January 28, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

January 28, 2026 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

Good evening. This is the Wayland Planning Board. We're having an in-person and remote access meeting. It's January the 28th, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. We're in the County Building. The agenda for this evening is 6.30 call to order. And moving on to PB2503, continued public hearing on 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School site plan approval. And at 8 o'clock, we'll be joining the Finance Committee where there are our annual town meeting article here to discuss proposed amendments to Chapter 198 of the Code of the Town of Wayland Zoning Bylaws. There are five proposals. One is the Accessory Dwelling Units. The other is Multifamily Housing with 20 West Sub-District to increase the maximum dimensions. Town Floodplain District and Federal Floodplain Protection Overlay District amendments. General housekeeping that goes throughout many of the sections of the Code. And then ground-made, solar, photovoltaic installations. Then we're going to review and approve draft minutes of 12, 29, 25, and 1, 7, 26 are not yet available. Then updates from the town planner and there is not reasonably anticipated by the chair and adjourn. Right now I'm not aware of any matters that we haven't anticipated. So I'm going to take roll call. Larry Cannon? Yeah. Robin Borgston? Yeah. I reminded you? He's on. He's on. Okay. And Jesse Newberry isn't here. He will be joining us via Zoom. Annette Lewis here. We have a quorum. I guess we'll proceed. Can somebody call on them? If you just want to see if we can get one more person. I'm going to take a look while we're sitting and looking at the draft minutes. By the way. So if we look there. I did. Okay. Well. Yeah, we just. We just got them. And I don't need to know if you'll be able to do it. I know your email today. Yes. Yes. That's everything. Okay. Well. We're going to get started. Robbie, are you under control? Yeah, I am. Okay. For the Carroll School. Can you speak a little louder? Yes. For the Carroll School. Can you hear me out there? And if you can't, move up. Good evening, Madam Chair, Madam Board. I'm Bill Croix for the Carroll School. The faces that introduce themselves when they speak. So I see Jason's here. I don't know if you want to. Madam Chair, I don't know how you want to proceed. Um, um, Robert will be on now. Um, Jason was the last to speak. I don't know if you want to, Madam Chair, I don't know how you want to proceed. Um, um, Robert will be on now. Um, Jason wasn't last to speak, or was it? He, uh, applicants carried your, on the, on the, on the, on the, on the, on the, on the, on the materials that we have? Uh, we've got the thing to say. Jason, why don't you, um, bring us back to the Carroll School. I don't know if you want to. Um, and the faces that introduce themselves when they speak. So, I see Jason's here. I don't know if you want to, Madam Chair. I don't know how you want to proceed. Um, um, Robert will be on now. Um, Jason wasn't last to speak, or was it? Um, Jason wasn't last to speak, or was it? He, uh, applicants carried your, on the, on the, on the materials that we have? Um, we've got a little sign. Jason, why don't you bring us back to the Carroll School? Uh, we've got a little sign. Jason, why don't you bring us back to the Carroll School. Um, let us know if, um, all the questions have been answered. Sorry. That's fine. I just wanted to be somewhere where I can be heard. Um, just come over here. Um, for the record, Jason Creole, ECT. Uh, peer reviewer for the town of Wayland. Uh, planning board. Uh, I will say there's a little bit of a back and forth that has gone on with, uh, Robert and with, uh, Linda Hanson at conservation, particularly on the stormwater matter. Uh, I'll address that very briefly. Um, as I had a, an unexpected extended stay out of town due to the recent snowstorm. And I, I've seen the, the overview of it, but I've not seen the details of that. So, uh, we can, we can speak to them. I will speak to, uh, tonight I will speak to traffic. Uh, the traffic memo from December 18, uh, from Mr. Graham and the applicants, uh, and septic. And then I will loop back to the stormwater. Okay. Uh, on the traffic, uh, as I mentioned, uh, the applicants have, uh, submitted comments, uh, to comments that were made and transmitted to the town, uh, to the applicant via the town after the previous meeting. Uh, in general, uh, and I'll go through them just very briefly, but in general, we have effectively no additional comments. Um, and have all the comments that you have discussed been addressed and have the plans, in fact, been changed to check the plans to make sure that the changes that they said they were making actually got made. Yeah. Okay. That's all going to be wrapped up in that last, the last set, correct? Yeah, and I'm not sure from a traffic perspective, it was a, there was an amended TIA that was submitted. Correct. But I think that was the response to all the traffic items. We can do like one more overview, but I think all of those were written. Yes. I think the only plan that was submitted was a, an additional turning movement plan that had been requested at the last meeting, which was received and is, is on file. Did