » um sorry I think we're still having issues

[3:01] here guys. Um Jim, two the two changes I'm tracking are the canopy design

[3:07] feature and the walkway that so that it doesn't terminate into a dead end into a

[3:13] parking spot under under the building

[3:19] » have contingent upon

[3:26] » or as a contingency for the

[3:35] I think we have the evidence. Uh

[3:40] we need to folks to complete

[3:46] the canopy.

[3:52] Would the board be okay with a update to the canopy design being approved by

[4:01] somebody. >> No freaking way.

[4:05] » We would need to see design changes in that, I think.

[4:09] Um Okay. Um

[4:19] other comments from the board. Do you had a development agreement question?

[4:22] Well, I'm going to do it.

[4:35] » Anybody missing a 16 wall cam launch? >> I got two.

[4:41] » Good.

[4:48] » What's a better story?

[5:00] It's very

[5:06] orthopedic.

[5:13] » Is that okay? It's a small fractional.

[5:19] No, that that seems if it's small. >> Yeah.

[5:24] » Yeah.

[5:39] Seems something.

[5:42] » That's true. >> Mr. Chair.

[5:47] » All right. I will open up this meeting of the Maynard Planning Board. Today's

[5:51] date is September 8th, 2026. The time is 7:02 p.m. Uh, all members of the

[5:57] planning board are here in town hall. Uh, this meeting is being held in hybrid

[6:01] format, which means that members of the board, the public or applicants can

[6:05] participate here in town hall or or virtually through the Zoom link. And

[6:09] please note this meeting is being recorded.

[6:12] Bill, um, we'll skip item one minutes. Okay. Were

[6:18] you anticipating going right to item two? Wall 16 WM Street.

[6:23] » Um I'm sorry. >> We can go to item two 16 W Street.

[6:27] » Okay, you can do that. Um >> do before I open up the continuence. Um

[6:34] are our is the applicant here or virtually?

[6:36] » Um yes, Mr. Clemens is here and >> Okay.

[6:41] » All right. Then I will uh open up the open up the public hearing for 16

[6:48] Waltham Street. This is a continuence from August 25th 5th, 2026.

[6:54] And this is an application filed by um Mr. Daniel Souza and council.

[7:02] » Bill, do you want to give us a primer and then

[7:06] » and then we'll turn it over to the applicants team.

[7:10] Um well um just picking up from the previous

[7:16] meeting or um going further back on that >> just where we're at.

[7:20] » Okay. >> The status since the last meeting.

[7:22] » Yes. So there were some questions remaining at the last meeting about um

[7:26] particular details of the site including parking

[7:30] and um snow storage. some modifications were were requested of the applicant to

[7:36] show an updated plan and um the applicant has provided an updated site

[7:41] plan which changes the parking configuration as a snow storage area.

[7:47] I'll pull that up on the screen.

[8:06] Let me share the screen for the back.

[8:30] I might zoom this video.

[8:40] Okay. So the modified site plan uh now

[8:46] includes three angle parking spaces on the right

[8:51] side of the site, two tandem spaces remain and one space on the other side

[8:56] of the retaining wall. Um and a snow storage area in the front

[9:03] most area of parking or the end of parking next to the other lumber

[9:07] retaining wall. Um

[9:13] At this point, >> would you like to turn it over to the

[9:19] applicants council? >> If there's no other updates from from

[9:21] you or Bill, then yes. >> So, we made a trip.

[9:25] » We made the trip over just a research trip. Yes.

[9:29] We did make a trip over and I just sent you some photographs, some additional

[9:33] photographs. I'll attach it just to kind of add some perspective to the um

[9:38] women's face. >> Okay. Uh well, I'll turn this over to

[9:41] the applicants council and just reminder, if you could identify yourself

[9:44] for the record, please. >> Absolutely. Good evening, planning

[9:48] board. Uh my name is Ryan Clemens of RIW at 255 State Street in Boston. Here

[9:54] tonight on behalf of Daniel Souza, the owner of 16 Waltham Street. And as was

[9:59] just summarized, we previously presented our application for special permit and

[10:04] site plan review to the board after hearing comments back about the

[10:08] configuration of parking and other details. We've since updated the site

[10:12] plan to show the six parking spaces, the lighting, the trash and recycling

[10:18] storage, and the snow storage as well. And I want to note too that the two

[10:23] tandem spots in the driveway are how is how the um parking currently works at

[10:28] the property and that the owner Daniel Souza uses those two spots himself. Uh

[10:34] so there is no coordination across units or um difficulties with uh the logistics

[10:41] of that configuration. He plans to keep those two spaces for uh his own use as

[10:46] well. And then the other tenants have the use of the easier um spots. And uh

[11:01] » we're having some trouble with your audio.

[11:06] » Your audio is dropping out a little bit. >> Yep. Um Mr. Mr. Clemens, um can you just

[11:11] back up about 15 seconds and repeat it? We had some trouble with your audio.

[11:15] » Sure. I'm hearing a bit of um static on my end, but sometimes when I talk it

[11:20] goes down. Hopefully, you can hear me now. Uh

[11:24] let the board's comments address and happy to answer any more questions

[11:27] tonight. Looking to close out the uh application for the special permit and

[11:32] the site plan review. >> Thank you.

[11:36] » Um questions from the board.

[11:45] Um the um parking dimensions aren't

[11:51] for the zoning requirements. They they have to request a waiver or is that

[11:55] explicit? >> I don't know.

[11:59] » Um what you could do for the uh you said for the I didn't hear for the reduced

[12:03] parking dimensions. >> Uh yes. Right.

[12:07] » Yeah. the planning board. Uh in this case, um I they're going to be granting

[12:12] a special permit if they choose to for multifamily and approving the site plan

[12:17] amendments dated as whatever as a special permit granting authority uh

[12:23] planning board can approve uh for um parking specifically under the parking

[12:30] section of zoning bylaws. So that would be a a um a uh special permit allowing a

[12:37] deviation from the zoning mile. >> So Bill's question was whether the site

[12:42] plan since it shows the dimensions do not meet the the parking requirements.

[12:48] Is it is it implicit in the site plan or do we do they actually need to have an

[12:52] actual waiver that gets voted on? >> I would I would

[12:56] quickly note that the parking dimensions do uh comply with the bylaw. there the

[13:01] compact small space dimensions and there is nothing in the bylaw that prevents

[13:06] that for this site for this number of parking spaces or for this use

[13:13] » um

[13:22] Mr. I'm just curious I want to make sure because if not I'd request a special

[13:27] permanent waiver but uh is the are the small I got it pulled up in front of me.

[13:32] I thought there was a um it's only triggered after certain number of units.

[13:36] I I could be wrong. Let me look real quick.

[13:39] » Yeah. And we're out at the uh four units and the other requirements for the split

[13:47] between the um the compact spaces and the regular are for uh other uses that

[13:55] aren't the residential use here. I said I think

[14:10] » Okay. Um while Bill looks into that, what other questions from the board?

[14:15] » Um just the general comment of you know there's not a lot of

[14:22] maneuverability in the site. So, I'd like to do what we can to

[14:29] protect the sidewalk. Um, maybe a little fence railing or I

[14:36] think um earlier Bill Nezer had uh you know thrown out the idea of putting uh

[14:42] uh uh plantings there in in pots.

[14:47] Um some something that would protect the uh the sidewalk from cars trying to

[14:53] maneuver out these tight spaces. on the non-curb cut side of the

[14:58] property. >> Uh yeah, right. Yeah. I mean the curb

[15:01] cut whatever the 24 ft for the curb cut and then the rest of it has some sort of

[15:07] protection.

[15:12] » Um m Mr. Clemens, did you did you hear that comment? And is that something that

[15:16] could be amendable to the applicant? >> That could be amendable to the

[15:20] applicant. I just want to note too that these parking spaces are designed with

[15:23] the turnaround angles and radiuses prescribed by the bylaw. And I want to

[15:28] note too that the um that the sidewalk is shown between the blue line and the

[15:37] uh black line. So there's um even with the uh spot number six which is closest

[15:44] to the sidewalk there they would have full visibility of this block uh for

[15:50] passing

[15:59] other questions or comments from the board

[16:05] um where I I can't seem to find the the lights

[16:10] located on this figure. It's just at the doors.

[16:19] » So, the lights are indicated in that kind of greenish

[16:25] beige. >> There's one on the right. Uh, one to

[16:30] slightly left of that and then uh above the middle door and two above the

[16:37] garage. >> Got it. Three, four, five. Three. Mhm.

[16:42] » Got it. Okay. Thank you.

[16:47] » I would just say, >> Bill, did you happen to find an answer

[16:51] to that parking question? >> Yes. Um, I think that I I'm not sure of

[16:59] uh Mr. Clemen's um I I understand but I I I'm reading it a little differently.

[17:04] Um but that it's parking facilities for um

[17:13] where there's a greater number than 40 stalls.

[17:17] That was my understanding of section 6.9, Mr. Clemens. But I um and I believe

[17:24] that the the easiest way to address this would be just wrap it into the special

[17:31] permit and approve the parking as depicted in exhibit A, which would be

[17:36] the revised site plan. It it it just makes it tidy. Now, do you Does that

[17:41] make sense to you, Mr. Clemens? >> It does. And if the board's amendable to

[17:45] that, whatever is easiest is best for us as well. I don't know if you saw what

[17:49] I'm talking about, but I believe that that's the way I read it. And that was

[17:52] my understanding for compact cars, but um our our reading was that um this is a

[17:59] residential use and parking facility doesn't fall within that. It's a um a

[18:05] parking it's not for uh commercial use or a

[18:10] uh large public parking lot. Uh so there is no specific requirement between the

[18:17] um the small and the standard other than um the bylaws general. they shall be the

[18:24] size the sizes which the uh bylaw has the two

[18:30] » um okay well that's just a you know but I think the tidiest way to do it um and

[18:36] as we're trying to just bring this you know the applicants been working hard

[18:40] enough to get hope he's on um to get u make this compliant and I I

[18:46] think that would just tidy it up in the easiest way Mr. chair. That would be my

[18:50] suggestion. Um and and the way I would would be inclined to do that would be

[18:54] that the uh planning board grants uh approves the parking plan as um

[19:01] presented in the applicant site plan dated such and such and will attaches

[19:06] exhibit one the special permit. I I think it just

[19:11] » that would be my suggestion and if uh Mr. I'm just good with that and I would

[19:14] say that would be >> that I plan to reference the site plan

[19:18] in the special permit. >> Yeah. And

[19:21] » yeah, that makes sense as well.

[19:26] » And and I just want to confirm I think the applicant said that uh the

[19:31] dimensions are such that it does not require backing out onto Waltham Street

[19:35] to exit the lot.

[19:40] » I believe so. with the um looking at the plan that six spot would be the closest

[19:45] to the street. You can see that this would be able to back out um and go uh

[19:51] parallel to the street uh by the driveway to the garage at which point it

[19:57] can turn out slightly and uh see the full street without having to pull into

[20:03] the sidewalk or the road at that point. >> Okay. I'm I'm just making sure that you

[20:10] know from a potential approval of the site plan, we're not approving backing

[20:15] out on Waltham Street having six. >> No, I don't think in the um none of the

[20:21] spots have that challenge or that difficulty. It

[20:25] would be enough. Any of them would have enough room to either on the first try

[20:30] back out to have a view and the access to just drive straight or to um to

[20:36] reorient themselves to not have to back into the street.

[20:41] » Okay. And uh I believe um

[20:46] oh no sorry different.

[20:54] » Does the board want to request um some type of device to protect the

[21:01] sidewalk as mentioned earlier?

[21:08] » Bill, what were you thinking? I thought someers

[21:11] » I thought some small planters would serve two purposes. It would protect the

[21:14] sidewalk but it also softens the view a little bit

[21:18] » and I think if the applicant was willing on their property, not in town property.

[21:23] » Um I think there's room there and I think that would be a good mitigation

[21:26] and it would look nice. Um it could be something that the board could uh if

[21:31] they wanted to look at it after one of the board bees designated to approve it.

[21:34] But I think a a good planner would look nice in that area would be my opinion. I

[21:38] think it also would help define the snow storage so it doesn't get

[21:42] » that's a good question property. >> That's a good point too.

