December 29, 2025 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

December 29, 2025 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

Good evening. It's Monday, December the 29th, 2025 at 7 o'clock p.m. And this is a meeting of the Wayland Planning Board being held by virtual platform. I'm going to call the meeting to order and take attendance. Ramon Tague. Here. Robin Borgestedt. Here. Larry Kiernan. Here. Annette Lewis here. Jesse Newberry will be joining us probably at 7.15.
The agenda for this evening is to discuss PB2502, Continued Public Hearing, 169 Rice Road, St. Philopeter, Mercurius, and St. Muna, Coptic Orthodox Church, Site Plan Approval, Public Hearing, and Review Draft Decision. Then hopefully by 8.30, we can move on to review and approve draft minutes. We'll only be looking at the minutes of 12.3. The others will have to wait until our next meeting. Then any updates from the town planner. Matters not reasonably anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting. There are none. There are none. And then hopefully we can adjourn.
Are there any representatives here from the church?
There is. And if there are, can you elevate them? Sure. Robbie, can you do that for me? Yeah, I'm doing that right now. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm just looking at the attendance. Right now there are 77 attendees and a hand raised by one. That's Tom. He's part of the team too. Oh, okay. Are you moving him over? Robbie is. And Sean also is part of the team.
I don't recognize their first name. Who is Marian Kamal? Is she part of your team?
Possibly. I'm not part of the team. We weren't planning on taking public comment this evening. This is the last hearing, hopefully, before the record is closed. Thank you.
So there are 76 attendees for the record.
Sorry.
Just to refresh everyone's recollection, on December the 23rd, the planning board received a letter from applicant's attorney. Um, and, uh, we also got additional materials. I believe it was on the 22nd from the applicant. Um, and, uh, they stated that they wanted, uh, an approval of the entire project, not just, um, phase one. And, um, that's where we were. Um, I understand that, uh, town council and the applicant's attorney have had discussions. Um, and, uh, I guess right now I'd like to, without any threats coming back to us, I'd like to understand, uh, or the board would like to understand, uh, what your proposal is at this point. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, Jonathan Silverstein for the applicant, um, the, uh, church's proposal is to receive a vote, um, on the entire project. on the entire project. We have provided some additional information in response to
the issue raised at the last hearing about the construction timeline. We provided supplemental information regarding our intent to construct a project in a single phase and to comply with the bylaw in response to, Madam Chair, your statement regarding the pending legislation that is under consideration that would require a certain percentage of affordable housing. We have voluntarily proposed to permanently restrict at least 20% of the units as affordable at 80% AMI to address your concern in that regard. And at this point, we would ask for a vote approving the application as submitted, the entire project, and not just the church building itself, which, as we've said, would be tantamount to a denial of the project. So that's our proposal. I want to, the board will discuss this, but we don't, we will not be able or would not be able to produce a decision by the 31st, even if we agreed to what you were talking about. I understand that. And so we're open to discussing a further extension if it seems that in good faith we're working towards an approval of the entire project. So if we get an indication through
a straw poll, similar to what the board did last time, that we're looking at an approval of the entire project and you just need time to come up with a decision and find a date that the board can you know, review and approve the decision then we would certainly be open to discussing a reasonable extension to make that work. I think at this point we need to know what that extension would be. We offered that at our last meeting. And because of the schedule that we have and all of the other projects and other things that we're dealing with, we had suggested an extension to sometime in February. We were told that that was not okay. So respectfully, what we understood was that the extension would be for the board maybe to possibly be willing to consider the entire project, but most likely would just be the church building. So what we're looking for that is an understanding that the board agrees that if we're looking at an extension for the purpose of the board reviewing, preparing and reviewing a decision to approve the entire project. And if we have
comfort that that is the direction we're heading, then we would be more open to a reasonable extension. We would like to try to figure out whether there's a way to do it before the end of February, because the end of February is just too, too far down the line. But, you know, I don't, I think the first step we walked at, we left the last hearing with a very, um, discouraging understanding that the board was looking at just going forward approving the church building itself. And so what we're hoping to get before we get to the specifics of a further extension is an understanding that the board is looking at approving the project as a whole. Before I hear where you're coming from, but I want to go over a possible schedule so that we can see if we can even satisfy you if we were to decide to approve the whole project. Um, right now, the 31st is the day, and we've been working over the holidays to get you something that we can approve. Um, a 30 day extension would be January the 31st, which does not work for us because we have too many things that we need to do in that timeframe. Um, if we go into February, um, even like 45 days, 45 days, I think is Valentine's Day and which isn't a problem, but that's a Saturday. Uh, if we went to the 13th, uh, or if we went to the 45 days, I think that takes you into president's day, which is also a holiday. So, or, and things are closed. So I think we need to know, I hear you say reasonable, but for us, a 30 day extension is not necessarily reasonable because the decision has to be changed and drafted. Uh, we need to make sure that we cover everything that we need to cover. And then the board has to review it. And approve it. So, um, I think we need to know what your outside date is before we go down this path.
Well, that's not my decision, but, um, can we look more, so I understand that the 16th is a holiday, but the rest of the week isn't, but in the previous, previous week isn't. So yes, the 14th is a holiday, but the 13th is a Friday or is a Saturday, the 13th is a Friday. Um, and you know, I, I would think that the matter of revising the current decision to which we haven't seen, but I understood is prepared to reflect, um, the rest of the project that shouldn't take months, um, or even weeks. I understand we need to find a date that the board can meet. Um, we need to do more. Well, I mean, we can discuss some of your proposals tonight, but we need to be able to include them in a decision. Um, so, you know, the board has to consider that as well. I mean, we might need to have a meeting of our board to work out those things. So, uh, are you suggesting the 13th of February?
Um, I guess, I guess for us, the date is, is, I understand the date is very important for you, ma'am, and I understand that, but for us, right, what is really important is that we're heading down a path of approving the whole project. Approving the church on its own is of absolutely no value to us. There is just zero value to this for us. Okay. So we need to know that we're going down this path to get to closure and approval of the whole project. If we're not doing that, then it's just, the date is, is not the material issue here. We can change it. It is a material issue for us because at the last meeting, sir, it's absolutely not. So before we spend any, I don't want to belabor this, but before we spend any more time, we need to know if you would be okay with February the 13th, if we needed an extension.
Okay. We will go along with February the 13th. Let's discuss what do we need to go to get there. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I don't even know how to start this. Um, town council could not be with us tonight. Um, as Robert said in his note earlier, um, but he and I did talk with town council, and with the town manager today. Uh, one of the things that town council mentioned was that, um, she had gotten a call from the assistant attorney general, who's responsible for a municipal matters and that they had had a conversation and then that she did have a conversation with Mr. Silverstein. Um, I, I wasn't on the call. I have, I'm not sure exactly, uh, everything that was discussed and I'm trying to, uh, this becomes a board decision. Um, whether, uh, you want to consider approving the entire project or whether you want to stay with the approval of phase one and we can talk about it. You can ask whatever questions you need. Um, and we can go through that and then we can talk, uh, if, if we're willing to entertain it, then we can talk with the applicants. The record is still open. I'm dying to close it. I thought we voted on it last time, didn't we? We did it. It wasn't a vote. It was a straw poll.
Well, I've been clear. I, I think we should vote on the entire, uh, plan that, uh, applicants provided.