you see that? I don't know. Maybe I did. Maybe that came with the response on the 18th template. Yeah. So those would be appended to the package. Thank you. What I'm confused about is, the last thing I've seen from Bruce and O'Neill was January the 9th. Yeah. That's right. That's it. Yeah. Okay. I believe actually that the turning, the turning study that was done was done by Sean from Oak Consulting, but I believe it was an appendix to that resubmission. Okay. Does that sound right? And then the last thing that I saw from you, Jason, was December the 18th. And then there was an email exchange back and forth. Correct. And then is there anything after that? No, nothing has been orderly submitted in writing since that time. We had a letter ready to go the middle of last week, which we had an additional conversation last week, so we held on to that letter. Okay. So I will speak to, effectively speak to those comments, and then you will receive those in writing, formally. When you said those comments, the ones that you went back and forth in the email with? The septic, the three things that I'm going to discuss tonight will be formally submitted. Okay, I just want to make sure that we know that you had a back and forth in, I have one from January the 21st, and I want the board to hear what that was on January the 20th. Yes, I have those, I can speak to those. Thank you. Yes, I thought that was an email exchange through the planner. Yes, I understand that. I believe that's captured in what I have in front of me, but we haven't sort of formally wrapped up that last letter. With regard to traffic, I think there are two major takeaways from the additional comments. And just scanning through, they had made adjustments to, they had made some clarifications as to employees being accounted for in the traffic numbers, as well as after school programs, referring to late dismissals on students that may play athletics or after school events. They acknowledge, so I will jump right to it, Mr. Graham did acknowledge that the queue on Waltham Road to 126 was significant. But they have maintained that, based on their observations, that Q is a worst case scenario, and opted to not perform any kind of modification of the model to demonstrate what they have seen in their timing calculations, in their timing observations. So what they have essentially done is, what is being submitted to the board is effectively a very conservative modeled simulation of what the traffic will be there. We generally agree that it will be, it is conservative, and it will not be as significant, likely not be as significant as what is shown on that analysis. But they provided nothing else to demonstrate that. And in that traffic analysis, were there certain times of the day when it would have been worse? Yes. Yes. So that was, in that particular analysis, I believe it was AM eastbound, that created the, I believe, the 25-foot, 25-vehicle queue length from 126 to, from Waltham Road onto 126. So that would be going west then? Correct. Correct. And that came up on two other locations. The other one being, I believe, Lincoln Road was a southbound turning movement, making a left onto Waltham Road. So heading eastbound. There was a very, there was a small increase in the queue. The additional locations, the, the relative change between the simulation and the, the existing simulation and the future simulation were still the same level of service. The timing had increased a bit, but they were still effectively failing levels of service. So that was a pre-existing condition. There was a, there were a couple of typographical issues that were taken care of. Those have been included in there, in the additional submittal, as well as the, the turning movement to take a left turn out of the site to go westbound toward Wayland for a large vehicle, a bus or a fire, fire vehicle. That was acceptable. The last, I believe the last of the comments was that they did confirm that the new trees did not increase or decrease the stopping site distance on the, sort of on the curve that they had incurred. Those are pulled back from far enough. I know they are on the drawings. And that's sort of the abbreviated review of those comments. As I mentioned, we had no additional comments on that. Excuse me, on, on what they had submitted. The final item that they did submit was, wasn't us, I'm trying to find it here. Jesse, Jesse's on there. Jesse's on. Jesse? Who was? Jesse, are you joining the meeting? Okay. Hi everybody. Hi. Sorry about that. Just for the record, Jesse, you've already joined the meeting. 6. 6. 6. Okay. 6.45 a. Okay. We're just getting started, Jesse. Hey, Jason. The final comment was that of the potential for remediation for future traffic issues as they may arise. And the comment had indicated, Ken, I don't know if you would be part of the, I'm just not seeing it. Yeah, we have an item in the, yeah, in the proposed conditions to address future traffic. Which I believe was $5,000 at some point in the future should it arise. You know, $5,000 before the certificate of occupancy. See, that's what they have. Yeah. Yeah. Have the occupancy. So obviously that would come to do some potential additional study. I'll defer to the town for the board on the dollar amount. And the question was from the chair for the $5,000 mitigation fund for additional traffic study. Uh, what, what would that entail? Metering additional traffic reservations, new signage. So that was, uh, I think unless the board has any questions on the traffic, updated traffic study. I just had one question I think I asked the last meeting as well. There was no part of the study that looked at the traffic impact after sports lets out in the evening, is there? When it's actually rush hour? Yeah. I think that's a good question. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's s there. When it's actually rush hour? Yeah. I believe kind of that come up here, Mr. will be able to do. Yes, we actually did do that. When we did this supplement, we looked at the morning peak hour, the peak hour when the school let's out in the afternoon, roughly 2 30 to 3 30. We also looked at the peak hour of the roadway system, which was roughly 5 to 6, I think somewhere that range which also coincided the school gets out puts out its after school activities so those two hours kind of overlap and that was analyzed in the assessment and what what figures were used for the traffic from the school at that evening rush hour again they were based on the projections that we did from earlier observations from the lincoln campus to help us develop our traffic projections so they're based on actual counts from lincoln campus for the after school sports for the after school sports correct and what types of facilities do they have at the lincoln campus for after school sports well they don't have a lot of uh fields or anything they do a lot of that field you know their games are at in wayland so what the way that happens at lincoln is they actually get in a van and go to the welfare campus where they go to opposing school campuses okay so then you're not really studying the actual traffic at all because you're only studying the the traffic of i guess parents leaving after the buses have returned to the school you're not tracking let's say the visiting parents who've come to watch the game all leaving at the same time we have that discussion you want to sure uh one thing i think is important to note is we're not expanding after school activities on the campus we're not expanding the fields at all so there's no additional capacity that's going to come online to allow for more people to attend the game well you're going to have more students participating not necessarily we're still going to field the same number of teams they're just the students are now going to be instead of at lincoln some of them will now be they won't have to make it is to allow for degree reconfiguration so seventh and eighth grade that currently attend school in lincoln will be in wayland so we're actually going to be eliminating a trip from lincoln to wayland in the afternoon we're not expanding the number of teams so we still have the same number of students participating so we've actually only have an exit and the exit volume is not watching well except that you'll have visiting parents and also they do right now that's part of wayland yeah everybody right now comes to wayland for sports regardless of if they're at lincoln or wayland they already come except not for basketball you don't have a gymnasium right now do you right but i would propose i would i would assume that the biggest load is during public soccer spring and fall sports just because of capacity yeah so this would probably spread spread it out over the course of the year but in terms of like impact to roadways okay and then back to the consultants if the town were to reach a decision in the future that a 25 car backup for cars trying to go from walham road on 2026 was unacceptable what would the solutions for that look like and do we know what the cost would be for those sorts of situations well you could take that money and get some traffic accounts and do a warrant analysis and see if a traffic signal would be warranted uh my guess is you would not have there would not be enough volume to meet a warrant for traffic signalization based on the manual on uniform traffic control devices or mutcd for short there are nine or ten i forget if it was the new mutcd is just out um what we call warrants and they each warrant has a criteria and for signalization there are three based on volumes and we follow mass dot guidelines and mass dot wants to see that we have enough volume volume for eight out of 12 hours of a typical day so basically from like 6 a.m to 6 p.m uh do you have enough volume on both the main line and the side street waltham road during the peak hours the morning and the afternoon or morning and evening you probably have enough for the rest of the day it really doesn't i have to look at what sticks in my head is i think it's uh 75 or 100 vehicles per hour which i don't think you have yeah but it may be that during these peak hours there has to be a light that switches from blinking to actually directing traffic they that was traffic signal of death people think they have the right of way when it's blinking more crashes in that situation so they stopped doing that a number of years ago because that intersection is already bad if you come through there at rush hour there can be cars backed up well past lincoln road on waltham road so it's already quite bad at certain times of the day so i it just seems like if this is adding