[21:48] » That was my question to um this comment on the planners in the in the same uh

[21:56] same consideration of not backing out onto the street and having enough room

[21:59] to turn around as well as access to the snow storage area. Um,

[22:06] also from the uh

[22:10] that wouldn't that wouldn't impede where the snow was going to go and where cars

[22:14] and where uh uh pedestrians would go. Where on the plan were you thinking

[22:19] those would go? >> Well, just in in the um so could you

[22:25] pull that up, please? And um I just on the little doodle I sent you guys um

[22:33] um it it was just right uh just basically where the snow storage is just

[22:38] some I I just proposed some planners to the um

[22:42] » if you share that screen Zoe I can describe it.

[22:48] I think the thought is to place a planter or two

[22:54] immediately below the phrase snow storage area along the sidewalk. As we

[23:00] know, the curbs in that area are just pretty low. So, I think a um

[23:06] differentiation between the sidewalk and the parking lot would be useful. And so

[23:11] if there were just a planter that could be moved when necessary, you know, if

[23:15] you were doing some work, but that would remain there to delineate the property

[23:21] line would might be useful. >> Yeah, I would also have a planter that

[23:26] extends the length of the sidewalk up to the curb cut. You can see the

[23:34] You can see the curb there. So, right curve, right?

[23:38] » Yep. >> Yeah. I mean that curve cuts offset from

[23:42] the sidewalk. It's a little farther up than that, too. I don't think it'd be a

[23:46] solid line. I mean, just three or four maybe.

[23:57] » Uh board, would this be as a mitigation? >> I think it would improve the pedestrian

[24:05] experience. >> That's a Okay.

[24:08] Um, when it comes to the dimensions of the parking spaces, I don't have any

[24:13] concerns.

[24:21] » Bill, how do we close this hearing with with this concept?

[24:25] » Um, what would what we would do would be there's a number of people on on the uh

[24:31] Zoom that might want to speak. I don't and uh I don't have anybody in here. So

[24:36] if anybody I don't know if anybody hears for this project.

[24:39] » I will open up for for public comment in a minute. But how do we close this

[24:43] hearing with um with this concept of planters?

[24:50] » Well, we just added as condition >> just a condition

[24:53] » and I would say that there's some I would say one of the

[24:57] board to approve it after if they wanted to look at it or staff.

[25:01] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[25:03] » I would say town staff on this one. >> Yeah. I think is completely appropriate.

[25:07] So, Mr. Clemens, the the the condition that's being would be proposed by the

[25:11] board would be to add planters as um as discussed

[25:18] um as a condition and then approved in the field by town staff.

[25:24] Do you have any concern about that?

[25:29] as long as the um as the planters don't interfere with the use of the driveway

[25:35] for safe ingress and egress and for snow storage.

[25:41] I think both of those can be maintained and I think that is that is the um

[25:49] uh that is the concept here right so egress shall not be um impeded snow

[25:58] storage may be used and the addition of some type of small planting

[26:04] um to distinguish and delineate that area

[26:08] as a Any

[26:14] other comments from the board?

[26:19] Um, Bill, I'll let's open up the public comment. Uh, if there's members of the

[26:23] public uh that would like to comment on this project virtually. If you're on the

[26:28] Zoom call, please use the raise hand feature or raise your hand and we will

[26:32] call on you. And Bill, I don't believe there's any members of the public here

[26:37] to give public comment in town hall. Is that correct?

[26:39] » Correct. >> Okay.

[26:42] Um I'm not seeing any public comments on the Zoom. Is that correct, Bill?

[26:47] » I don't see any. Anybody have Last chance, would you raise your hand,

[26:50] please? Use the raise hand feature if you'd like to speak.

[26:55] » Um all right. U before I close, Mr. Clemen, is there any additional

[26:58] information that you or the applicant would like to present to the board at

[27:02] this time? I believe we've covered every update

[27:06] since the uh last meeting and since our initial presentation and uh the board

[27:11] doesn't have any other questions. We're we're set to

[27:16] board. >> Nope.

[27:18] » All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing.

[27:21] » Second. All in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand. That's

[27:25] 50 to close the hearing. bill. Um

[27:30] the request here so I'm clear is a

[27:36] special permit and site plan review. Correct.

[27:40] » The um Mr. Chair, the request is for the special permit for multif family use in

[27:47] the in the DoD, but for a modification of the previously approved site plan

[27:51] dated July

[27:56] uh

[28:00] 7, 1987.

[28:08] Okay. So, it's a modification of site plan and a special permit for four unit

[28:12] residential >> multi family use.

[28:14] » Multi family use. >> Is that a DoD special permit?

[28:20] » Yes.

[28:26] » All right. I'm going to try to make a motion. Um

[28:30] I will make a motion to um let's see.

[28:37] Um, I I make a motion to find that the um that the applicant's presentation and

[28:46] application presented during the hearing um has met

[28:51] the requirements of a special permit for the downtown Overlay district for a

[28:57] 4unit multifamily use uh as well as uh a modification of a

[29:03] site plan dated from July 7th, 1986. 7 um updated to the site plan presented in

[29:12] this public hearing including tonight which is dated

[29:17] um I have June 3rd 2026 but there I believe

[29:24] there's an updated date on that >> 94

[29:27] » there is yep um with revision of uh September 2nd 2026

[29:35] as presented tonight labeled the concept plan of land. Um, including in this

[29:42] motion is a condition for planters that were discussed along the property

[29:51] boundary adjacent to the sidewalk within the snow storage area.

[29:56] Um, to distinguish the uh sidewalk from from the um the egress itself.

[30:04] » Is there Oh. waiver. Any other special permits?

[30:08] » Uh if we're I would say the um the approved the special permit approves the

[30:13] site plan and um my reference and as um an exhibit.

[30:20] » Yep. And the special permit um also approves the site plan as um as its

[30:28] first exhibit.

[30:32] » Do we have to say that it meets the conditions of the 10.4? for special

[30:35] permit as well or just the DoD special permit.

[30:38] » I don't know. >> We should we should we should

[30:41] » it should it should include them. >> Okay. So the motion was that it met the

[30:45] special permit criteria of the downtown Overlay district which is 9.4. I al this

[30:51] motion also will find that the special permit meets the criteria of the general

[30:57] special permit criteria of of section 10.4

[31:01] of our um zoning bylaws.

[31:07] And that is the motion. >> I'll second that.

[31:11] » All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. That's 50 to approve. Mr.

[31:17] Clemens, uh, thank you for your time. Um, and thank you to your applicant.

[31:23] » Thank you all very much. >> Okay.

[31:29] » All right, Bill. Um, item three. Let's continue the public

[31:34] hearing for 26 Powdermill Road. This is a continuence from August 25th, 2026.

[31:41] This is a request for modification of a special permit and site plan um from uh

[31:47] Adam Stack ASMC LLC. Um and this this is a continuence of the

[31:54] discussion from our last meeting. Um Bill, do you want to give us an update

[32:00] and then we'll turn it over? I believe we have we had some design comments to

[32:04] work through. >> Yes, we have.

[32:06] » So, we'll turn it over to the design group um the design teams after your

[32:12] comments. So at our last uh meeting um we worked

[32:17] our way through a number of uh the uh design changes um

[32:24] which were um there was a couple of aspects regarding location lighting uh

[32:30] and a couple of um modifications regarding the or clarifications

[32:35] regarding the entrance on powder mill where there's a question of

[32:42] um a recess being added to to the uh entrance to the

[32:47] structure. Um the applicant has provided a an updated um site plan. Uh the the

[32:54] the site plan is provided last week uh didn't have the um the clouding that the

[33:00] board had asked for caused a little bit of delay, but we do have that uh I

[33:04] believe here with everything clouded changes clouded. Um reviewing um before

[33:10] we turn it over um to the applicant just to um refresh the board um this is a

[33:18] modification existing site plan special permit that was

[33:23] uh centered on building design largely. So there is um no change to the

[33:28] footprint. Uh any changes that are highlighted I'll leave to the arctic and

[33:34] um the applicant to explain. Uh the only other addition that the board um

[33:41] uh requested was clarification also on the

[33:44] bike rack area which is called out as well. Now it's in the same basic area

[33:50] but with that um we also did speak to the the uh fire department. I did uh

[33:57] and um uh the applicants speak to that but in

[34:02] general everything is um would remain the same as the original approval with

[34:07] that which for the rollup design the builder would work with the uh fire

[34:12] chief to on the specifics the dimensions uh are are um we speak to that but

[34:19] they're adequate for the ambulance um the ladder truck um is it I think the uh

[34:27] fire chief's comment addressed that it's not proposed to go in to build and um

[34:34] with that I think I turn it over to um the applicant uh James

[34:41] good evening Mr. chairman, members of the board, uh Jim Jokus, architect with

[34:47] Jokus Architecture Incorporated. Uh I just want to go over exactly what the

[34:54] chairman had mentioned. Uh just share screen. I think that's the

[35:00] easiest. >> Let's send a request to share screen.

[35:05] » Y okay. Thank you.

[35:10] And uh let's see.

[35:20] So

[35:23] as mentioned the clouded area is shown on the site

[35:29] plans showing the bike rack here. We also

[35:37] in the rendering you see the bike rack here as well

[35:44] regarding um what rendering are we looking

[35:50] » sure >> this is wallan street

[35:55] oh uh is it not shared >> we're still on the clouded drawing

[36:01] that's clouded >> okay here we Ah, thank you.

[36:04] » Okay. >> Yep.

[36:05] » So, the bike rack here. All right. Um, also in this rendering,

[36:13] you'll see that the uh the rendering has been adjusted to

[36:19] show the proper location of this screening element here

[36:26] uh in line with the face of the building here.

[36:35] Just going to flip to another back to this drawing

[36:43] here. So

[36:54] just a little. Okay. So this these are the proposed screening area and the two

[37:01] columns that are proposed to be removed slid back to the proposed face of the

[37:08] new building. So it's shown here the new privacy screen location.

[37:16] Uh the next item is that since

[37:23] this column right here is being removed Loretta here and I've got a bet writing

[37:31] on this

[37:35] » the column here

[37:42] is gone. So therefore,

[37:51] um there is no light. So there's no light to mount on the

[37:56] column. So the light is being removed. So we just wanted to make sure that was

[37:59] well noted. Um

[38:03] also that the other two lights underneath the proposed walkway

[38:09] are shown here. their same lights as underneath the parking as the original

[38:15] approved lights which all lights shall be in accordance with um the dark sky

[38:22] compliance.

[38:26] Um line item four for us.

[38:32] Uh it's also the where the calls removed. Oh, let's see. Five.

[38:40] Okay, we just wanted to also make sure that the building facade um facing outer

[38:49] mill road will be set back just enough so that all the elements of the building

[38:58] are on the correct side of the stepbacks. So

[39:04] there'll be no elements of the building including roof overhangs,

[39:09] uh front entrances, any bumpouts, including the foundations underground

[39:15] shall all be back within the step back of the front as well as all the other

[39:24] sides. But the other sides there's really no issues. But that just to

[39:28] clarify will be uh

[39:34] all set back from this front line.

[39:38] So no parts of the building shall go beyond any setbacks.

[39:49] Back to the renderings. Let's see.

[40:01] Okay. So,

[40:05] this element up here

[40:10] as recommended to be similar to other buildings in town. to show the cornises

[40:19] and the extensions to give a better um traditional detail.

[40:28] The hardcape and landscape

[40:33] elements have also been updated on the civil drawings.

[40:43] Just want to make sure I get the right All

[41:01] right. So, basically the clouded area is showing where there's alterations to the

[41:09] proposed landscaping. So, hardcape landscape elements

[41:15] which is basically minimal. It was just the removal of columns

[41:20] in those areas. Can you zoom in on the landscape change?

[41:26] I don't seem to have a hard copy to look at.

[41:29] » Sure. Uh this

[41:40] pages

[41:54] so the the pvious pave sidewalk and the public access. All these elements were

[42:01] already on the original uh 2024 set. Um

[42:12] and uh let's see. Does this show anymore?

[42:17] Basically the same. It's just

[42:24] so on the entrance way from Waltham Street. we don't gain any landscaping by

[42:28] moving that column back.

[42:32] » Um, it was originally shown as just a pave patio area and we're still showing

[42:38] as a pvious um paver patio area.

[42:45] So picnics and picnic tables,

[42:50] benches, a great place to hang out, you know,

[42:55] along riverside.