Robin, can you speak by any chance? Um, yeah, I can speak. Um, I mean, we can vote, you know, or to have another straw poll, uh, if that's what you want to do, uh, you know, I think there should be, there, there really should be three options. One is only phase one, one is phase one and two and one is phase one, two, and three. Um, and you know, we can, it's, it depends so much on what the conditions are, um, for each of those different options, but we can have a straw poll and see what people want to do. Uh, Jesse's not here yet. Just to narrow down our options, I suspect the applicant is not interested in, in a phase one, two, uh, versus a phase one, two, three. But that doesn't mean it's not what we vote on. I know, but how's that different from just doing phase one? It gets in their school building in the same place. Um, what, how does that affect their requirement to have a complete and what is it? Five years that will their, their argument, as you could see in the letter, I think it was from council was you can just extend it
in five years, whatever we're going to have a different board, maybe a different town planner, different staff and different, um, peer review consultant likely. My question was, would, would doing it in phases affect the timeline of what they're planning to do? Like, you know, do certain construction overlap? Uh, why don't you ask, why don't you ask the applicant that directly? Can you respond to the fact if we did this in phases, is there overlap in terms of what you're doing construction wise on phase one versus phase two or three that these other phases have to be done at the same time because of, I don't know, connecting detail or whatever? So, um, based upon the conversation where the five-year deadline in the bylaw was raised for the first time at the last meeting. It was, excuse me, it was not raised for the first time. I raised it at the first or second meeting before. Um, we have, uh, provided a letter stating that we are not phasing the project
and we're going to construct it in a single phase and we intend to complete it within five years. And if we're unable to do so at that point, as any other applicant is entitled to do, we would ask for an extension, but we're not intending to do it as a phased project anymore because of the board's stated intent of denying the other two buildings, um, because of the phasing plan. And just to clarify my argument regarding that section of the bylaw was not just that we could ask for extensions. It was that that section of the bylaw cannot lawfully be applied to a Dover project. Um, but putting that aside as a way to try to hopefully avoid, um, litigation. We have conceded on that and we are proposing to construct it in a single phase. So I'm waiting for Jesse to show up. We should have been here by now. Um, good, Jesse. Thank you. Uh, unmute yourself, please. Can you unmute yourself, please? Oh, sure. Sorry. Thank you. Um, Jesse, you just came into this. Um, I started off by, um, essentially reiterating the note that Robert sent us today. Um, and, um, we asked applicants, uh, counsel to speak and they did and also, uh, Mr. Barson. Um, and, uh, they would like a full approval of the entire project. And, um, if we were to agree to that, then they would agree to an extension until February the 13th for us to finalize the decision. Um, the one that was drafted, as you may have seen, uh, does not contemplate the, uh, the full project because that wasn't the instruction that Robert was given at the end of the last meeting. Um, and what we were just asking was how each member might feel, and we can fill you in on any questions you might want to ask in the meantime, um, and or ask the applicant, uh, how the board would feel if, um, we agreed to, uh, approve the whole project. Okay. Thanks for the catch up there.
Do you need to hear what the others have said?
Um, I think if it's going to go for the full project, then yeah, I, I, I'd be okay with the extension until the 13th to get that done. As long as we're going to see all of the, um, you know, plans that we have been looking for this whole time, as long as it's a good plan. And as long as it's taking into account the construction time and all of that, then yeah, that's fine. Um, that's really not what's happening. Okay. Um, they, they have submitted plans. They think that that's it. Um, they would want an agreement that we would definitively accept the whole project. Um, and, uh, there are the letter from, um, Attorney Silverman on December the 23rd proposed a few new things that we haven't really discussed with the applicant and would have to, in order to include them in a decision. Right. Right. Um, yeah. I'd love to hear what the other members think. Okay. Uh, I don't want to repeat for you. Feel free to say it yourself. Again, if you don't mind, Larry. Um, I was, uh, open to the idea of extending to mid-February to vote on, uh, a complete, um, plan. Um, I don't think that that's what they've asked for. I think what they've asked for is a vote tonight and the extension would be, um, to, uh, finalize the decision. Oh, we're voting tonight on the whole plan. And I don't know that we are, but I believe if I didn't misunderstand, uh, what they said, I believe that that was, isn't that what you were asking for? Um, I think what I asked for, Madam Chair, was just a good faith indication that that's the direction we were heading. I wasn't asking for a vote. I was asking for a straw poll, similar to what you adopted at the last year. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I'm sorry, Larry. So, uh, I'm okay to, uh, open to the idea of extending to mid-February. Which... That's not what we're doing, is it? No, we're talking about whether we're willing to grant an approval of the whole project versus the phased approach. Right. The complete project? Right. Not necessarily on the 13th, so forget that date. By the 13th? The 13th is when the decision would have to be issued. Okay. What are we asking for tonight? I'm not sure what you're asking me and that. I was asking you to, you had already spoken about what your feelings were on extending, not extending, on granting an approval for the whole project. Yeah. And I thought you had responded to that earlier. Uh, yeah, I, um, I'm of the opinion we should, uh, when we vote, uh, the applicant's been clear. They want the entire application, uh, uh, decision. And that would be, uh, the minimum they would accept. Um, they didn't want phasing and I recommend we vote for the entire, on the entire project, not a phased approach.
Robin? Yep. So I had said that I think we should, you know, poll on whether people have different feelings about approving one phase, two phases, or three phases. Um, you know, hearing that they're willing to commit to completing all three phases in five years and the 20%, um, affordable through WHA. Um, you know, so to me, it depends so much on what the conditions are, but, uh, would I say we're willing to vote on a decision for the whole thing on, by February 13th? Uh, you know, I suppose we are, we have to vote before that. Right. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know that. And come up with a decision by February 13th. Yeah. Um, I guess if what they want is up or down, then sure we can commit to giving them up or down by February 13th. I don't think that that's what they're asking. I think what they want to know is that it's an up. Is that correct applicant? Up or down now, and then we'll go through the process of approving it. I think that's correct. Right. We, we would like to understand in good faith that the board, that the intent is, and that Robert's direction will be to draft an approval decision for the entire project that would be reviewed and filed by February 13th. Um, similar to the direction that the board gave them at the last meeting to draft a decision just on the church filming. So we would, we would like a similar direction on the entire project, um, for the 13th.
Yeah. So I have no trouble with committing to us voting on that by February, you know, and coming up with a decision, but you know, the conditions are going to be pretty specific as they are in the draft decision we've come up with already. So, um, you know, some of the conditions will stay the same and then there'll be some new added conditions, like a five-year timeline and the 20% affordable through the WHA, um, on the housing. So, uh, you know, yes, I suppose we can commit to voting on that coming up with a decision on February 13th, as long as Madam Chairman thinks that we have time in our schedule. To me, that feels a little tight, but then we run up against February school vacation week. I don't think the applicant understands that we've been meeting basically every single week. Uh, and most of us have full-time jobs and families and school vacations and all that kind of stuff. And so that February 13th is a little tight for us still. Uh, if Madam Chairman thinks we can get it done by then, then I trust her to tell us that. It will be very tight. So, um, and Ira, where are you? I'm leaning towards doing it in phases. I think it's also a good move for the, um, for the community, all the people that were against this project, that as it, as it's getting built, they, uh, will understand how it is going to work. Okay. I'm, I'm reserving my thoughts, Jesse. I mean, what we were reviewing for the draft decision was obviously phase just for phase one. Um, but I keep coming back to, if they want to do a plan for the full project and that's what they want to put in front of us, then that's what we'll vote on. I mean, but it has to, we have to feel confident in what, what our decision is and we have to feel confident in the conditions and, um, obviously more conditions in a, in a three phased plan than there are enough, you know, single phase. Right. So, um, but if that's what the applicant wants to do, that's, that's, that's fine. Let me ask what, what does not approving the project, and I'm not saying that's my position. What does that do in terms of their moving forward on this?
