[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