[43:17] Um, any other changes, Jim, that you need to highlight?

[43:20] » Uh, sure. I guess, uh, let's see. The Waltham Street gate. Uh, let's see.

[43:28] Back to the renderings. This, uh, let me see. Share the screen.

[43:38] This gate here is to stop Um we continuously close and to prevent

[43:48] people from coming in and out off of Walam Street, but in the need the fire

[43:54] chief can or um any emergency apparatus can just uh easily get through this. Um

[44:02] it'll be a um a breakable link that um you know if they really needed to get

[44:11] in quick, they can just bump it with the bumper and get in or just stop and cut

[44:15] it and get in.

[44:22] Um let's see. There is there was talk about

[44:27] um the affordable units and a proposal to

[44:35] um alter that but um there is none at this point. It will stay with the

[44:40] original nine units with five units um at 80% AMI and four of the units being

[44:48] 60% AMI. Um and that's all per the original

[44:52] approvals. The other item uh let's see

[44:59] is that since uh and I believe uh the bill the chairman uh researched this as

[45:07] well and the only real change that would affect this building from the 2024

[45:15] approval and actually uh permitted set in 2026

[45:21] would be the dark sky compliance. with the lighting and all lights will

[45:27] exterior light shall be in accordance with the dark sky compliance.

[45:33] Uh the other item is that this once again

[45:39] this gate um and the entrance off of Walan Street

[45:44] and the rest of it um according to the building code you're required to at

[45:49] least provide a height of 82 to provide uh am um ambulatory vans such as

[45:59] handicap wheelchair accessible vans. to allow them to open up their um the

[46:06] backs and the fronts and any pieces to get in and out properly. But fire

[46:11] departments tend to have bigger pieces of equipment and we're

[46:18] obviously going to make any adjustments to the height requirements

[46:22] if um the chief wants us to do so. It helps make sure that this building is

[46:30] accessible by any uh emergency um equipment

[46:37] and it also allows them to purchase uh pieces of equipment of certain

[46:43] heights and it doesn't pigeon hole them into um staying within a certain height

[46:49] restriction to service all the buildings in town.

[46:54] So, um I believe right now they look they have a 12 foot ladder truck and a 9

[47:01] and 1/2t um emergency ambulance. So, it would be a discussion that we

[47:09] definitely u would have with them and make sure that everything conforms to

[47:15] what they want.

[47:20] The last item

[47:24] um actually has already been addressed. It was just the the overhangs of the

[47:29] roof, making sure that they're set back. I'd be happy to address any other

[47:36] concerns or any other questions.

[47:41] Thanks, Jim. Um Amy, I believe you joined this meeting. Are are you on?

[47:50] » Yes, I am. >> Hi, Amy. Thanks for joining. Um, I just

[47:54] wanted to get your final sense if you had any final feedback about the project

[47:59] for the board and and particularly if there's anything that from your review

[48:04] uh would remain um sort of loosely non-compliant with our bylaws as you

[48:09] reviewed them. >> We issued a letter yesterday. Apologies

[48:14] for the delay on this. Um we had two comments. One James already addressed

[48:20] which he mentioned everything from that front entry area would be pulled back um

[48:26] behind the property line. We had noticed that that front three stories was

[48:30] probably still overhanging the property line um even when the canopy was

[48:34] deleted. So I think as long as they push the building back, which I'm sure they

[48:38] will do, um they'll be in compliance with that. There was a second comment

[48:42] that we made on the letter. Um and we had missed this in the first review um

[48:47] because we noticed that that facade was looked like I measured it in blue beam

[48:52] James it was about 136 feet long. The bylaws require um I think it's a 3%

[48:59] change in depth for every 100 feet or that's one of the recommended strategies

[49:03] that you could do to mitigate the length for longer facads that are highly

[49:08] visible from the public way. um because there's not a lot of landscaping in

[49:13] front of this. You know, there's some landscape screening in front of the

[49:16] transformer, which is that lower right um rectangle um if you look at the lower

[49:22] right rendering. Um but that's not going to be enough to screen the facade. So,

[49:26] we would um we'd recommend doing something um

[49:33] I played around with chat GPT. I hate to do this to you, James, but you could

[49:37] break up the facade. I don't think you need to set it back a lot, but you could

[49:41] break it up with like three uh vertical divisions of the building

[49:46] with a slight recess that might help um just mitigate some of the horizontal um

[49:52] length of the building and that would be a simple solution. You know, happy to

[49:56] share the image if it's helpful. Um you guys, you don't need to take it. Um I

[50:00] guess um but I was just trying to think through some some easier um solutions

[50:06] without changing the building footprint at this point because I I don't think a

[50:09] 4ft setback is realistic for the applicant. And it's really I would say

[50:13] this is up to the planning board if this warrants a

[50:17] a change in the in the design on the elevation um because of the longer

[50:21] elevation and and your bylaws. >> Um can I ask a clarifying question

[50:27] » Amy? Is this something that um m should have been reviewed during the

[50:34] original hearings? And I ask it in the context of

[50:38] » Mhm. >> did any of the proposed changes the

[50:41] applicant make uh trigger, you know, uh this being an item for discussion?

[50:50] » I think um the previous design, I'm trying to remember it exactly, it had a

[50:54] number of material changes. um you know whether you define those as being

[50:59] integral with the building. And so there was a number of material changes along

[51:03] this facade that went from brick to fiber cement um large format panels and

[51:09] that did help break up the scale. Now with everything at brick with these long

[51:13] horizontal bands you notice the length more um which is why we noticed it in

[51:18] this last review. >> Okay. I would say this is up to the

[51:22] planning board's discretion if you want to do anything on this.

[51:26] » Thank Thanks, Amy. Jim, do you have any I know it's short notice, but do you

[51:30] have any thoughts on that? >> Uh, we'd be amendable to anything that

[51:34] the board suggests as long as it doesn't,

[51:38] » you know, >> yeah,

[51:39] » further us into another whole round of design and discussions.

[51:46] So, um,

[51:51] » let me do this first. Does the board understand, um, any questions about

[51:55] what's being discussed at this moment? >> It's 136. And how long is it supposed to

[51:59] be if we're going to break it up? >> 100 ft. So, you're 36 feet over. And I

[52:05] noted in my comments, there's quite a few examples in downtown Maynard where

[52:09] you've got and really Maynard um where you have longer facads.

[52:20] » I don't care. >> Well, if the board can think about it

[52:23] for a moment, let's let's let's table that and um does let's go to board

[52:28] questions then. Um does the board have any questions or comments for the

[52:32] applicant? Well, related to the topic that they were discussing the moving the

[52:38] building back a little bit so the cornice doesn't overhang the rightway.

[52:44] Is that how does that show up on the plans that get approved?

[52:49] » Jim, >> um did you hear that?

[52:52] » Sure. I guess uh really right now we're we're just

[52:56] showing a massing. There's no and forever that's always driven me nuts

[53:03] on um civil engineering drawings not

[53:08] dimensioning but basically all it shows is edge of

[53:14] building on the civil plans and it's set back. So regardless of

[53:23] so but in reality

[53:28] the face of brick will most likely be right around 12 to

[53:36] 14 in back from the city's property line or the line of the sidewalk.

[53:46] And that will give us enough um cushion to not give the concrete

[53:52] installers a heart attack and to make sure that all the elements are set back.

[54:00] And so basically all elements would be

[54:05] within a couple inches of the actual setback.

[54:21] Is is there a way to is there a standard way to to document

[54:26] that in site plan designs, Jim? >> In site plan designs? Um, no. That's

[54:35] there's a check in balances during construction.

[54:39] Um you the surveyor who generated these plans or was part of

[54:48] generating these plans would go out and show

[54:53] um stake out where the footings would go and then once the footings are poured

[55:00] they come back and put a nail they call pinning the foundation. They actually

[55:06] drive a little nail into where the forms go and they pour the foundation

[55:12] at that location and then they come back after the forms have been stripped off

[55:20] to do another survey and then that asbuilt drawing is submitted to the

[55:27] building department again for building permit. Basically, the surveyor is

[55:33] certifying that now the building is where it's supposed to be. And if you

[55:39] ever drive around and you see a little kink chiseled out of a foundation or a

[55:45] building's quite little slices because at that moment it was over. And uh I get

[55:53] a good chuckle out of it every now and then when I drive around and see these

[55:56] little kinks taken out of buildings because of the setbacks were um in

[56:03] » Sorry, Jim. I'll just ask is it is it common in the industry to not have to

[56:09] detail out this overhang of a cornice? >> Yes. Yes, it is common at this point.

[56:15] Yes. >> Okay.

[56:21] So, I had a question from last meeting about the walkway and

[56:27] how it connects to the parking area and I still

[56:32] don't see that clearly in the new plans

[56:38] » from Waltham Street >> from I don't know.

[56:41] » Yeah. >> Uh this

[56:43] » the new blockway next to the building somehow it goes down and it

[56:47] » Yeah. If the renderings are accurate, could you zoom in on the one that shows

[56:51] » the right >> top right maybe?

[56:56] » Yeah, it's

[57:01] right

[57:06] pretty wide.

[57:13] Now, mind you, this gray mass here, there's a one-story building.

[57:20] » And we have a landscape element that comes along in between the two. The

[57:26] walkway, then the landscape element, and then this one-story building.

[57:34] » Right. But my question is, you go down that walkway, what do you hit in the

[57:38] parking lot? just right into where the cars are

[57:42] » parking space in the drawings we have. >> Yes,

[57:45] » you can bring up the site plan drawing. >> Yes.

[57:50] » So the >> Yes, it's blocked.

[57:53] » Planning board members point is that the walkway terminates

[57:57] » this terminates into a parking space, >> right? And that doesn't seem like good

[58:03] pedestrian flow. Okay.

[58:09] Is is that a fair statement >> there? Um,

[58:18] let's see. >> That makes a little more.

[58:29] It looks like there is some wiggle room. So, um, we would just shift things

[58:35] around a little to allow for, uh, let's see, let me share this.

[58:46] So, right now there is a twoft path. Um, but that this can these elements and

[58:54] this over here, we could definitely consolidate and give a 5-ft path at the

[59:00] end of this walkway to access this properly.

[59:10] One of them is the EV chargers, right? But anyways, a bigger question on that

[59:16] though is this is a much smaller project, but it has the same number of

[59:22] parking spaces. Why do we need so many parking spaces for this smaller project?

[59:31] » Uh the number of units I believe has stayed the same.

[59:37] » Um >> the bedroom mix is radically different.

[59:42] » Yes. So that's a lesser parking demand. And

[59:47] then there's no commercial. So that's a lesser parking demand. So why do we need

[59:51] all these parking spaces? And can't we take advantage of the reduced parking

[59:56] demand to I don't know more landscaping or more

[1:00:00] buffer or I don't know walking path from that

[1:00:05] civil. I just want to see the table of parking

[1:00:10] that this civil engineer is

[1:00:36] heat.

[1:00:54] just 36.

[1:01:00] So it's not even enough work by four

[1:01:07] questions still work.

[1:01:15] So what I see here is 54. There's 36 units. 54 are required

[1:01:22] and there were 41 spaces provided in the previous plan set.

[1:01:26] » Okay. So yeah, that's what I thought. I didn't want to speak out of turn, but I

[1:01:30] thought it was under. So,

[1:01:39] what I'm saying is, I mean, we usually on these things target a one to one. So,

[1:01:45] if a couple spaces need to go away to make enhancements for the project or for

[1:01:50] the for the community, that doesn't seem like a bad thing.

[1:02:09] If we uh I don't want to say clean up, but if

[1:02:14] we adjust some of these spaces to make it a little more amenable. Plus, it

[1:02:21] always happens where the proposed handicap spaces shift over a little

[1:02:27] little to the left, a little to the right depending where that door finally

[1:02:31] ends up. Um,

[1:02:35] so there are some adjustments that are made

[1:02:41] before the final lines get painted.

[1:02:51] So, I got a couple questions about the canopy. Can you go to the rendering that

[1:02:56] looks at the walkway entrance from Waltham Street?

[1:03:17] Um the lower right, I guess. >> Yeah, I guess this would be is this this

[1:03:23] view here? Uh let's look at the other view.

[1:03:32] There you go. So, what's the thinking of leaving open that

[1:03:38] side of the canopy area?