You're asking us or them? Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think you would know, right? Um, under the, uh, the bylaw and the regulations, um, the way it's written, the appeal is to, an appeal can be taken if a building permit isn't issued. Um, and then it's taken to the zoning board and then the zoning board, they can appeal from the zoning board. I don't know if their council has a different, uh, scenario. I'm not sure. Do you, Mr. Silverstein? Um, yes. I'm going to try to work this carefully because I don't want anything I say to be construed as a threat. But answering the question, um, we would, if there were a denial or if there were a decision that did not approve the entire project, we would file a request for declaratory judgment in the lane board under chapter 240 section 14a, which does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies. And we would file a claim in federal district court under the federal reluqua statute, um, seeking redress under federal laws law. Excuse me. Can you say the words that those, um, initials go to in the federal statute? The religious land use and institutionalized persons act. Thank you. Our town council hasn't given us any information on that statute. So when do we make it? Um, I think we have to decide now, uh, the direction that the board wants to move. I'm going to, uh, not vote on this right now. Not vote. I mean, I just, I have conflicting feelings. Can you, can you do that and then come in at a later time and cast a vote or is this a straw? We're not voting. We're taking a straw poll and I don't influence the board one way or the other. Okay. So, um, I guess the question is, and I think it's more cut and dry. You might want to phrase it, Mr. Silverstein, um, the way you would like us to take the poll because I want to make sure that we do what you're requesting. Um, okay. Thank you. You know, just to, uh, clarify what, we don't feel like we need to submit any new plans. We, the plan, plans really haven't changed. I know, um, one board member said, if we want to put a new plan in front of the board, the only thing we're changing is instead of, um, as you know, any nonprofit with an, uh, ambitious construction project, it would have been nice for, it would have, it's a hardship to have to do it in a single phase, but based upon the discussion at the last meeting, we're now, um, agreeing to do it in a single phase instead. So, um, that's the only thing that's changing. Nothing about the plans is changing. So we don't feel like we need to produce any new plans. So what we would ask is that the board, um, take a straw poll similar to what it did last time to to agree to an extension to February 13th and to direct the town planner to prepare a decision with conditions approving the entire project.
And how would we deal with the things that you proposed in your letter? Well, the only thing I proposed is the addition of the affordable units. Um, and I think that I could write a proposed condition and share it with town council and the town planner. It's really pretty straightforward. We would voluntarily be restricting 20% of the units, uh, as affordable at 80% AMI. Um, we are not proposing to have those turned over to the housing authority. We're just agreeing to, we would enter into a regulatory agreement, um, which is a pretty standard form. And again, I could work with town council on the form of that, um, to ensure that those are rented to, um, people who qualify or are income qualified and are rented at rents that are affordable at 80% AMI. And that's all pretty straightforward. I have no doubt that we could, um, that Ms. Murray and I could in short order that a couple of days produce a condition for inclusion that would restrict that, but we're not proposing to turn those units over to the housing authority. I'm not sure if I misunderstood. There was a reference to the WHA, but, um, um, because you referred to the section of the statute or the bylaw that was just for the purpose of what affordable was. I think I said that are affordable as within the meaning of, because I, but in Wayland under our bylaws, sorry, but under in Wayland under our bylaws, affordable means available through the WHA and, uh, you know, rented through them. So that's what it means.
So then what I'm clarifying now that affordable means as defined by the statute, affordable means it's going to be rented to people who are income qualified, who don't earn more than 80% of AMI and the rents will be, um, uh, affordable as defined in the statute and the regulations, um, to someone who is earning no more than 80% of AMI. Um, and they will likely be includable on the town's SHI. Um, but if we have them rented through the WHA, then obviously they're not available to, uh, church members and it, um, would undermine, uh, our position, which is that these are are part of the religious use. So I apologize for any confusion on that, but my intent was to refer to the affordability provisions, not to the other provisions of the bylaw. Okay. And again, I just, because you were, it was a little muffled, you were saying that these would be eligible for the SHI. I believe they would be, but we can agree to a condition on that because we don't control what the EOHLC decides. So for instance, if EOHLC says that we won't include those as local action units because they're for church members, we don't have control over that, but we are willing to permanently restrict those units to being rented to, um, individuals who are at or below 80% AMI and at rents that are affordable as defined in the statute and the regulations. And we would very happily cooperate with the town to advocate for those units to be included on the SHI. Um, with HLC. And I'm optimistic that they would agree to that, but we can't commit to that, you know, because we don't control that decision. And those units would not necessarily be subject to the, uh, requirements that you're imposing on the church people, or would it be? No, they would be. It's just that... And they have to be members of the church. Yes. We would reserve those units to ensure that they went to people who are income-qualified and we would ensure that the rents also satisfy those requirements. In all honesty, I think it's unlikely that the rents that we charge are going to exceed that anyway, but we would be agreeing to permanently restrict 20% of the units so that hopefully we can get them included on the SHI. Robert? Yes. Can you weigh in on this? Because we're, you're more of an expert in this area. Yeah, I think, I think we would run this by the Regional Housing Service Office to see how exactly this would work out. And if this would all work out, and if we can actually count it against, uh, SSI's housing inventory at SHI. Um, if it, if it all works out and we can't count it, we would, the town would still benefit from having housing options that are, that are, that are, we call little a, little, little affordable than, than a big A, a big A, which is affordable, which means you can count it towards, uh, uh, inventory. So regardless, if it, if it doesn't work out and we can't put it on our list, it's, would still provide, well, the 25, 26 units overall, 20% of that. I'm not sure how many, how many would that work? No, there's 24 units. It looks like it would be five. Again, I'm, I'm only saying that based on Yeah. the bylaw, but I might not, I don't know what the church is thinking. I would, I would have to run this by the Regional Housing Service Office, um, Liz Russ and Kristen Gichard to see, to see how this would work out exactly. Yeah. I don't think that it, I can't, I can't give a, like a, a clear statement right now, but it's, but it's an interesting idea and I think town should kind of look into it. Yeah. Potentially.
Well, we kind of have to make the decision tonight. Um, well, are you people ready to, uh, talk about this, uh, or vote or do a straw poll or what? Well, where do we go from a straw poll? Then we would, uh, uh, depending on how the straw poll is, it's, if it's in favor, you will, whatever the poll is deciding that will be what happens. If it's in favor of our phase plan, then we have a decision to vote on tonight. If it's not, then we can discuss when to be next to, to, to figure out the, the rest of the decision for the, for the whole plan. So, um, I think the applicant needs an answer tonight to, right. And I, I would actually like to be able to close the meeting tonight. Um, but, um, and town council suggested that because we've had a threat of litigation that we could have, um, further discussions, or she could have further discussions either way, uh, with, uh, council on the things like the affordable units and how to deal with those, um, and then put it in a decision. And then we could, uh, vote on the, finally vote on the decision as well. We just need it. We just, I need, I need an answer how to proceed. Yes, I know. We all do. So it looks like it's pretty close right now, but we need to, we need to official straw poll. Okay. Uh, Larry, you essentially, I'll poll you again. Yes. Let's make sure I say this right. What are, what are the options? It is. The options are any number of things. We have, we can continue, we can stay, we can stay with phase one. Yeah. We can go to the whole project and then there's the in-between, but for the in-between, it wouldn't make any difference. I don't think because they said no already. There are now 97 attendees here. I don't know who Kenneth is. He's got his hand up. If you're part of the panel, fine. Otherwise we're not taking public comment right now. So for me, I, I think we should address the entire project. Okay. Um, Ira? I'm for phasing, uh, specifically because I think there is an awful lot that we haven't looked at. Um, and I think it's good to, to, to, I mean, this is kind of how we run past developments. Um, and I think it gives us more opportunity to make sure that we're going in the direction that the plans are, uh, drafted out to, to be. Okay. Jesse? I'd love to vote on phase one because that's what we have drafted. Robin? I'm willing to vote on the whole thing, I guess, but I'm really stuck on this affordable housing thing. And to me, if the only way that we can guarantee that this is included in our, uh, SHI is to have it capital A affordable housing, then I think that should be a condition. And I would, I guess, want to hear what the applicant says. Are they willing to ditch the whole approval by not allowing that? Because that's to me an important condition. Uh, it was in the letter they sent. It's what I'm thinking in my head as I'm driving in Buffalo. So, uh, you know, I'm willing to vote on it, but in my mind, that's one of the conditions.