that many cars to the to the load that there could be some need for traffic remediation but something that one could also argue that it's that way now without it's it's really kind of needed now nope not unless jason has anything to add to that jesse do you have any questions no i'm good thank you okay that's a septic septic analysis we did get an additional update on septic i received a comment from darren mccaughie over in health department the wastewater going into the septic system there had been a number used incorrectly based on the towns the town uses 150 percent increase on field but they do not require that flow rate to be the flow rate going into that field at 150 which impacted the mounting analysis so that was updated we did receive that and that was reviewed i'm awaiting the final final okay for my team on that but effectively there were three issues one the the actual dimensions of the septic field did not match the calculation those were corrected the
seasonal the thickness of saturated zone underneath the field was a number was used that did not match the calculation that was provided that was corrected and revised the flow rate was corrected per the board for the health request those three changes that particular we'll talk a little about mounting in some storm water but in the case of the septic uh that that did effectively meet the requirement for five foot separation there was one additional comment that was requested a request that was made to the town there had been a comment made previously at previous meetings that the existing uh fish building uh fish building the fish center uh may have uh storm uh roof drains that go into the ground into potential dry wells uh that were not shown they were they were brought up in a meeting but that they are on the site but were not shown on the drawings um that is a requirement of the health department they reinforce that that is something that they would require what we were told was that they they don't know exactly where they are and yeah exactly correct no one does so uh that they didn't know uh and they propose the applicants engineer proposed uh showed on their drawings a a limit uh setback from the existing from the new field that is proposed and that they would do additional investigation at the time of construction and ask that that be made a condition of the approval for us i'm not sure who's going to have what conditions so it it could certainly go into the board of health conditions and then that would be managed by the health department uh under the septic application and that's one of their requirements that would be one of their requirements that would be one of their requirements subject no that is any questions jesse i'm good as i mentioned there's been there's been i believe two robert can correct me i believe two we've had two sort of separate meetings uh with members of the town uh the applicants engineers uh carrie and uh ect members of ect to try and work through some engineering issues with the stormwater um we did uh we did go through that and each time we have been and i apologize because some of this has now gone back and forth via email with the town those have not necessarily been all consolidated to be put into the letter yet so they will be uh and they will all be closed out approximately eight comments from earlier in uh january of those eight comments closed we closed six of those comments i apologize i'm doing that from memory i don't have that in front of me um any of those ranged from typographical errors to dimensional inconsistencies uh and also some open comments were which were then gone into a second discussion on the stormwater mounding um on the stormwater mounding uh we did receive some we met last thursday we received some additional comments and the and those are still still effectively being reviewed uh the general uh response that i received from the team doing that review uh was that the the means at which the uh excuse me the method of which the applicants engineer is modeling um both surface stormwater and the groundwater piece including the mounding are effectively two separate models and one model informs the other and it's a little bit iterative um after reviewing the latest version that was sent over uh in my absence they indicated that while they believe the it's a little bit unorthodox to do it the way that's being proposed and that the way that it's been uh the way that's been done we believe theoretically uh theoretically is it is is accurate however if you were to ask if we could if ect could guarantee that you would see those results the current answer is no why is it if they wouldn't have used wet standard uh i'll defer to that for you guys on on the type of shawn i don't know if he's on yeah i don't know if shawn is on the model are you able to see he's in the audience yeah attendees can we promote him to so i would say that the uh the way it was laid out i would say on most systems is appropriate uh in this case just simply the sheer amount of water going in the high mounding and and then how that negatively impacts both the storage in the surface calculations and the and the rate at which it infiltrates into the ground is it is something that may better be better be simulated with a a either a solid state or what they call pond model which would