[1:03:43] So, the view is just a park cars and things. Why? Why does that side need to

[1:03:50] be open right here? Yeah.

[1:04:00] So, it's it does help that

[1:04:05] um I mean there definitely could be some elements here to dress it up, but you

[1:04:09] don't want to >> um What's the depth of the parking

[1:04:14] spaces or >> Well, there aren't any parking spaces.

[1:04:20] » Yeah, you're right. There is nothing there. So, yes, we could

[1:04:26] close that in with these privacy screens if necessary.

[1:04:36] Maybe I'm just missing the landscaping point. Maybe the landscaping covers

[1:04:39] that, but I don't know. Just >> Yeah. Unfortunately, every bush

[1:04:45] and every leaf is a polygon. And to render

[1:04:49] um that many polygons, it just takes so much time. And sometimes it takes a day

[1:04:55] just to render with so many bushes.

[1:05:06] And then you were talking about the emergency

[1:05:11] vehicle access and you got to kick up the clearance from 82 to

[1:05:16] 96 plus. >> Yep.

[1:05:19] » So you got to jack it up a foot and a half or so.

[1:05:24] Is that whole canopy going up a foot and a half? Is the building going up a foot

[1:05:28] and a half? What's going up? uh we would just make uh we would just

[1:05:34] make sure that the clearance in the height of the proposed building does not

[1:05:39] change. So um

[1:05:44] with the variety of materials that we have, we can play around with the

[1:05:48] different floor thicknesses. I mean, ideally on a building like this,

[1:05:53] you'd like 16 in of thickness between the ceiling of one floor and the uh top

[1:06:01] of the next floor. But we've done them as shallow as uh 10 in. So, you get a

[1:06:08] lot of play between um in the floor systems themselves. And

[1:06:15] same with the roof.

[1:06:20] So, so I assume the the building structure, the big mass in the original

[1:06:26] apartment had the correct clearance. Is that is that correct?

[1:06:30] » I don't know. >> I think that that hadn't been worked out

[1:06:33] with the fire chief yet either. >> Oh, really?

[1:06:36] » Yeah. >> This is this is clearly easier to move

[1:06:38] because there's nothing above it. >> Well, no, but then the building's going

[1:06:43] to move because if the building's only right

[1:06:46] » below the lighting, and the sprinklers,

[1:06:50] » right? >> And the electrical, blah, blah, blah.

[1:06:54] » Yep. No, it's it's all pretty easy to do.

[1:06:59] » So, how does that get included in any approvals?

[1:07:06] » Um, well, we basically we have the ground and then

[1:07:10] » you can't move an inch and whatever happens below happens. Well, for the

[1:07:14] planning board, it's just the it's the total height.

[1:07:18] » I think that matters, right? >> That's one.

[1:07:20] » So, it's just total height and then >> um it's not I don't believe there's any

[1:07:25] submitt for for the for the specific um heights

[1:07:32] » elevations necessarily per four floor or for for this canopy area. So, I don't

[1:07:38] think it goes I don't think it's a planning board item unless it's

[1:07:41] modifying the site plan. Well, technically it's circulation, but

[1:07:45] » as long as the circulation meets the intent of the site approval, right?

[1:07:49] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Right.

[1:07:52] » Proper height. This is weird. >> And building code. Building code also

[1:07:56] lists what the heights have to be, >> right?

[1:07:59] » Minimum. So, >> right. And they'll have and the project

[1:08:01] will have to abide by that. But what I'm suggesting is that it's the height is

[1:08:05] not necessarily a planning board item of the door itself unless it changes some

[1:08:09] type of circulation or egress pattern. Okay. And then my last question about

[1:08:15] the campy is a question I had last time of

[1:08:20] how does that compatible with the downtown?

[1:08:26] I mean to me I would have just wrapped the building around the

[1:08:31] game store and had the building front on both

[1:08:36] Waltham and Powdermill. But for some reason we have a canopy which is way not

[1:08:41] in the intent of the DoD. So what's the thinking of how we can

[1:08:47] make that compatible with the downtown?

[1:09:02] Bill, it might help to elaborate what you're what you mean by

[1:09:07] comment. >> Well, well, the downtown design says,

[1:09:10] you know, we're supposed to be building buildings up to the property line. You

[1:09:14] know, we're not supposed to be having setbacks. We're not supposed to be

[1:09:16] having parking in front of the buildings, but all we got is a parking

[1:09:20] canopy in front of this building facing the major street.

[1:09:26] And we wouldn't allow that anywhere else because the buildings are supposed to

[1:09:32] front the street. And here it just seems like there's

[1:09:37] plenty of room to have the buildings shift over and front on Waltham Street

[1:09:42] and then all problems are all gone. I just don't understand the canopy and how

[1:09:46] that's better for the downtown than just having the building wrap a

[1:09:52] little tighter.

[1:09:57] Well, I think part of it was the public access there.

[1:10:01] » It wouldn't affect the public access footprint at all. It's the same

[1:10:05] footprint. I mean, a building could take the footprint of the canopy. It's the

[1:10:09] same width.

[1:10:16] Maybe it's that it's trying to be more in kind of the adjacent building.

[1:10:24] Yeah, but that's not a big long-term

[1:10:29] planning call for building out a downtown cuz sooner or later that other

[1:10:33] building is going to go in 10 or 20 years

[1:10:37] and then you're building it next to a weird little canopy. I just done with

[1:10:43] canopy different property, but I don't know. I

[1:10:47] just I don't see the value added for the town there and it just seems counter to

[1:10:55] the intent of a lot of the DoD elements. >> I mean the intent was that they were

[1:11:02] trying to reduce the size of the building,

[1:11:07] » right? And they could have reduced the size of the building and left the

[1:11:10] building touching Waltham and touching powder mill and still reduced the size

[1:11:14] and then had >> extra well extra room for the river,

[1:11:20] extra buffer to the river, extra buffer to the

[1:11:23] » if they had if they had left it and had it be open parking, would that be also

[1:11:29] less than ideal? >> Yeah, that's not the deal and the

[1:11:34] intent. You don't put parking in front of a building.

[1:11:39] I think I think I'll fence for that. The intent was

[1:11:45] about open parking lots. Uh and I I can recall specifically when we had a a

[1:11:54] request for a fast food location downtown and we went back and forth with

[1:11:59] it for a while because it required a special permit. And the idea is to

[1:12:06] not present a seat of parking that is incompatible with

[1:12:11] the streetscape itself. But in this sense,

[1:12:16] you're working with what you have. And we have in in this case, I mean, it's

[1:12:21] unusual because there's another building really blocking streetscape on one side

[1:12:27] and then the other is a a high. It's not a typical DoD and we and the

[1:12:34] reason I I would say that is because originally if you remember a couple

[1:12:37] years ago this project started out as a mixeduse and we thought that was a

[1:12:41] terrible idea to integrate it. We have people walking around uh from that for

[1:12:47] commercial uses and that was that was something that originally going way

[1:12:51] back. It started out as a much larger project with a at the time it was

[1:12:55] marijuana was proposed I remember as out parcel and everything and and in the end

[1:13:01] we went through a number of revisions uh culminating in uh what we thought was

[1:13:09] the most practical use and it was within the spirit of the DoD which was multif

[1:13:14] family higher density uh with working with the the landscape that we have and

[1:13:21] and in this case you know in a perfect world we all agreed that it would have

[1:13:26] encompassed that whole corner but we don't have that and I I think at this

[1:13:30] point we're looking at does the good outweigh the bad is this project and is

[1:13:34] I I think it is consistent with it is it the perfect location like I said I would

[1:13:41] rather have I'm sure applicant would rather have the entire um but the entire

[1:13:46] quarter but I think we really have to step back and look at what you know this

[1:13:49] is a multi-year project in the end is going to be

[1:13:53] um I think you know largely consistent with the aesthetics. I think they they

[1:13:59] talk it looks largely consistent the idea of of

[1:14:04] parking that's um not really right in your face on the

[1:14:10] street or or enclosed. I I don't know what you know that's my

[1:14:14] opinion. I mean we've been through this this has been started I was like this

[1:14:18] started really in like what 2022 as a but we approved iteration

[1:14:25] » we approved this version we're being asked to change what we approved and

[1:14:29] what we approved matched all the goals and objectives of the DoD but in this

[1:14:34] case I mean maybe the issue is how to make the canopy area look less canopy

[1:14:42] less parking more like a building and less

[1:14:48] auto visible or something. Right now it's just the canopy over

[1:14:53] bunch of cars.

[1:15:00] But you could I suppose you could you know like you facade a garage so it

[1:15:05] looks more like a building rather than a garage. You could do that and

[1:15:10] make it look more structure. I mean, would having the

[1:15:15] uh the whatever the landscaping treatment that they have in in the two

[1:15:20] other spots along that wall along the side of the parking canopy be

[1:15:26] beneficial. The other thing is maintaining

[1:15:30] maintaining a non non-p parking lot adjacent to the river was is also

[1:15:35] important to us. So, you know, if you have to have the building on on two

[1:15:41] sides and the parking not on the streets, but also not the parking not

[1:15:46] all up against the river, they they've run out of places. And they did put the

[1:15:50] majority of the parking on the fourth side,

[1:15:54] but it's a complicated site.

[1:15:59] » Big picture. designed the building so it fronted on both streets and the parking

[1:16:05] would stay underneath. The parking would not get close to the river. But

[1:16:09] if we're stuck with a canopy, I would I would want to see that to look

[1:16:14] less like a parking canopy and more like a piece of the building.

[1:16:20] » How many how many parking spots are under the parking canopy, Jim?

[1:16:34] Six to seven.

[1:16:42] » Seven. Six. Six or seven depending on what what we do at the end of that run.

[1:16:49] » It It seems like an awfully lot of construction for six parking spots.

[1:17:01] Is that is that a fair statement?

[1:17:10] » Yes. Um but we are once again having that covered area.

[1:17:17] Uh seven spots covered. What's the covered walkway?

[1:17:29] Can I make a suggestion? I think correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but you're covered

[1:17:35] parking. And by covering the surface parking, that's allowing you not to have

[1:17:40] to treat that drainage and the water and the runoff that basically hits that

[1:17:44] surface parking lot. So, it's better for the environment if the water is captured

[1:17:48] at the roof level and then goes into your system without additional

[1:17:53] treatment. And that's probably why you're reluctant to change it because

[1:17:56] you already have the Concom approvals. Correct.

[1:18:00] » Yes. Yes. The biggest thing is definitely the conservation

[1:18:04] » uh approvals. And that's a new calculation I think

[1:18:07] that you'd have to run and and go back for that change. I mean, maybe a

[1:18:10] solution here is to make it look a little bit more like the building and

[1:18:13] the the structure, the canopy gets bigger, slightly heftier, you know, if

[1:18:20] it looks like a brick arcade that then has the presence of the building um

[1:18:25] where it's brick and a mix of metal. >> Yeah. More more like an um Venetian

[1:18:31] sidewalk covered area. That's That's fine.

[1:18:36] » Yeah. I mean, that may give it more of a building presence and less of a canopy

[1:18:40] presence. I mean, there was going to be a canopy. Right.

[1:18:50] Uh if if that's amendable, Jim, I think that would be more in the taste of the

[1:18:56] of the comments of what you've heard from the planning board tonight

[1:19:01] » to >> basically beef up the elements and make

[1:19:07] it more um make it tie into the building better as

[1:19:12] opposed to just a canopy. Yeah, I mean it could read like brick peers or brick

[1:19:17] blasters and you've got landscape in front of that and the landscape plan

[1:19:21] from 23. So along the side of it there already is a a planting bed with bushes

[1:19:26] » that will buffer it a little bit. >> That's what I'm the planning.

[1:19:41] Yeah.

[1:19:55] Is that

[1:20:22] element agreement elements are part of the benefits of the project

[1:20:29] which is part of the decision on a approval or disapproval of a special

[1:20:33] permit. So what's the status of the development agreement? It's been 2 and

[1:20:38] 1/2 years. I would think that we would have some

[1:20:43] pretty close to five aversion.

[1:20:47] I did a little research on that and I have an answer for Bill too if you want

[1:20:51] me to jump in. I look back on when we original uh the

[1:20:56] answer is um it's it I guess it would be

[1:21:04] it could be within the it requires a vote of the both boards planning board

[1:21:10] and site board. Um Steve's working on that with Adam. I would say it is

[1:21:17] it's I mean I'm not doing this but certainly within the next month or two.