I think the applicant is speaking among itself. I think that's quite unreasonable to bring in something the applicant offered in a good faith effort, not fully understanding the, uh, us knowing full well that these residents are for, uh, the members of the church. I'm doing a quick look up on the rules, and it's pretty clear that you cannot, um, legally restrict residency to a specific faith in, uh, SHI. So, right. I think it's gonna apply more as Robert said. Uh, it's, uh, you know, it's good for Wayland in that there's affordable housing, but it's not HSI. And it's not for our residents. How does it benefit Wayland if it's not for our residents? Uh, Robin, if they live in Wayland, they're residents. Yes. Then they are. Yes.
Well, even with the SHI, Robin, you'd be having people from anywhere bidding on that. Right. No, I understand that, but it, then it, at least it counts towards our SHI. So, you know, I, when I read the, when I read the letter from, you know, the applicant to me, that's when they cited the regulation, that's what that means. Capital A affordable housing. They've been clear all along. Um, it is a very nice offer. It is not something I don't think they can, uh, meet the requirements overall. And I think it's very unfair to, for that to weigh, um, anyone's final decision when it's not even a requirement. Um, we have other things. Um, anyway, that's my two cents on that. Madam Chair. Yes. Um, I, I, I do appreciate that sentiment. Um, and I'd be remiss if I didn't agree and note that this is not something that is, we offered this voluntarily. It's not required. Um, we tried to offer it just as a concession. That being said, again, if it gets us over the finish line, we will agree to have those units administered through the housing authority. Um, and, um, we would accept that as a condition. We need a thousand times. We need our Sunday school. You know, we need our Sunday school. This is, you know, I mean, we're, we want to help the town. Right. But we're really being held hostage. We got to have a Sunday school guys without that. It's no good. It's just no good. And I keep repeating the same thing. So no, nobody thought that the Sunday school would not be approved. It's just that in the phasing plan that you showed us, you wouldn't have a Sunday school for years anyway. So in the interim, you have other buildings that would be there that you were thinking of using anyway. And that was the thought process. But I understand what you're saying. I guess what I'm saying is this, is that if I, if I didn't know for sure today that I could build the Sunday school to support the size of the church that we need, there would be no reason for me to build a church. Okay. It makes no sense for me to build a church and come back to you three years from now or two years from now saying, Hey, I want a Sunday school. He says, no, we can't approve it because I don't know what regulation has changed. I can't do that. Right. I can't go embark on building a church that will never have a Sunday school. That doesn't make any sense for us. Why, why, why, why are you afraid of no Sunday school? We, why, why? I'm sorry. Why are you afraid there won't be any Sunday school? I mean, because he said the discretion of the planning board to approve it or deny it. But you want that in a separate building, right? That's true. It has to be a separate building. And what was the resistance to doing that? I think I was out that night. Well, so, so we submitted, right? Going back historically, we submitted a plan for the whole project, right? Yeah. And we said that because we're a nonprofit would like to do this in phases because it makes it easier for us. And you, and you guys said, no, we can't approve the whole thing. You got to come back hat in hand, begging on your knees to approve a Sunday school building. And I'm saying, we're never going to do this. We're just never going to do it. Okay. Because I'm never going to approve building a church building today that I have to go groveling on my hands and knees, offering concessions three years from now for a Sunday school that you would tell me, no, I can't approve it for God knows what. That's the reality of it. You're asking me today to accept the phasing plan, which we have removed. It doesn't exist. It's no longer part of the conversation. Okay. For something that I absolutely need. And I'm offering you concession after concession after concession. And I'm just, we need to have the whole thing approved. I would not accept a church without a corresponding Sunday school to support the load on that church. You wouldn't accept it. We're not going to accept it. It doesn't make any sense. Well, why can't the Sunday school be part of phase one? Well, that's just exactly what we said, Ira, right? We said, we are going to do the whole project in one phase because you don't want to give us the phasing. We said, fine. We've retracted the G3 document that says, this is going to be phased. We're taking that out. Now, this project is going to be completed in a single phase. And we're asking you, and that project has been exactly the same project, which since we submitted it on August 28th. There has been no changes to this whatsoever. Okay. Madam Chair, may I add one detail? Yes, please. Tom Curran Studio DSK. I want to just clarify that building A and buildings B are in fact connected. Okay. Originally, we thought of they could be built separately, but they are in fact connected buildings. They're not separate buildings. Just want to state that for the record. Right. So we took up phasing completely. We said we have, and we said this in the last meeting, which was 10, 12 days ago. We submitted a letter to that effect. We updated the plans, as in we removed the document that showed phasing. And we're asking you to give us a vote on the whole project. There is nothing in this project that is not religious. We're not asking for any zoning relief of any kind, right? We're making concessions on trees. We're making concessions on lighting. We're making concessions on walkways. We're making concessions on affordable housing. We don't have to do any of those. I just, I'm trying to understand why such an opposition to the project, because I don't get it. There is nothing controversial here. Nothing. I'll speak for myself. It's not the project. So what is it, ma'am? It's 12 and a half years of construction. So we said we're going to endure the hardship, and we're going to get it done for you in five years. That's good. We are going to endure the hardship. Glad to hear it. Okay. I don't believe that in the paperwork that you submitted, I might have missed it, that it said you'll do it in five years. It is there, actually, ma'am. We've actually removed the phasing plan, and Jonathan's letter clearly indicates we are going to do this in five years. I can open the letter right now, and I can share it with you. That's fine. We've been working nonstop on your decision, so we haven't had the opportunity to read through every single thing that you submitted. With all due respect, it was a three-page document, right? We've already said that our intention to do so in the last meeting. So I guess we're just asking for you to approve the project. There is nothing in here that's controversial. Even the housing, we're doing all these concessions. We want to be part of your community. Why is this so difficult? Why? If I could just clarify one thing, Madam Chair, the reason that the reference to the Worcester Housing, the Weyland Housing Authority, caught me off guard is because there actually is not anything in the bylaw about that. The documents have to be reviewed by the Weyland Housing Partnership.
According to what I'm reading, all documents shall be subject to approval of the Weyland Housing Partnership and Town Council. I don't see it. You're reading something else. You're reading a different section, I believe, of the bylaw. I'm reading multi-family housing, which is brand new, and it only applies to certain districts. Well, I refer to Article 22, the inclusion of affordable housing. That's what I'm looking at. Okay, and which Article 22, what section? Well, there's no reference in Article 22 to the Weyland Housing Authority at all, but there are several references to the Housing Partnership.