[1:21:23] I can't see it going longer but and that's the answer for that. I I'm not

[1:21:28] working on it myself. So that is uh but we did discuss it today. I did do a

[1:21:34] little research on it um because I was I couldn't remember exactly how we we left

[1:21:38] it on the other because since then now we made changes for how

[1:21:44] development agreement is done but at the time um this was uh this is I went back

[1:21:51] in minutes I just curious on this how we did it uh and um

[1:21:57] at the time um Adam was uh stack was being uh represented by um Mark Babowski

[1:22:06] who was talking about this and and the board this is

[1:22:09] uh the wording of the condition related related to the development agreement

[1:22:13] would be important to consider at this time. Uh Mr. Verowski voices success a

[1:22:17] suggestion to consider condition prior to the issuance of any mutually agree

[1:22:22] agreeable building permanent development uh would be filed in the office of the

[1:22:27] town clerk and approved by staff. Mr. Nezer asked for clarification on

[1:22:31] timelines. Mr. Ki shared that the best course of action they thought at the

[1:22:36] time was to uh close public hearing um subject to an appropriate development

[1:22:44] agreement to be approved shortly thereafter. Well, it hasn't been shortly

[1:22:48] thereafter. So, uh Chris Arsenal clarified that the final DA would need

[1:22:53] to be come back in front of the planning board for review and signatures and they

[1:22:57] agreed to the timeline. Uh Mr. Cranshaw acquired if the planning board if the

[1:23:01] public hearing need to be closed before they and then to before considering

[1:23:05] condition languages and they said they want to talk through the conditions. So

[1:23:12] my if we just amend the we've since changed this how we do it in our bylaws

[1:23:19] but modifying this the board could say um I mean there's a number of ways you

[1:23:24] could do you can say before the effective date of the special permit. I

[1:23:28] mean, then the permit's not good until it's executed. That probably is the

[1:23:33] neatest and cleanest way to do it. Now, if we were doing a a a new development

[1:23:38] agreement now with a brand new project, you know, it's hard because, you know,

[1:23:43] sometimes we do them simultaneous, sometimes we don't. But in a perfect

[1:23:47] world, yeah, they would. It's not perfect. So, that would be my answer

[1:23:51] about that. Um, as for um what's going to be involved in the development grant

[1:23:57] boards, basically Adam, are you on still?

[1:24:00] » Yeah, I'm here. >> I I didn't want to really get too much

[1:24:04] into this right now, but you've been working with Steve on the development

[1:24:07] agreement basically, right? >> Recently, I mean,

[1:24:10] » yep. >> And the type of stuff that's involved

[1:24:13] basically is what we've discussed before. There's an open space

[1:24:18] uh requirement that's got to be worked through BA on our zoning bylaws and and

[1:24:23] on our um um planning board rules and regulations and we also um there were

[1:24:31] some intersection modifications that we discussed

[1:24:35] but so far as your timeline Adam would that work for you if if the board was

[1:24:41] willing and we we said before that special permit is effective development

[1:24:45] agreement has to be executed. >> Yeah, I would have no issue with that.

[1:24:51] » I can't hear what he said. >> Yes.

[1:24:53] » No. >> No issue with that.

[1:24:56] » Yeah. Okay. Now, would that help though? That's an I mean, or if you want like a

[1:25:01] date, I mean, I don't know. I can't I can't sit here and tell you. Yeah.

[1:25:07] » Well, I understand your concern. I mean to approve a special permit, you

[1:25:14] have to find that the good outweighs the bad.

[1:25:17] » You have to find what? >> You have to find out that the good

[1:25:20] outweighs the bad. >> That's correct.

[1:25:22] » But if we don't know what good is in the development agreement,

[1:25:27] then the scorecard is leaning towards the bad side.

[1:25:32] » Well, then you wouldn't sign the development agreement.

[1:25:35] » Well, or I might not approve the special requirement. It's been 2 and 1/2 years

[1:25:41] and there's been no progress. So, I have little faith that pushing it out to an

[1:25:47] indefinite time now is going to make any difference.

[1:25:51] » I understand. >> However, the special permit if it's not

[1:25:55] effective until then. >> Well, I would also point out that our

[1:25:58] zoning says that the development agreement must be

[1:26:03] in place before special. >> That is correct. But that was our 2024

[1:26:08] amendment and before it said the development agreement should be executed

[1:26:14] before the special permit is uh right

[1:26:18] » issued. So that's >> we're working under new rules for this

[1:26:22] process. So >> under new rules.

[1:26:26] » Yeah. And it's a creature of the development agreement too. As we, you

[1:26:29] know, in the uh as we look at the past minutes, that was our approach was that

[1:26:35] the working with the uh development

[1:26:39] agreement, there's going to be certain amendments that are made that are just

[1:26:42] like we do with that's how the density bonus gets done. You know, it's a it's a

[1:26:47] it's another process. What do you have a suggestion? I mean, wait for a condition

[1:26:50] on it. If if that was the case, then you could say, you know, you could say there

[1:26:55] has to be um >> well, I mean,

[1:26:58] » I don't really understand. I mean, they must have agreed on the major points and

[1:27:03] they're just working out tiny little language, right? So, what are the major

[1:27:07] points that have >> you have ask Adam on this one?

[1:27:10] » I would like that into this hearing so it can be into the decision.

[1:27:18] Adam, do you have anything to add with this?

[1:27:21] » The only major uh change I think that we're looking to figure out u the legal

[1:27:27] language for is how the contribution to the open space funding works, the money

[1:27:36] towards uh the town and if that was to go just directly as a as a check to the

[1:27:42] town or work in the intersection. And does that work in the intersection need

[1:27:48] to be done by a town approved um site contractor or like it was that

[1:27:55] was the language really that we're trying to me and Steve are trying to

[1:27:58] just have hashed out just to make sure that uh

[1:28:05] just to make sure that that work is done uh

[1:28:10] in the best best effort for the for the town either like I said through a town

[1:28:15] specific specific site um contractor or just the straight money to the town to

[1:28:22] then hire somebody to do it. So that was kind of the the hiccup that we have.

[1:28:27] » And there, Adam, are you referring to the um the improvements in the public

[1:28:32] way with the um pedestrian signaling and and sidewalks?

[1:28:36] » Exactly. That's exactly what it is. >> Right. And and just to be clear for

[1:28:40] everybody here in a refresher, um there is a the open space requirement

[1:28:47] that Adam is alluding to is required for um whenever there's bonus issu bonus

[1:28:54] units issued for provision of open space or inind

[1:29:01] um contribution. So those two areas are what we're talking about. There's one

[1:29:10] other way to do this I could think of and that would be if uh continue the

[1:29:18] public hearing for a date and give them as time to get it worked out. And um

[1:29:25] you know

[1:29:29] well they need to do new drawings anyways.

[1:29:34] So, I I have a a request if I may. >> Go ahead, Adam.

[1:29:41] » Um, obviously this project has been going on for quite some time now and uh

[1:29:46] we do have a buyer that's, you know, getting a little antsy and obviously we

[1:29:50] have to take the proper steps to make this correct for the town. I understand

[1:29:53] that. My concern is every time we come to this meeting, there's a new aspect

[1:29:59] that needs to be looked at. So, what I'm hearing right now is that yes, you want

[1:30:03] to see new drawings for the the canopy. I agree and we can do that. Uh, yes, you

[1:30:08] want to see a development agreement. Okay. You want to see where the walkway

[1:30:12] ends into the parking lot. I I'm counting three things right now. Could

[1:30:16] we hash out the other 10 items tonight and just say that the next meeting we're

[1:30:22] going to look at A, B, and C so that then when next meeting comes

[1:30:27] there's not D, E, and F that we have to go figure out. That would be my request.

[1:30:36] » Well, I'd point out that the three items you cited were all brought up last

[1:30:41] meeting, but

[1:30:45] Speaking as an individual, I don't see anything else on the list.

[1:30:50] » Board, do you see anything else that would that you would like to see changed

[1:30:55] or updated so that you have the correct information to take a vote on this?

[1:31:03] » I see nothing else. >> I think I'm good to

[1:31:06] » I'm good. Hearing none. Um the the three items listed

[1:31:11] uh design change canopy um showing a change in the the walkway

[1:31:16] egress as discussed and the the outline proposal for the developing development

[1:31:24] agreement. Those are the three items. May

[1:31:26] » may I ask a question before you >> as long as you don't add an item, Bill?

[1:31:31] » Well, not not in so many words. Um before it was

[1:31:38] We we had um uh I know Steve and Adam are going to be

[1:31:43] working on this and I think it's helpful to have a member of planning board work

[1:31:46] as well as a member of the select board >> um

[1:31:50] » on what >> with the development agreements.

[1:31:52] » I will be I will be the member for the planning board.

[1:31:55] » Okay. Is that Adam? I'm going to um I'll tell Steve about this and everything

[1:32:01] » which is by the way not a change. I was the

[1:32:04] » you were with Chris Silva I think was chair. is the member of the

[1:32:07] » who's our leazison on >> Lindsay.

[1:32:09] » Lindsay. >> So, no change in planning board

[1:32:13] membership for the council. >> So, I'll ask I'll ask um I guess Lindsay

[1:32:18] or >> ask Mike Stevens.

[1:32:20] » Mike Mike Stevens if you want >> as chair.

[1:32:27] » Um now the other question is um timing.

[1:32:32] » Mhm. It's This is not a two week and we if we're going to tidy it up like that.

[1:32:37] I I I don't know how I mean that's how we got

[1:32:41] two weeks is tight. >> No, we're going to Bill we're going to

[1:32:44] have to make this two weeks or I I fear that I fear that somebody's going to

[1:32:47] walk away to be quite honest with everybody here. So I me and my team on

[1:32:52] the architectural side have done what you asked us to do in two weeks. This is

[1:32:57] in you have my full attention for the next two weeks to get this done. if it's

[1:33:01] if you're talking about the development agreement and we really need to we

[1:33:04] really need to make this this move forward. Um unless I'm going to be left

[1:33:09] with without a buyer again. >> Okay. All right. And so I'll I'll make a

[1:33:14] motion in a second, but first I I'm going to open it up to public comment.

[1:33:18] Uh Zoe, would you stop sharing screens and and let's see if there's members of

[1:33:22] the public that would like to enter a public comment tonight. Uh, if you're

[1:33:27] joining us virtually, please use the raise hand feature or you can turn your

[1:33:31] camera on and raise your hand and we'll call on you on each individual one at a

[1:33:35] time. >> Jim, do you mind um turning off your

[1:33:38] screen sharing because I'm not actually screen sharing. It's I think still

[1:33:42] yours.

[1:33:51] There we go. All right.

[1:33:54] » All right. And Zoe, I'm not seeing any. >> Um, if there's anybody in the who would

[1:33:58] uh in from the public who wishes to make a public comment, if you would please

[1:34:02] use the hand raised function of Zoom >> and you will be called on.

[1:34:06] » And Zoe, looking here in town hall, I don't see any members of the public able

[1:34:10] to provide a public comment. That's correct.

[1:34:12] » Okay.

[1:34:15] » Okay. >> All right.

[1:34:16] » Um, I think we have I think we have good instruction on

[1:34:21] this. Um, I'll make a motion to continue this hearing until September 22nd at 7

[1:34:28] p.m.

[1:34:31] » Second. >> All in favor for the continuence, please

[1:34:33] raise your hand. It's 5-0. Thanks everyone.

[1:34:44] » Okay. All right. Let's now turn to >> item four. Uh this will be I'll open up

[1:34:53] the public hearing for 17 Nason Street. Uh this is an application to renew an

[1:35:00] existing special permit to oper operate a marijuana retail establishment in the

[1:35:04] central business zoning district at 17 Mason Street. Paula, thanks for coming

[1:35:09] in. >> Thanks for having me.

[1:35:11] » Um just for the record, could you please introduce yourself?