I looked at this recently and I thought that I also saw the Housing Authority. I think it's in the newer version, which I think is not online. Well, then, respectfully, I shouldn't be criticized for referring to something and retracting my approval. I'm looking at the published version of the bylaw that refers to the Housing Partnership, and that's what I was referring to. But that being said, again, we've conceded on that if we get an approval on the entire project. And we're conceding on this because not just because of that, we would like to be part of the community, we would like to have these available to other people, right? We just need our project approved so we can get going on building it. We can't build a church without a corresponding Sunday school. We are just never, ever, ever going to accept that. Okay? None of you people, would accept this if you're in my shoes. Okay? It makes no sense. Okay? There is no phasing at the moment in the plan submitted. It does not exist. You said originally you brought it in phases and that the planning board said that they didn't, that we didn't want it that way. I don't remember that discussion. No, sir, what you did, we wanted to phase it. Yeah. You'd still like to phase it. But at the last meeting, we heard that you were going to deny approval of the other two buildings. No, we weren't denied. I don't remember. You were only going to approve the church, which by implication means that we weren't going to have an approval of the other two buildings. And we cannot, we can't do that. Respectfully, we're not going to come back and subject ourselves to this process again for the other two buildings. And we can't leave that exposure. We can't spend the time and the money on building the church and getting the church ready to build only to come back and potentially face this type of process and potentially a denial on the other buildings. We need to know that we have approval now of the project. We're not going to do this again. And that's why, although we don't think it's legally required, legally required, we are agreeing to do this in a single phase. And, you know, we're, we're, we're doing that, basically, because that appears to be the only chance of getting the project approved in its entirety, without having to go through years of costly litigation.
Okay, Ira, I'm assuming that you're still in the same place.
If the majority of the board is leaning towards approving one, the whole thing, that I will support that, and I will work as tough as I, hard as I can, and that's complete. Yeah, I think that that's not where we are. We have one yes, one no. Robin? Sorry, I had my speaker off.
I guess I would say yes, if you're okay with the deadline, and we're, you know, we still have our conditions to come up with, but with some agreement on the, the affordable housing, then I guess I'm, I'm a yes, but they may not like all of our conditions. How's that? Comes out of your net.
Do you, are you still up in, well, you're whatever? Well, I'm just, what worries me the most is, can we get all of the conditions that will be relevant to the entire project? And that's what worries me. I think, I think we can do that. You do. Well, one of the, okay, go ahead, Robert. No, I, I mean, we, I, in my position, we could not do, it's either a phase tonight, or it's an extension with the whole project. We cannot, I don't, I don't think we have two days, time to put in, change all the conditions tonight, or offline before the deadline. So if we are going to, if the plan board does decide to approve the whole thing tonight, all together, no phases, one project, then we need a deadline extension. And that's my position coming in. I do think we can get all the business conditions. I think we have enough, we would have enough time, if we have 45 days, 44 days to put that all together, I think we would have enough time to meet again, have town council chime in, have the applicant submit what they think that some conditions that could be, that could be put in, have town council, and have our regional housing service office, take a look at those conditions, and make sure that it's correct. So we, I think we can do it. Is it tight? Yes. Is it doable? Yes. But I think it's a combine between the 30 days and the 60 days. I think 44 days is, is, is the right in the middle. So I think it's perfect. All right. We just need a decision tonight. Pardon me? I said, we just need something to do. So we need to, we need to try closes up no matter what, either vote on the face tonight, issue the decision in a few days, or continue it with the, and with the intention to finalize all the rest of the conditions. I'm sorry, continue it to finalize the condition. We need a, we need a resolution in the next 44 days. I know this has been a lot of work. I know Ned and I have been working on the decision in the last few days, especially in the last week on this. So I just, we just need to make a decision. The board needs to make a decision on this. And if the board, if the board issues a decision based on conditions that are reasonable and the app does not like it, then they can appeal it. So that's, that's, that it, that happens, could happen, happens once in a while too.
So you're suggesting not, I don't think this is right, but not approving the, not necessarily approving the project tonight, but waiting for you to come up with the conditions plus with our input and considering all of that to vote, uh, is this or complete or one approval? The captain was, was asking for a straw poll. I don't think they're asking for a, a final vote, but I think they're asking for a, a tension of what, what the board is going to do. In good faith, in good faith. Yeah. Okay. So we have one, one, a maybe, um, another one, I guess. So it's two. I, let me just make sure I have this. Well, should we go around again? Yes, please. I, I will change my opinion of phasing as opposed to the whole thing, as long as Robert says he can pull off all of the, um, contingencies and everything, if he can. And Larry was, Larry was a yes. So that's two. Um, Jesse, are you still where you were?
Yes. Jesse is a no. I'm a no. Um, and Robin, where are you? Um, I, I'm okay. Again, you know, I'll say it again. I'm yes, with a lot of conditions and the applicant may not like those, but I'm happy with what we've, the concession we got tonight and hopefully the rest of the conditions are not so offensive that we're all good and everybody walks away happy on February 13th. Well, Jesse, can you explain why you're in favor of the, of the phases as opposed to outright approval of the whole thing? I just think we already have a draft decision based on the phased approach. I think it's such a big project that it deserves to be treated in phases. I think the public would like it better as phases. Um, that's just where I'm at. Um, just chiming, Matt, Matt is chiming in. Um, so let's say that the board does approve the whole project together. Any change that the board, the, the applicant comes back and said, oh, shoot, we need to make this change. We'd come back to the board anyways. So it's not like the, it's not like we're giving them the approval and then they can just do, they can meet the changes that they, that they propose make, you know, in two or three years, they would have to come back to the planning board, no matter what, if there's our changes just as a, as an FYI. So there's, there is a little bit of checking balance in case. Um, and to Robin's point, I will address that, that like, this is like any other decision. There are many conditions that are pretty strict and that, that, you know, are discussed within the app and they understood that because of how big the project is, they're going to be conditions that'd be, you know, it's pretty straightforward that you need to do this and you need to do that. Like, it won't be just like this decision today. It's, it's, it won't not be open-ending. There'd be things that the applicant needs to do and they know that. So. So we have Larry is a yes. Jesse is a no. Uh, Robin is a yes. Don't want to misstate it, Robin. Yeah. All of a yes. Kyra. Again, I think it's, there's a lot of what Robert's going to do. So based on that, I guess I would say yes. Okay. Um, I would vote just so I'm clear going forward, I would vote no. Um, so it's three yes, two no, and all you need is three for the vote. Um, so, um, I guess that's where we are unless anybody wants to change any votes. Um, and, um, Robert, is there anything that we have to have submitted that has to go into the record for the continuation? No, for any documentation in order to expand this decision to the full, um, the full project. Um, I believe we received the final plans that the Apkin was supposing. I think those are plans from dated, uh, December 22nd, which I believe modified the cover sheet or I'm going to modify a little more, but I think it has the, um, phasing plan sheets removed. And that was done, uh, last Monday, I believe before, after the, after the meeting on the 17th. Um, but I'm not, what's, I'm not sure to show you what's your question. You know, you're trying to ask. I just wanted to make sure that there's nothing else that needs to go into the record. Because I'd like to close the record. Yes, Mr. Silverman, service team. Yes. Sorry to interrupt. I was going to just echo your sentiment, Madam Chair, that we would agree there's, that the record is complete and that the board could, um, vote to close the public hearing tonight. And just to confirm in light of, uh, the struggle, uh, we will, um, agree to extend the deadline for the Board of Pilots decision to February 13th. And I will send a confirmatory email to Robert, um, after the meeting. Okay. Before we close the record, I'd like to ask a question because I, it was asked by Robert and I didn't understand the answer. Um, on the plans, it shows two retaining walls, six feet tall. And then on, I think it's, uh, 501 plan. It shows a short wall and a long wall, which I don't know, but I'm assuming those are the retaining walls. And on top of one of them, you have, uh, a chain link fence on top of the other one. You have, um, a guard rail, I think a wooden rail. The question is when you add them together, how tall is the structure?
Yeah. Um, I think, uh, Tom or Sean from DSK, um, can respond to that. I don't have an answer to that. So Sean, and in here, studio DSK, um, it depends on the location. Um, there is, um, a detail shown with, I believe, chain link fence and also with a wooden guard rail. And those would happen, um, over on the north side of the plan between the soccer playing field in the parking lot. Um, we have lowered the retaining wall on the south side of the, um, the, the plan or the, the, uh, property, um, so that that wall is a maximum of six feet high with nothing on top of it. So, so you've changed the plans then? Uh, I believe that we've stated in, in the documents. Um, no, you've got, you've got details. You've got the, the plan says six feet and we understood that before in the detail sheet. It says, it doesn't say that, that it's the, uh, retaining wall, but I'm assuming it is. And it talks about the long wall and the short wall. And on one of them, the one that's near the parking lot has a wooden guard rail and the one that I think, and the one that is near, um, the south side has a chain, looks like it has a chain link fence again, just going by what you submitted. So Robert asked, you know, what's what, where's where? And the answer was, you can see it on the plans. So I'm asking, where is it? So the, uh, the details on 501 are, um, generic and they show, um, uh, general, uh, wall configurations. Um, and like I said, on the north side of the plan or the property, um, there is a, um, a slight height differential between the parking lot in the playing field and the playground. And I, I can't remember whether there was a chain link fence on the whole, whole length of that. Um, that's, that was chain link. It looked like it was a wooden, would it be the wooden one? Yes. And I believe, I believe the detail shows the, the wooden guard rail there as well, which would make sense to stop any automobiles from getting down there. And that's what Robert asked. So the question is when you take the wall and then you attach the fence to it, what is the height? Approximately about five foot six. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Because you can't tell that when you look at the detail plan. Understood. So, um, we might give you a condition on that. And then on the other wall, where you have the chain link fence, is that the same thing? No, the wall, the, um, retaining wall, sorry, on the south side of the property, along the, um, fire apparatus access road is a maximum of six feet from, uh, grade to the top of the wall. And what about, what about the fence on the top? There's no fence? There's no fence. And why is it in your plan? Uh, I'll have to check that. Um, but I thought that we removed that when we, um, um, we had the discussion about what can fall within the setback and what can't. So, um, um, board, what do you think about closing the record? I just want to ask a question. Robert said that if there are any changes, they'd have to come back to the board. Um, what types of changes, the engineering changes, architectural changes? The things that we're allowed to deal with under Dover. Only those things that we're allowed to deal with under Dover. Including the fence and retaining wall. Right. But we could handle that with a condition.
Are you okay? Or do you have more questions, Ira? No, I'm okay. I guess. Yeah. Okay. Um, the other question before, when we saw, we, after we closed the, the hearing, is we just, when we have another meeting to finalize the decision, when's, when do we want to have a decision come back to the board for that? I think that I would like to, after we close the hearing, I would like to look at the draft that we have not online, but, uh, in the individual copies that you sent us, go through them, talk about the stuff and see if we're all on the same page with at least what we've got there. And then there would be more, uh, when we add the entire project.
Yep. Okay. So, um, do we have to vote on the extension as well? Or does that just the applicant?
Um, you can, you can take a, you can take a vote of accepted. Okay. Just, um, and we'll do this on the record. Um, I'd like a motion to approve the applicant's requested extension of time for, uh, filing a decision until February, the, hold on February, the 13th, 2026. So moved.
All in favor, Ira Montague. Aye. Aye. Um, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Uh, okay. And, uh, once we've closed the hearing though, Robert, we don't have to schedule.
I mean, we can do it now, but I don't think we have to do it now. Because the hearing would be closed. And we'd be deliberating. You mean schedule a follow up, right? Is that what you're asking? What's, uh, what's that? Yeah, for the, to review a decision. Cause we don't know when we're going to have something.
That's that, I mean, that's fine. You can, we can just, we can schedule, we can, we have a, we have a meeting next week. So we can, people can think about dates that they can meet or, or send emails or send me an email when, what dates they absolutely cannot meet. And I can compile that together for next meeting.
Yeah. I'm just looking at it. Cause our meeting next week is really full. Um, No, I'm not proposing that we're not proposing that to me, to discuss it at the next meeting. It'd be helpful just to have some dates of knowing when people cannot meet or days of the week people cannot meet besides Wednesdays. We're back to, yeah, we're back to Wednesday next week, right? We're still on Wednesday. Oh yeah. Today's Monday. So yeah. Sorry. Yes. Back to back to next Wednesday, but we can do that next meeting. It's not. Am I correct though, that we don't have to, we don't have to schedule it now? No, we don't have to vote on that. I just want to make sure that I don't make a mistake.
It's not the public hearing any longer. The public hearing is over. Right. So you internally, you'd be just discussing when the next meeting is. Um, cause you can, yeah, I, I'm pretty sure you don't have to do that anymore. Okay. Um, so, um, Um, well, just to be safe.
Uh, well, let's just say this, that, um, we'll meet again. Um, it's the third, but the seventh, we won't know. Uh, we'll meet again.
If this is, it has to be. No, shoot.
No. Okay. Let's just, uh, proceed from here.
Mr. Silverstein, may I ask you, um, it's my understanding that, uh, once the record is closed, we don't have to set a hearing schedule for the public. That is what I would advise a board I was representing. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. That you only need to continue to a day certain to continue the hearing and that deliberations in review of a decision does not require that, but. Okay. That's my understanding. I want to be careful not to. Okay. Thank you. Overstep my role. That's fine. That's my understanding as well. I just thought since you were here and our council wasn't, I would ask. I believe the, I believe that the continuation has to do with the public. So the public is, public is aware of when. Right. Right. And that's my understanding as well. Yeah. A formal, formal announcement, a formal continuation. Okay. But the information can happen in the next meeting. It can happen. Okay. Okay. So I'd like to have a motion for a vote to close the public hearing in the matter of PB 2502, 169 Rice Road, St. Philopater, I am hoping I'm saying that right, Mercurius, and St. Mina, Coptic Orthodox Church, site plan approval, public hearing. Is there a motion? I move. I move. You can say so moved. So moved. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. For the vote. Ira Montague. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Okay. The record is now closed. We'll expect confirmation from the applicant that they're requesting an extension of time until February the 13th for the filing of a decision. Is there anything else that we need to do on that matter this evening? Is there anything else that the applicant needs? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
The board, if we could just look briefly at our own copies of the draft decision. Would you like me to put that on the screen or? No, I don't want it on the screen. Everybody got their own copy and should be able to see it. Yeah.
So it begins with the procedural history, which Robert has laid out. The application submittals. And I think there might need to be a few more things added because I think we stopped before the 22nd. And I'm just looking at the main headings.
And I think Robert that we got another public comment today, which needs to be added. I did see that. Okay. Thank you. Unless I got one that came today and I got one that came via email prior to the close of hearing at 716. So I got a lot of that one too because I didn't make it in. Okay.
And we'll have to add something about changing the deadline for an extension. Yeah. There's a lot of our small changes. All the anything that has to do with phasing will be removed. But that's noted. Right.
Okay. I'm just looking at council's comments and your version as well.
Do you guys recall on the fire lane? The plans talk about it being gravel. My recollection was that it was referred to as porous pavement. Do you guys remember one thing or another? I thought it was gravel. Okay. It's gravel. Yeah. Okay. Great. Madam Chair, it's gravel. It's gravel. Thank you. Going down through some others.
Robert, on the handicapped accessible spaces and the electric vehicle spaces. Just check that. Yeah. With the code. Yeah. I have the highlight. I'll double check that. Okay.
We have some decisions to make. They might not be crucial, but we might want to address them anyway. We're allowed to deal with parking. Our parking regulations require buffering and the 10% of the area shall be landscaped. We can mention it and say that it's not a problem for us, or we can say that it is.
I mean, we'll probably be over, I don't know what we'll be doing, but anyway.