[1:35:14] » Sure. >> Uh my name is Milwauke. I'm with the

[1:35:17] Mass Wall Street and like you said, I'm here to uh renew our existing special

[1:35:22] permit uh to operate adult use dispensary at 17 Mason Street and also a

[1:35:29] new special permit application for a medical license to operate at the same

[1:35:34] address. >> Thanks, Olaf. Um, Bill or Zoe, do you

[1:35:39] have uh any comments on this renewal? Particularly, has has there been good

[1:35:47] compliance from the applicant over the past couple years? Are there any fines

[1:35:51] or anything else that are pending? Any non-compliance that the board should be

[1:35:55] aware of? >> Nothing that's been reported to us.

[1:35:58] » It's been fine. Everything's been fine. Renewals been fine. this particular

[1:36:02] renewal. Um we asked them to run them both together because there's a

[1:36:07] marijuana um

[1:36:10] um application that has yet to be approved by the attorney general. We've

[1:36:15] been waiting for it to uh go forward. uh since it's he um

[1:36:22] we contact the attorney general's office and we don't expect

[1:36:28] uh approve their behind and they don't expect approval till October. So what I

[1:36:33] would recommend the board did at this point because we're running behind

[1:36:37] already and we're trying to do it together to make it simple for the

[1:36:40] board. >> Sorry, I'm I'm not following. What I

[1:36:43] have here on the agenda is just a renewal of the existing special permit

[1:36:47] on the agenda. >> Uh marijuana should be on there. Is it

[1:36:50] » medical is not on the this attachment is not on the agenda.

[1:36:54] » Um the agenda I have just says existing special permit for a retail

[1:37:00] establishment. >> Ah okay. That's a that's a blunder on my

[1:37:03] part. >> So So that's what I opened I opened the

[1:37:05] public hearing for that. >> I see. I see.

[1:37:09] » Well, I think we're going to have to >> let's see here. So, okay, we will have

[1:37:12] to Well, okay, we'll take care of that offline. Um, what I would what what that

[1:37:18] will involve is um it was already advertised. It wasn't Yeah, it wasn't

[1:37:24] advertised. Here's what we'll do. If you continue the medical marijuana,

[1:37:29] » it hasn't been open. >> There's no medical mar There's no

[1:37:34] medical marijuana, but it was advertised on a legal notice.

[1:37:36] » It was It was advertised, but the public hearing wasn't open.

[1:37:39] » That's correct. So, the public hearing will be postponed or what we would call

[1:37:43] Yeah. postponed till the next hearing for the medical marijuana.

[1:37:48] » Okay. >> Okay. At that point, we're going to have

[1:37:50] to continue it because unless the attorney general comes

[1:37:54] through with another uh with a finding in between now and two weeks. That is on

[1:38:00] my that's my fault. It was just not proper. Um the uh renewal should be uh

[1:38:07] acted on tonight. There's been no problems. has been also been fine with

[1:38:10] it. And so what I would say is uh formally just to uh postpone

[1:38:16] um so we so it can be properly advertised. Anybody who came for the

[1:38:20] meeting tonight for the um legal notice is um

[1:38:25] aware uh and we'll put we'll put that to the you say the 22nd was the next one.

[1:38:30] » Yes. >> And understanding that we're going to

[1:38:33] have to continue it again till the end of October probably. Apologies Olaf off.

[1:38:38] That's my fault. But um should be relatively painless.

[1:38:42] » Okay. >> Uh so far as compliance has been

[1:38:46] excellent. No, no, no issues whatsoever. And in the end, it's going to be a

[1:38:50] separate special permit anyway because of the dates.

[1:38:54] So, >> um can you bring up the the notice?

[1:38:59] » Yes. >> Just so I can see it before I take any

[1:39:02] more action. I just want to make sure. >> Um I'm looking for it, too.

[1:39:09] This is a a copy of what was published in the Metro West Daily News.

[1:39:19] Yeah. So, what was advertised is petitioners requesting a new special

[1:39:22] permit authorizing medical marijuana use and the renewal of the existing

[1:39:27] special permit to operate a marijuana retail establishment in the central

[1:39:29] business owning district 17 days. And let's pull the agenda to make sure I

[1:39:33] didn't that this one wasn't printed wrong. They mention it.

[1:39:37] » No, this one just says um public hearing 17 Mason Street. It has the original

[1:39:41] special permit last renewal which was approved in 2024 and then 2605

[1:39:47] 260 is the new one. >> So that just got

[1:39:51] » Okay. So we advertised and we have an agenda with the renewal.

[1:39:57] » Correct. >> Which is the hearing I just opened.

[1:40:00] » Yes. >> So we can take action on that.

[1:40:02] » Yes. And it seems like we don't need to take action on anything else because it

[1:40:06] was not on the agenda. >> You're going to postpone it.

[1:40:08] » You can postpone it because it was advertised.

[1:40:10] » Okay. So, we'll take care of that after. >> Correct.

[1:40:12] » Right. As a separate item. >> I wanted to split them anyway.

[1:40:15] » Understood. Well, you did that. So, um Okay. Back to the renewal

[1:40:20] um special permit. Um any comments or questions from the board?

[1:40:26] And to to be clear, this is about a special permit renewal for a retail

[1:40:30] establishment in the central business district.

[1:40:35] » They're two they're limited to two years from the effective date of the new

[1:40:38] special permit. So whatever um you know after the appeal period same as the

[1:40:44] others two years is >> everybody has to come two years.

[1:40:48] » Understood. >> Are the conditions still valid or some

[1:40:52] no longer needed or anything? >> I don't know. Um I would in general

[1:40:56] define defer to all conditions remaining valid unless there's a good reason. Um

[1:41:02] are there any reasons to drop some of the conditions?

[1:41:06] » Is there any requests to change anyone was maintaining the clock?

[1:41:11] » And have you have you maintained the clock?

[1:41:13] » I believe so. Yes. >> We love that clock.

[1:41:16] » Do you have any requests of the board? >> Maybe after this because I have a

[1:41:21] question and followup questioning regarding the opening hours. So I'm not

[1:41:24] sure if that is part of this >> because it's more general question I

[1:41:28] guess because the board of health they think that they are the authority to

[1:41:34] regulate opening hours and the select board they also say that they are the

[1:41:38] authority and I heard that the planning board also early on so I don't know

[1:41:43] which one is >> ultimately theost host community

[1:41:46] agreement um host community agreement by the select board controls

[1:41:51] » the select board okay >> right this is a zoning We're we're what

[1:41:54] we're doing is saying okay the zoning is good here here's the conditions we are

[1:41:58] approving under but the select board without a host well it's actually both

[1:42:03] ways the planning board I suppose uh could trump

[1:42:09] » something the HCA did I suppose but uh >> I think it would be the more restrictive

[1:42:13] of the two >> uh the public health officer I don't

[1:42:16] think has a role >> I don't think

[1:42:20] » and and hours of oper >> did you have to go see them for

[1:42:23] Well, initially, yes, I had to um because the board of health bylaws, they

[1:42:28] added that they are regulating the opening hours

[1:42:31] » and then the select >> I don't think they have any chang

[1:42:36] » that was that was years ago. >> Yes, it was months ago.

[1:42:39] » That might have been when the when the state was more heavy-handed with the

[1:42:43] regulations of this and it was some of it was through the public health

[1:42:46] departments. But >> you check in tomorrow, we can clear that

[1:42:48] up. >> Okay. It it my understanding it would be

[1:42:52] planning board has some authority to to limit and restrict

[1:42:57] » but select board with host agreement is the primary vehicle for hours and

[1:43:02] operations. We don't have we would appear in every hourgl

[1:43:14] right now but we are discussing I was talked to Greg um last week and uh

[1:43:19] regarding this and he said let's talk about it at the select board meeting but

[1:43:24] » what hours would you like to propose? >> Uh we have not decided yet but uh I

[1:43:28] think that we will expand the hours. What hours would you not with your

[1:43:32] conversations, what hours would you like?

[1:43:35] » Well, we still we're looking at the the logistics of the staffing and stuff like

[1:43:39] that, but it definitely um add hours to end of the week, maybe reduce hours on

[1:43:46] Sundays >> and maybe Mondays and Tuesday early in

[1:43:49] the week, but also we discussed uh opening way later and even earlier, but

[1:43:56] yeah, we haven't really decided yet. I just want to check to see who I should

[1:44:00] talk to. >> Seems like we don't really know, but

[1:44:03] Bill will figure it out for you. >> So, I thought we put it in yours. Maybe

[1:44:07] we didn't put the >> I mean, you remember we amended them

[1:44:11] when >> I remember, too, cuz it it's 8 to 10 now

[1:44:13] or something. >> 10 to 8.

[1:44:16] » Oh, okay. Okay.

[1:44:19] » I got >> Well, apparently I'm okay with with the

[1:44:23] other way around.

[1:44:27] That's what I thought it was. >> It doesn't look like there's anything in

[1:44:32] this this record of decisions from this location.

[1:44:36] » Probably carried over, >> but no, I think this this goes back to

[1:44:40] the first um special permit that was approved for

[1:44:44] this location. >> We ch I remember distinctly we changed

[1:44:48] it at one point. >> Me, too.

[1:44:49] » But I I'll look it up all but if there's something you want,

[1:44:53] » Bill, let's do this. Bill, do you should we continue?

[1:44:57] » Operation >> 10 to 10.

[1:44:59] » Oh, 10 to 10. >> The first one.

[1:45:02] » The first one. >> That sound all right?

[1:45:04] » Yes. Well, most likely. Yes. But we never stayed open to 10.

[1:45:08] » Well, >> well, you have permission to. So, from

[1:45:11] » as far as these guys are concerned, >> no breakfast.

[1:45:15] » Maybe you're missing a market. Didn't we update it to 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.?

[1:45:20] » I could have sworn we did at some point >> if we asked for it.

[1:45:25] » The guys in Boulder are open till se at 7 a.m.

[1:45:28] » 7 a.m. >> Yeah. Right next to the coffee.

[1:45:32] It's weird.

[1:45:36] » Do we want to like just change that to defer to select board or do we want to

[1:45:41] set a you know nothing between 1000 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.?

[1:45:45] » No. No. No. No. I don't want to make >> Let's do this. Do

[1:45:49] does is your advice to continue this until

[1:45:53] this item should get figured out or should we just vote on the on renewal?

[1:45:56] » I I I are you happy with the way it is 10 to 10?

[1:45:59] » Yes. Yeah. We're going with that, right? >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:46:03] » And if there's a subsequent modification, I turn up cuz I could have

[1:46:06] sworn we did eight to 10. >> All right. So, there's no proposed

[1:46:08] changes. >> Whatever the most current is, it it

[1:46:12] would have been more. >> That's fine. So

[1:46:15] » because his first his first one was he was the first one we did and he had like

[1:46:20] » huge number of conditions. >> I'm just trying to get through this

[1:46:23] hearing right now. So that so no proposed changes to the to the

[1:46:28] conditions. Okay. I'll open up for public comment.

[1:46:33] » Um if there's members on on the um virtually online if you'd like to um

[1:46:40] provide a public comment, please use the raise hand feature. Um, Zoe, I'm noting

[1:46:45] that there is no one here at town hall to provide a public comment. Is that

[1:46:48] correct? >> That's correct.

[1:46:50] » Thank you. Um, any other questions or comments from the board?

[1:46:56] Bill or Zoe, what is the motion here to renew the special permit for a period

[1:47:02] of two years? >> Yes.

[1:47:03] » Two. >> Two.

[1:47:04] » Okay. >> Three years. We do from effective date.

[1:47:09] So we did we give them every as soon as you know we

[1:47:15] effective date of the permit. >> Okay. So the MO Okay, we'll get that in

[1:47:21] a second. Um >> but that doesn't need to be does that

[1:47:23] need to be specified or does it does it attach automatically as the term?

[1:47:29] » Well, that's a question. And also there's one other thing I want to add

[1:47:33] here which is um uh relevant to it's not in the the public hearing for the for

[1:47:40] medical use but there will be a 2-year there will be a 2-year renewal period on

[1:47:47] the medical use as well. >> I think that's what it is.

[1:47:50] » Okay. So is there any mode by which the board can synchronize the renewal

[1:47:54] period? That's what we were trying to do originally, but because the AG approval

[1:47:58] and then pull off expired. It's already expired. So, you filed it here.

[1:48:03] » So, that's why I don't want to do it. >> But in a perfect world, yeah, we would

[1:48:07] put them together and we we there's probably a way we can do it at our next

[1:48:12] two years. Yeah. >> For now.