So the buffering is a requirement of the parking areas and the applicants not talking about buffering the parking areas, but rather the whole site, which is, in my opinion, okay to do. Um, but I guess the question is, do we should address it probably in the decision.
Yeah. Is it, are you guys comfortable with saying in lieu of the parking landscaping and buffering there buffering around the site per the plans that they've submitted? I think I am, yeah, the more they can keep it kind of, uh, natural, I think the better I am in the front.
Um, I'm, town council had given guidance on this. We asked, um, whether the vaulted domes, uh, which are not necessary utilitarian features, but are not spires or towers. Um, whether it's okay to carry them above the roof line. Um, her council was, uh, treat it just like you would the towers and spires. I'm asking you if they're okay with that.
I'm fine.
I'm not going to go forward until I hear from people, because I'm not going to let this be something that. Can you clarify what, what, what it, what it actually is? Classified dome. They have, um, above the roof line, the roof lines, I believe are 35 feet. Right. Above the roof lines, they, on the church, they have domes and they have towers. In our bylaw, you can go above the 35 feet for spires and towers. And other things that are non-util, that are necessary utilitarian features.
Thoughts? Um, I mean, if we can decrease the height of the building with, and we're within our rights to do that, then I think that's, um, something I'm interested in. I don't know how other people feel. The towers are there anyway, though. Right. The towers are there anyway, but they're towers. The dome is sort of part of the, the, the massing, which is what is, uh, sort of mildly offensive. I guess this, this, just the sheer size of the structure on the site and in the setting. And if we can, you know, reduce that a little, I think that's something that certainly the community would be happy with. Yeah, I would disagree entirely. I mean, there's an architecture here and it's, I, you know, I'm not an architect. I don't play one on TV either, but, um, it just seems, um, uh, almost petty in that regard. Um, this hasn't come up previously, council has suggested, uh, we treat it as a smirer. I would agree with that, but sorry. Jesse.
There's been a lot of talk about how tall the tower is. Um, I think, I think we should weigh in there. Well, we have to allow the towers. The dome, I mean, the dome.
We're looking to reduce the towers, aren't we? No, we can't reduce the towers. The towers have to, the, the size of the building, the towers under case law are okay.
And we, whatever we do needs to be reasonable. So if we, again, town council was suggesting that it would be reasonable for the board to allow the domes, which aren't necessary utilitarian features, um, and aren't mentioned in the bylaw, but are similar to the towers, to be acknowledged and retained. This is painful. So we can't, Robert can't draft without decisions from the board.
So Larry says, let him be. Jesse says, no. Robin says, probably no. And Ira, where are you? I would say probably no as well. Hmm. Okay. I would say probably yes. Okay. I don't, well, so let me clarify. I don't think we have to flatten the building and make it a flat roof building, but perhaps there's a compromise between the height of the dome as it is now, which is so tall. It's as tall as the towers are basically, I believe. I don't think so. I think the towers are like 94 feet and the domes are like maybe 58. Okay. So, you know, Robert's looking, um, so, you know, maybe they can come down a little bit. I don't know if there's some compromise position. We can't, we have the record closed. We're not negotiating and it can't come down. Yeah. We can't do that. Robert, what are your thoughts? I would just leave it at this point. I mean, it's, the height is the height. It's not, it's not, it's not any taller than, than the spires. It's actually, it's actually smaller than the spires. So it'd be a different story if the, if the spires were lower than the dome and you, and you wanted to bring down the dome down to the spires, but you're the opposite. The spires are going to be, I mean, I mean, much taller. Okay. I mean, this issue should have came up, this is, this is, this issue should have came up a while ago, not after the record was closed. If, if the board was really wanting to, to reduce it. Yeah. I think when we did our first site walk, we had tried to, you know, kind of get them to nail down those heights and be specific and, and sort of show us, but it was all very sort of squidgy at that time. Yeah. So, um, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but for the voting, Larry says, leave it.
I'm on the leave it side now. It's fine. I am too. Okay. That's three. Jesse. I'm fine with leaving it. Okay. Good.
You get, you get more done after a while. Oh my God. I know. This is horrible. Let's take another vote. Um. The stone, the retaining wall. The retaining, I wasn't going to, I would, they sort of clarified it and we'll just ask Bert to confirm it. Okay. Perfect. Okay. Um, I think that the next part we can probably just handle. These are the standards and criteria for approval. And, um, I think Robert can. Those right now they deal with phase one and I think he can deal with it for the whole project. Um, uh, waivers. So right now we have the waiver we have is the planable grant, the requested waiver for bicycle parking. Yes. That was, um, yeah, they wanted, they asked for it in one of the documents and, um, they needed 19 spaces and they asked to go down to 10, which nobody has said anything about before. So I'm assuming that that's reasonable. That's fine. Um, there are other things, there may be a few other things that they have not requested waivers on that, um, are things in our bylaw that exist, but wouldn't be applicable to them because they're Dover. Uh, but we might mention them in the decision and say that because this is a Dover amendment case, these things, which would normally be applicable, aren't okay with that. Sounds good. Yep. Where are we? 4.38 conditions. Probably conditions. Um, just jumping down. I wrote this originally, but I'm just going to reword this about the signage. The signage does not have to come back to the planning board and that's not, it's, that's not covered on the Dover. What I was trying to mean by this condition was to that it needs to go through a process with the, uh, building department, but we can also, um, condition the plan based on the sign plan based on what that they're going to relocate the, the sign they have today. I think it's on the plan. Yeah. And refer to it. And if they want something bigger with, um, with, um, with, I think it's section five of, of, of the BILAR, but this would not come back to the planning board. This would be, I mean, I share a permit for the, for the building department as a building permit. Um, I'm going to suggest that offline, you carefully read through the conditions and the construction conditions, um, and get back to Robert on any that you don't think should be there or that others that you think should be there. Um, there, um, there are things in here about time for construction, uh, and I, I think Robert, uh, followed what is sort of standard. Uh, one of our members, uh, one of our members when offered conditions thought that the hour should be slightly different. Uh, so just look at those and please carefully review them and get back to Robert like immediately, like within the next day or two so that he can start really drafting. Um, I'm assuming, um, um, I'm assuming that we will say that, um, the project should be done within five years. And I think that it's up to the board. I think that it's still a good idea to refer to the bylaw, which talks about, and our regulations, which talk about, um, a building permit needs to be obtained. I think it says within two months after the decision, uh, and the, um, Question in two years needs to start. Yes. Yes, it has. Right. Um, and that it would need to be completed within five. In five. Um, or the applicant has stated that it will be completed within five, one way or another. We'll deal with it in the decision. Um, if you've seen other things in here already that you think are missing, if you want to tell us what they are now, we could start working on drafting them up, having Robert work on them. I sent you a bunch already, Robert. I assume, you know, those, my comments are still on there. So, um. Yeah, they're, they're there. Yeah. The one thing is, Robin, you talked about coming out of the main entrance that you wouldn't be able to turn to the north. Correct.
If you're going north, you have to come out by Turkey Hill Road. And if you're going south, you go out the main entrance. Um, I don't think that that's the way it's laid out on the plan. On the plan, it shows in and out from the main entrance, no restrictions on turning, but the only restriction on turning and entering is on the one near Turkey Hill Road. Is that right, Robert? Yeah. The one on the, the one that's north, that's north on the plan, which would be as close to Turkey Hill Road. That's only right only. And the other one is, is, is left and right. Oh, I thought they had them kind of going like that. Otherwise it seems sort of silly. Um, nope. I'm just going to look at the plan one more time. Make sure that. Yeah. I don't think that they did. And you can look at the plans again and tell Robert what you think. It's a right, right out only one is the soccer field. And then the other one is, is, is, is, uh, I believe it's, is, uh, has unrestricted. Yes. Yeah. Cause you need a way to get out from, uh, to take a, to take a, to take a left. So, so that one, I think, uh, in the draft, it asked the question. Okay.