[1:48:15] » Cuz the attorney general could say, "No, you know, something's wrong. You know,

[1:48:18] we don't want this." >> I Yeah. That's a request. Just

[1:48:22] » Okay. review him as a existent. >> All right. I will um seeing no no

[1:48:30] comments from the board, I'll um make a motion to close the hearing.

[1:48:34] » Second. >> All in favor to close the hearing,

[1:48:36] please raise your hand. That's 50 to close the hearing. So um what is what's

[1:48:43] the what's the date I'm referencing in this motion?

[1:48:47] » The uh you have the Yeah. ex uh the um

[1:48:57] uh >> there is the number

[1:48:58] » this >> 2410.

[1:49:01] » Yeah. So say renewing >> petition number 2410 for a period of 2

[1:49:06] years. >> Um

[1:49:12] » what's petition 2410? >> No, I I'm sorry. I just I I think this

[1:49:17] that it should be a motion to renew the existing special permit because this was

[1:49:22] a renewal of of its own special permit and if we have a a reference number here

[1:49:27] then we'll get that >> yeah

[1:49:30] for a period of two years. That's it. Right.

[1:49:33] » Renewing the existing special permit for adult use marijuana retail for a period

[1:49:39] of two years. Um, I'll make a motion to renew the

[1:49:43] special permit for Masswell Springspring LLC at 17 Street. Uh, to renew the

[1:49:48] existing special permit for marijuana retail establishment for 2 years.

[1:49:57] » I'll second that. All in favor, please raise your hand.

[1:50:02] It's 50 to issue the renewal. And now if we could postpone um the uh because of

[1:50:11] the failure to include it on the agenda the the it was advertised I just

[1:50:15] postpone it till the 22nd and that will be the medical marijuana and we're going

[1:50:20] to have just as I said unless something comes in we'll continue it.

[1:50:23] » Sure. So, as a note to the public and for the meeting minutes, um there was a

[1:50:28] public hearing that was scheduled for tonight for 17 Nation Street regarding

[1:50:34] um medical marijuana establishment for the central business district. That

[1:50:39] public hearing is being postponed until >> 22

[1:50:45] » or for sure or until further notice? >> Until until September 27th.

[1:50:49] » Okay. That public hearing is being postponed until

[1:50:53] September 22nd at 7:00 p.m. End of notice.

[1:51:01] » Okay, that's it. Olaf, thank you for your time. Thanks for coming in.

[1:51:04] » Have a good evening. >> Thank you.

[1:51:06] » Thanks a lot. See you in two weeks, right? See you before.

[1:51:11] » All right. >> All right. We have zoning amendments. Uh

[1:51:15] I'll open up the public hearing for zoning bylaw amendments. There are three

[1:51:19] amendments listed in the uh agenda and these are um bylaws that will be

[1:51:26] recommended for approval for town meeting on October 13th, 2026.

[1:51:31] The three amendments are listed A, B, and C. A is an to amend section 7.5 of

[1:51:37] the wireless telecommunications tower and facility requirements as noted. uh

[1:51:43] or B is amend section 312 of the use regulations for table A use regulations

[1:51:49] as noted and C amends section 7 um 710 inclusionary housing as noted.

[1:51:59] I presume Zoe or Bill may lead us in this discussion.

[1:52:06] » Sure. >> Where would you like to begin?

[1:52:09] » I would start with a >> A

[1:52:13] um with telecom telecommunications tower

[1:52:18] safety. >> Yes.

[1:52:20] » Okay. Um the gist of it is that telecommunications tower cell towers

[1:52:27] have to come before the board every two years for renewal of special permit. The

[1:52:31] standard uh in the industry for um attestations of the structural integrity

[1:52:38] of the towers is 5 years. And we wanted to prevent a circumstance whereby a cell

[1:52:46] tower would come in for a two-year special permit with one year left on

[1:52:50] their um on their structural certification and then that that

[1:52:55] certification would require updating in between the term of special permit. So

[1:53:01] the idea here is that if the certification

[1:53:05] is dated within three years of the application date, it will have two years

[1:53:09] left at least so that it won't expire before their special permit expires.

[1:53:19] » How do all the structural engineers feel about feel about this? Speaking as a

[1:53:23] nonstructural engineer farm. >> No, not me. I think I think we have one

[1:53:31] maybe.

[1:53:35] » Yeah, man. >> I don't have an SE, but Oh, I mean

[1:53:38] that's what I that's what I do. >> You don't count.

[1:53:40] » He does count.

[1:53:44] » Sounds good to me. >> Fine.

[1:53:46] » Any any questions, comments about the way this is phrased?

[1:53:49] » Yeah. So, my >> my only question is the It says three

[1:53:53] years of the application date.

[1:53:57] I mean it really wants to be is that enough? I mean the daily put the

[1:54:03] application not the day the renewal starts. You're okay with that?

[1:54:09] » I think that's a valid observation. Um

[1:54:13] » well we went by the um remember the spec man recommended 5 years. No, but he's

[1:54:18] saying within 3 years of the application date for the special permit renewal or

[1:54:22] the >> issuance

[1:54:24] » issuance of the renewal. >> Can you change the word?

[1:54:30] We can do that. >> I mean, you're not Are you going to put

[1:54:32] the application in a more than a year before the renewal?

[1:54:35] » No, because it has to um has to go before within what 20 days? 20 uh within

[1:54:41] 14 days. Not >> Oh, really? Yeah.

[1:54:43] » Oh, and I don't think it matters much. I mean, I guess it could be continued,

[1:54:49] but um

[1:54:53] » I guess my my decision factor on this would be

[1:54:58] where are we in the town meeting timeline? Is this already been printed?

[1:55:03] » Yes. No, yes and no. Yeah, if you would like to join us for glue stick time for

[1:55:09] the revised text that we will glue in each copy of the warrant. I I think that

[1:55:14] they haven't been printed yet, but if we need to make changes, we'd have to make

[1:55:18] them like like >> Okay. I was just trying to so our chair

[1:55:20] doesn't have to present a amended motion.

[1:55:24] » I Yeah, I see. Chris loves the limelight.

[1:55:28] » I love presenting amended motions. It is so much fun.

[1:55:33] I think it's fine as it is.

[1:55:41] » I also don't really understand what he said. So,

[1:55:44] » no, I I get what he means cuz what if somebody applied for a renewal of a

[1:55:47] special permit and then it was it was caught up in in in hearings continuing

[1:55:51] for years and years. >> Oh, yeah.

[1:55:54] » Woof. >> Yeah.

[1:55:56] » Then they can just pay for another structural engineer.

[1:55:58] » Yeah. I think this would all probably be be dealt with in the proceedings of the

[1:56:02] of the permit. >> Then then they wouldn't but they they

[1:56:06] wouldn't have a tower anymore to be it wouldn't be active.

[1:56:12] » Yeah. >> Um

[1:56:13] » I think the whole point is that they they need these things renewed

[1:56:17] » I think so that they can continue to operate their the cellular devices.

[1:56:24] Any other questions, comments?

[1:56:29] Um, Peter, I see you're still joining this hearing. Um, if I'm just going to

[1:56:33] open up for public comment. If you want to comment on any of these three, just

[1:56:36] please raise your hand, but no pressure if you don't.

[1:56:40] » Yeah, I'm mostly just listening, but I will ask questions if I have them, but

[1:56:44] not on this one. Thank you. >> Okay, just raise your hand if you feel

[1:56:48] like commenting. Um, okay, Zoe. >> Okay, next.

[1:56:54] Um, now does does the board have to vote on vote uh to recommend approval to plan

[1:57:01] meeting? >> But they don't have to vote on each

[1:57:04] particular >> Well, this is one public hearing. So,

[1:57:08] the way I see it, we should take one vote on the public hearing, but

[1:57:13] » all you do together if you want, right? >> Okay. All right. So, next we're looking

[1:57:20] at the use table. Is that correct?

[1:57:25] » We're fetching your file. >> Yes.

[1:57:28] » This is the addition of a footnote to our use table which restates

[1:57:34] that in the section zoning bylaw section 9.6.3 which regulates the uh healthcare

[1:57:43] industrial zone i.e. the mill that multif family

[1:57:49] use is only allowed by right for existing structures. That if you if you

[1:57:55] want to put multif family housing into the mill already that that can be by

[1:57:59] right, but if you wanted to build a new building or demolish

[1:58:03] an old building and rebuild it, you will have to come before the planning board

[1:58:07] for a special permit. This isn't adding any any new policy. is

[1:58:12] just adding an an additional note of the policy into disabled.

[1:58:18] » I like it.

[1:58:22] » Clarification. >> Clarification.

[1:58:27] And a a dagger. >> A dagger.

[1:58:31] » A dagger. It's a dagger.

[1:58:37] That's right. >> All right. The upper parking lot's GR,

[1:58:40] correct? What?

[1:58:43] » Sorry. What? >> The upper parking lot is GR.

[1:58:46] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:58:47] » Okay.

[1:58:53] » Any questions?

[1:58:57] » What did Yeah. What is 166? What is >> that? Is the refer is a footnote that

[1:59:03] shows where which meeting the policy was adopted. See where the models were.

[1:59:10] » Oh my god. We got to squeeze another footnote in there. Another 182 or

[1:59:14] something. >> They're handy though sometimes when you

[1:59:16] need it. We're always glad information request when you see those.

[1:59:25] » And by the way, the footnote is already there. It's just a dagger that isn't

[1:59:28] there. >> Right.

[1:59:32] » Then why is the footnote underlined? >> It's not.

[1:59:35] » It is. >> Only the dagger's underline. 166 not

[1:59:41] » so close. >> See, it doesn't

[1:59:46] » That's good. Okay, >> good job.

[1:59:48] » All right. >> Okay.

[1:59:50] » How come it looks to me like the footnotes? I don't like

[1:59:55] » dot game >> for existing structures only.

[1:59:58] » He's talking about the text on the bottom.

[2:00:00] » Yeah. >> Oh. Um cuz this isn't a footnote. This

[2:00:04] is this is a the foot. Okay. So I guess okay this is an end note

[2:00:11] » and this is a I guess this is a footnote.

[2:00:14] » I I think that's all new text. >> Yes. Correct. Correct.

[2:00:18] » So yeah, >> exactly.

[2:00:20] » I think the the cross is a footnote. >> Yes.

[2:00:24] » And the number 166 is an endnote is at the end of the document.

[2:00:27] » Correct. Yes. Right. >> Nice job. Noted

[2:00:31] at the end. >> All right. That'll be a test at the end

[2:00:33] of town meeting. Yeah. >> Next one. All right,

[2:00:38] » that's going to be my whole presentation.

[2:00:39] » Moving on. >> A dagger.

[2:00:41] » Dagger. >> Well, I'm going to include dagger, but

[2:00:43] I'm not the the difference between end note and footnote.

[2:00:46] » Yes, >> that's the whole presentation.

[2:00:48] » This one has some has some substance to it. So, um and it's it there is an

[2:00:54] ellipsus here, but what this amends is item B under the density bonus section

[2:01:00] of the 7.10.4 for mandatory provision of affordable units section of inclusionary

[2:01:07] housing. And what this does is >> Can you zoom in?

[2:01:12] » Yes. Um can't do it anymore. This is

[2:01:20] why I want that. >> Sorry, you can keep talking. I'm just

[2:01:26] » blind. >> Okay. All right.

[2:01:29] In our in our bylaws right now, it says new develop new residential development

[2:01:34] allowed by right that is not subject to this bylaw may pro uh can provide

[2:01:38] affordable units should the applicant volunteer and therefore be eligible for

[2:01:43] the same benefits specified above. And what that means is that if you have a a

[2:01:49] project with under six units and you aren't required to um provide affordable

[2:01:55] units under our inclusionary zoning bylaw and your project is by right, you

[2:02:01] can have an affordable unit voluntarily and get a reduction in in the square

[2:02:07] footage minimum. So you can reduce the size of the units to to a smaller square

[2:02:12] footage if you voluntarily agree to have an affordable unit even if you're not

[2:02:17] required to. Right now this only is offered to projects that are allowed by

[2:02:22] right. But as we saw, for example, a project like 16 Waltham Street,

[2:02:29] sometimes a small project comes along that is still subject to planning

[2:02:36] special permit review that might want to do that. And so this would amend the

[2:02:42] bylaws to say that any new residential development

[2:02:48] not subject to inclusionary zoning may provide affordable units should the

[2:02:52] applicant volunteer and therefore be eligible by by the benefit specified

[2:02:55] above by special permit of the planning board. So it's up to the board to uh

[2:02:59] consider that arrangement and it's not limited to only byite

[2:03:06] projects. It's remains open to buy projects, but

[2:03:11] it also allows small residential projects that would say be a five units

[2:03:17] to have one affordable unit for example and negotiate smaller square footage

[2:03:23] with the planning board as part of their special permit.