But I'll take a look at it again. I'm driving tomorrow, but I'd be home pretty early, I think. Okay. Much snow out there. Um, not a ton, just in blizzard conditions. It was just, it's crazy. It's almost not on the ground. It was a point where I was going 30 miles an hour because on the bike, couldn't see anything. Yeah. Crazy. Been there. Yeah. It was like that out in Indiana too. Anyway. Uh, anything else on it, on the, on the, uh, decision for now? I mean, everybody needs to, I don't know. I mean, feedback. Look at, at what's there, even though it's deals with phase one, it could deal with the whole project. Give a look through that too, and see if you have any issues with anything. And we do need to hear from you. You can't not respond. You must write something back that says, I'm fine right now, or no here. Because Robert can't function totally on his own. I mean, he can, but it's not his role. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay. Um, if we're ready to move on, um, we have the draft minutes of 12-3 to review.
Yeah. This is the only set minutes I have today, just because, um, we're working on it. Sorry, they're so late.
And, Annette did look at the minutes, so they have been reviewed. Um, and I believe also Jesse had looked at them too. Jesse did look at them? Correct. Yes. Is that correct, Jesse? Yeah. I got to both of them. Okay. Um, I'm sorry. I did not, uh, look at these. That's, that's okay. Um. Robert, on page two. Yeah. It needs a space in between, um, 715 and then the next line underneath. You know, the 10 and the 15, you did that already. Sorry. Got it. Thank you.
Was there any other, um, comments? Uh, wait, there was something else at one place.
That was essentially. Um, on the list of documents at the end, number six.
Yes.
Can you add in the date of DGT's peer review comments so that it would be O-C-G's November 24th, 2025 response to DGT's date of them, peer review comments? I know. I know. Oh, it is there, November 24th. I see it. Sorry. October. No, that's not true. There's something wrong. Because it's got November 24th twice.
They weren't DGT's comments. Oh, I had it on a piece of paper somewhere.
You, you, you want the. You want normally, normally when I write them, I do the date of the document. And then it says, November 24th, 2024, um, letter from O-C-G, uh, responding to DGT comments of, and whatever date those comments were. I, I, it's in, it's in my decision. So I, I can, I can just bring it over there. Okay. Make that change. It's, I know when I do, when I finish the decision, it has, it has date of when, when Oak consulting group, uh, consulting group comment on what, what the date was. Um, I, I'll, I'll pull it over. Okay. I'm trying to quickly find it. Okay. So is there anything else that anyone else has in, for comments? No. I'll take. Oh. My screen is frozen. Is there anyone else? I'm looking at, I'm looking at two different documents. That's why. Oh. I was trying to look at the decision. Okay. I'll take a motion to approve the minutes of December the 3rd, 2025. I move that we approve the minutes of December 3rd, 2025 as amended. Second. Okay. Um, all in favor, Ira. Yes. Jesse. Yes. Robin. Yes. Larry. I'll abstain. Okay. Annette. Yes.
Thank you.
Uh, Robert, do you have any updates? I don't think I have any updates. Next meeting is the next meeting is next. Wednesday, the 7th, um, in the COA. And that'll be for the continuing hearing. We have about stormwater for the. I know it's supposed to be hybrid. No, wait, sorry. Take it back. Uh, I can't remember my dates. It's hybrid. In the new, in the new COA. School hybrid. Yep. Sorry. You're right. In the new COA. Um, and that'll be, I believe that's continue. I, it was continue hearing for the stormwater with the conservation commission. Correct. Yes. It's 630. Yeah. Okay. And then we have public hearing. Oh, 630. I actually didn't know that. Um, and then the public hearing for the, uh, zoning of blue day, 815. That's right. And then we'll have minutes from, uh, the 10, 10 and 12, 12, 17. Yes, I can. I'll try to work on those temp. I didn't say temp, but we just didn't, you didn't look it over yet. And then I can send you over to.
Um, so for the zoning hearing, we need to be ourselves looking at everything that we're putting forward so we can answer questions and hear the public and think ourselves if the whole thing hangs together and then we're going to need to make a decision of which ones we want to proceed with and which ones we want to wait for, or if we want to go with all of them, anything's possible. Uh, and to confirm there will be, there'll be time for public comments, correct? Madam chair. Yes. And public comment. Definitely. I did have one person who came in who was really supportive of the ADU bylaw and she wanted to make sure that she was heard. Um, and she, yeah, but that's what the public hearing for zoning amendments is. I, I, I, I told her that, but it's why I told her I'll confirm just to make sure. Right. Cause she was worried that she wouldn't be heard. Yeah. I will say public hearing for, um, or public comment for things, not on the agenda. Um, on the 28th at six o'clock, we have the scenic road tree hearing. And then at seven o'clock we have the finance committee's article hearing where we go and explain the articles to them. Uh, at the next meeting, we'll decide who will be explaining which article. Everyone will have an article to talk about.
That's on the 28th. What time is that? The 28th, six o'clock is the scenic road hearing. Seven o'clock is the finance, the FinCom, uh, article hearing. And I'm hoping that you've all looked at those trees before it snowed and that none of you have any problems with any of the trees. If you do, you need to get in touch with Joe Doucette immediately so that he can deal with your issues. Otherwise it could be a very fast hearing. Did we have a, was that meaning hybrid? What was the plan for that meeting? The scenic, uh, uh, yeah, I mean, for me, I'm, I'm leaving booked. I believe I have the, uh, I want to say it was a low, old COA room or a large room for that meeting. For what? The 28th? Correct. I, I'm fine doing it online. I don't know how anybody else feels. Fine. Yeah. That's. I mean, I just booked it rooms ahead of time just in case to, to be flexible, but, but we can go zoom it. That's absolutely fine. I mean, because it would be, you know, for the, um, article hearing, probably zoom, uh, as well. That's fine. No problem. Right. Yeah. Maybe. Well, does it depend on what the FinCom is doing? If they're in person, are they going to want us in person? I have no idea. They haven't said a thing. It's just on the schedule. And then I checked with them to find out what time they were going to do it. And they said seven and they didn't know how long it would go. So I don't know what their plan is. Or where we are in the order either. Exactly. Okay. Then definitely zoom is preferable. I would think so. Is the tree hearing meeting at six o'clock? Did you say? Yes. Okay. Six 30. Oh, okay. Scenic road tree hearing. And I've been sending you guys emails about these things, but I just am repeating it.
Um, and we will have had to, uh, for the Carroll school, we will have had to, uh, make a decision. Uh, we'll see if we have to continue that until the 28th, we have to have a decision filed by January the 30th.
So it's going to be another tight month.
Um, also I had sent out an email about a meeting with a select board. Um, and I heard back from everyone except for Jesse. Yeah. I just replied to that one. So the ninth works for me. Okay. Cause that's when I think we were, everybody else was ready for the ninth. Okay. I will report to the select board that it's the ninth. Okay. Uh, for school vacation, are you guys around or are you all going away or what's the deal? It's unclear as of this time. Okay. Um, but that is the 15th through the 21st. Yeah. 16th through the 20th. Um, for our purposes. Yep. So I'll, um, as soon as I know, I'll let you know. Okay. I'm around. And you're around Ira. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um, one other thing is that the, um, conservation commission approved the, um, one 93 regulations that we had had issues with. Right. So they're there. Okay. Uh, if there's nothing else.
Okay. Can I have a motion to, uh, close the meeting? Adjourn the meeting. Move to adjourn. Second. I'll end favor. Ira Montague. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Robert. We'll talk tomorrow. Yes. Thank you. Thanks.