[2:03:27] I don't remember where this is in the zoning, but

[2:03:32] if they do that, do they also get involved in all the rigma roll of a

[2:03:38] development agreement and open space commitment?

[2:03:40] » No. >> No, that's only the DoD,

[2:03:47] » but that would apply to 17 WAM Street because it is in the DoD, right? Um it

[2:03:52] this this is um this inclusionary zoning would apply throughout the town and so

[2:03:59] it would provide an option even within the DoD for smaller projects that would

[2:04:04] not necessarily want to go through the DoD's own version of this. So it could

[2:04:09] potentially cause a duplication or even a conflict with the density flexibility

[2:04:16] of the DoD. Um that's something to to contemplate.

[2:04:22] But it would grant that um it it it allows this now for biomite

[2:04:30] projects. So, it's a little it's a little unclear to

[2:04:36] me. Like, for example, a a six a sixunit mixeduse project in the DoD is a byite

[2:04:44] project and they could

[2:04:48] they could benefit from this and not go through the DoD's own density bonus

[2:04:53] section. Isn't that right? >> That's correct. So, they're they're

[2:04:57] basically they're not able to participate in the density bonus program

[2:05:02] with the inclusionary zoning if you're under

[2:05:05] » six. >> Yeah. So,

[2:05:08] but all of this would still be within the planning board's special permit

[2:05:12] authority. So I don't see a I can't personally see a scenario in which a

[2:05:19] person would be gaming the system because the board would still be able to

[2:05:25] see and apply the criteria as appropriate to the application and its

[2:05:33] specifics.

[2:05:42] Sure, sounds good.

[2:05:46] I might perish at this meeting. So, I say let's do it.

[2:05:51] Are there are there I I I love the positivity.

[2:05:56] Um but are there any other questions about

[2:05:59] this or concerns about it? And you know, we do have this inclusionary zoning. we

[2:06:04] do have this reduction of of floor size minimums in the DoD and it's creeping

[2:06:11] into other and it's also available in through our inclusionary zoning

[2:06:16] throughout the rest of town. So there are some places where the DoD and our

[2:06:21] inclusionary zoning bylaws overlap or or are duplicative and a person in the DoD

[2:06:28] might pursue one or other approach based on whether or not they want to go

[2:06:33] through the rigor of development agreement.

[2:06:35] » It sounds like the change is going to just allow us to have more oversight.

[2:06:40] » Yes. >> For these eventualities.

[2:06:43] » Yes. But this this density bonus is you build

[2:06:48] an affordable and you can build an extra market, right?

[2:06:51] » No, that's not a bonus unit. >> It's only a reduction in the size

[2:06:59] » if I'm not. >> And 710 has a reduction in size.

[2:07:04] » Isn't that what that is? >> Well, what section 10 does, it allows

[2:07:08] for a uh reduced pull from here. Um it allows for a

[2:07:14] reduced lot area as necessary

[2:07:18] to achieve a um extra market for

[2:07:24] » requested number of units. >> Yeah.

[2:07:26] » So the way it reads is um

[2:07:31] let's see 710.

[2:07:39] » Are you sharing that screen? >> Am I? No.

[2:07:45] » So this this is in discussion. It's it's a sub paragraph of density bonus, but

[2:07:52] the planning board may allow an increase in the total number of market rate units

[2:07:57] by a number equal to the required affordable units not to exceed

[2:08:04] 10 bonus units. >> Okay.

[2:08:07] » So this is bonus units, >> right?

[2:08:09] » Okay. And the minimum lot area per dwelling

[2:08:14] unit normally required in the applicable zoning district may be reduced by that

[2:08:22] amount area necessary to permit the additional market rate and bonus unit.

[2:08:30] For example, in a development that must provide two affordable units, an

[2:08:36] additional two market rate units may be allowed through the reduction in minimum

[2:08:42] lot area per dwelling unit. All other standard standard dimensional

[2:08:46] requirements shall be met. The the density bonus may only be granted for

[2:08:53] developments providing the units on site blah blah blah. And then what Zoe is

[2:08:58] amending there is the second part to that underneath which is B. New

[2:09:03] residential allowed by right that is not subject to this bylaw. So in other

[2:09:07] words, this is we're talking about a five unit development can provide

[2:09:12] affordable units should the applicant volunteer and therefore be eligible for

[2:09:17] the same benefits specified again above. So we when we put by right

[2:09:25] that's that was the poison pill there. >> Yeah. But you guys not you guys but the

[2:09:31] the bylaw here was trying to capture the other option which is the by right

[2:09:35] option instead of the special permit path option.

[2:09:38] » So I get why >> we require special permit for multif

[2:09:42] family. So we kind of tripped oursel up with what happened.

[2:09:45] » I got it. Okay. >> Yeah.

[2:09:47] » So this doesn't prevent anyone who could build it by right from doing that. still

[2:09:51] everyone else it's it's it still allows >> by right. So if it's by right this is

[2:09:56] still applicable. >> Correct. Yeah. The developer comes in

[2:09:59] tomorrow and and they need a special permit to do it. You just that is say

[2:10:02] hey look >> we're not required to participate in

[2:10:05] your inclusionary zoning to achieve our density bonus and get the extra unit. So

[2:10:11] we want to do it. >> Mhm.

[2:10:13] » And you guys just do it. There's no development agreement. No. And it just

[2:10:16] has to go to and it so the special permit criteria would be the 10.4

[2:10:22] special permit >> if it's Yes.

[2:10:25] » Right. >> Well, if it was in the uh um

[2:10:27] » if it's in the DoD, then then the DoD would apply, but the question I think is

[2:10:32] about whether the DoD's own internal uh density bonuses

[2:10:39] because the DoD has its own language about

[2:10:41] » it does. It does, but this is a that's a different process that requires open

[2:10:45] space agreements and designed for larger scale. Yeah. It's not designed for two

[2:10:49] or three years discretion about whether they apply this or the DoD or DoD

[2:10:53] projects that meet this very restricted set of criteria because it would be five

[2:10:58] units or fewer. This would just this would be a this would be a very strict

[2:11:02] special permit just for the density bonus units

[2:11:06] » just for us to get the >> that's it for

[2:11:09] » if it were a multif family use outside of the DoD that required a special

[2:11:14] permit >> then they could apply for this. So let's

[2:11:17] say that it was in GR and they wanted to put in um you know and they wanted to

[2:11:21] put in five units that they could um make they wanted to put in four units

[2:11:26] that they could make one affordable and then get five. Mhm.

[2:11:31] But they let's say there's by right and the special permit would only be for

[2:11:37] wouldn't be for for the whole project. It would just be for the bonus units

[2:11:42] » then >> in that case. Right.

[2:11:43] » Yes. >> Right.

[2:11:45] » Correct. >> So someone came in for buy use. They

[2:11:48] wanted to apply this and it says they have to go to special

[2:11:53] permit for with the planning board. Our special permit review would just be

[2:11:56] about the density bonus units. >> No, because we we require special permit

[2:12:00] for multif family uses. So three >> I was trying to think of anything else

[2:12:04] that would get tri triggered >> this disc this by right the the notion

[2:12:08] of residential multif family development that would that would would even do this

[2:12:13] by right. I don't even know if that has ever existed.

[2:12:15] » So yeah so I'll say it differently. Here's my question. Right. Um this this

[2:12:21] now would this now means that any byite use would have to come to special permit

[2:12:26] if they wanted to use this part of the zoning bylaw. Right.

[2:12:31] » Um >> yes but there is no by use that would um

[2:12:38] there is no byite use that allows multif family development.

[2:12:44] » Okay. What's multif family? >> Three and over.

[2:12:46] » Three and over. >> Three and over. Okay. So a duplex

[2:12:49] wouldn't trigger. >> No.

[2:12:50] » But at the same time,

[2:12:54] » I don't know whether that we're closing ourselves off.

[2:12:57] » That's I'm just thinking that. >> So if I had a duplex and I added made

[2:13:01] one affordable then made it into a three.

[2:13:06] Am I just getting a special permit to go to three and no other special permits

[2:13:10] because it was as of right. >> Yeah.

[2:13:13] » Well, I think so. that that's a good not that that's really going to happen.

[2:13:17] » Well, the the easy insertion would just be a new res new multif family

[2:13:21] residential development. >> I'm fine with the

[2:13:24] » Now, we can use our crayons on town hall meeting.

[2:13:27] » Huh. >> Now, we have to break out the crayons

[2:13:29] for the for the town more. >> I'm sorry.

[2:13:32] » To to No, I think you if you do that, you can get you just get to them first

[2:13:36] thing in the morning. >> Yeah, we can get this we can get this

[2:13:38] changed up >> if you won that. I think that would do

[2:13:40] it. >> Yeah. new multif family because now the

[2:13:43] truth is what Bill just said could happen anyway because of ADU if it's

[2:13:47] under >> but that's not that's not regulated as a

[2:13:50] multif family. >> No

[2:13:53] one want third unit. >> We do we do want to consider the idea of

[2:13:55] affordable ADUs coming into existence. So it's certainly good to leave that

[2:13:59] open. So yeah I'll put in multif family. >> I thought the concept of ADU was that it

[2:14:06] was affordable. Yeah, that's not officially.

[2:14:10] » We're not allowed to make an affordable, >> right?

[2:14:13] » No, we can't. We tried, remember? >> Oh, right.

[2:14:15] » Yeah, we know. They threw it back at us. >> Yeah, the Commonwealth said no.

[2:14:18] » Well, we beat them. We beat them. We tried that in our original one for

[2:14:21] » Yeah. No, Bill. We had it.

[2:14:26] » Grandma's paying five grand a month. >> Yeah. Mhm.

[2:14:31] » So, >> which grandma?

[2:14:33] » I don't know. That would be actually a good way to sneak some money to your

[2:14:37] family actually amendments.

[2:14:40] » Um, no, I don't have any questions. Any questions?

[2:14:45] » Okay. >> Is there is there um motion?

[2:14:48] » Well, first I opened up public comments. Um, did

[2:14:52] note there's Zoe, there's no one in the room to provide public comment here,

[2:14:56] right? >> Correct.

[2:14:58] » Well, I just need someone to confirm. >> I know. For the record,

[2:15:03] » I do. >> The camera doesn't do 360.

[2:15:05] » I didn't say anything. >> You did.

[2:15:09] » We're all in there like the Brady Bunch. >> Um, okay.

[2:15:11] » The only change is the um adding multi family.

[2:15:15] » I'll I'll make a motion to close the hearing.

[2:15:18] » Second. All in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand.

[2:15:21] I'll make a motion to uh recommend approval of the three

[2:15:26] zoning bylaw amendments to town meeting for October 13th, 2026,

[2:15:32] including amendment C amended as discussed just recently.

[2:15:39] » Second. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It's 50 to

[2:15:45] approve two of the amendments as noted and one

[2:15:49] as amended. So amend the amendment

[2:15:55] um >> for approve recommending.

[2:15:57] » We're recommending

[2:16:01] » approve and recommend. >> We recommended and then my motion was to

[2:16:05] recommend um

[2:16:10] » meeting minutes.

[2:16:14] Can we skip town uh town planner update? >> Yeah.

[2:16:18] » Okay. >> It's also not on the agenda, so can't do

[2:16:22] it.

[2:16:25] » Just just noting. >> I don't do that.

[2:16:27] » It's true.

[2:16:31] » I like them. >> I'll make a motion to approve the

[2:16:33] meeting minutes from July 28th, 2026. >> Second.

[2:16:38] » All in favor, please raise your hand. 5 Z to approve the meeting minutes.

[2:16:43] Thank you.

[2:16:46] » Uh I'll make a motion to close the meeting. Second.

[2:16:51] » All in favor to close, please raise your hand. It's by observe to close. Thanks

[2:16:55] everyone. >> Thanks everybody.

[2:16:57] Um

Planning Board 09 08 26

Transcript