look at the various different nouns on the site and see how they interact with each other that's what we're used to seeing sean's on he's on here yes i'm here can you uh explain why you used the kinds of models that you use rather than why you use two rather than just one sure um well i'll i'll do my best um so the the standard in uh in engineering a a stormwater model is using the hydrocad and um that's what we do on every single project and we've done it on this one and that model is a um kind of an act active simulation over a a set duration zero to 24 hours typically sometimes 48 if you want to see what the effects of uh the ponds are and that models the rainfall over that time with a given uh distribution that's you know widely uh accepted engineering wise and then also models any ponds or infiltration as part of that and those pawns are are uh defined by the size and then any infiltration is defined by uh the soils and how those soils relate to uh the mass dep standards which uses the rouse table so that sets certain limits on how much infiltration you can account for for a given type of soil um so that's kind of model one the second model that jason is referring to is the mounting analysis and with with that event and that's used only in certain situations and in this case um because we have less than um four feet of separation to estimated seasonal high groundwater mass dep stormwater standards recommends a mounting analysis be conducted so that's why uh we've done this the mounting analysis looks at what happens to the stormwater after it infiltrates into the the subsoils and then is being dispersed vertically and horizontally throughout the the subsurface in the area um and that uses some uh different parameters uh specific parameters the porosity specific yield of the soil the hydraulic conductivity and all of this is based on what the type of soil is um in this case we're dealing with very coarse sand very permeable um water flows through it well um the other thing that it it it also looks at is the um saturated thickness how much what what's the thickness of the soil layer between bedrock and your estimated seasonal high groundwater where the water flows and that looks at kind of an uh in instantaneous worst case at at at the most inflow of the uh of the stormwater basin which we take from the hydrocad model that gives us the volume of water that's being infiltrated over that 24 hour time um and where based on those parameters that we entered for the soils type where that might mound if you would increase the height of the the estimated seasonal high groundwater um at the peak time in our scenario in our our modeling we use very conservative numbers we use sean yes that wasn't what we asked we understand that you use two different models the question was why why yes what's traditionally used yes and that's what and that's what i'm explaining madam chair they're they're they're they're two separate analysis and i was just getting to kind of tying them in together um so in the the mounting analysis we use very conservative numbers so in order to relate that to our hydrocad model we ran an alternative analysis using more conservative numbers less than what the dep stormwater standard riles table would uh have us use to assimilate those two models so why don't you just redo it and do it with one simple model so we can compare them we we we we have madam chair and and that's what i'm saying they're they're two separate things and with our last analysis we included a hydrocat analysis using the same um rates that that would match with the hand tush and we've provided that and we've shown with that reduced number that our stormwater management system still functions properly and will not create any issues jason i'm glad for coming back to you normally um it's all done in one model and i think that's what we've generally seen um why is it i don't understand why
again and i'm i'm going to preface this i'm not an expert in the type of modeling that i'm told you might need here i think it was also brought up at a previous meeting about what they call steady state modeling um or a pond model um i would say under normal circumstances a hydrocad model is what you would normally see and is in probably 90 of the time of the appropriate model um which i was describing is it if they are two separate models yet they they do sort of inform one another um in the case of what model would be better i can't speak to what that would be if they did do the hydrocad for the whole thing and they have it can you ask them for that so that you can compare the results from that we have seen we have seen the hydrocad for the two separate basins okay but i think sean i think you would concur that they don't they don't account for one another and the the distance apart correct they are each their own individual calculation correct yes right so they so those those do not those so there's a hydrocad simulation for and effectively it's two basins but it is one model there are two basins they do not see each other in that model so they assume basin one basin one and basin three would assume they have whatever the input that that was probably used that's that's what it's going to put into the ground um sean also mentioned about using a very conservative number and matching that number to the mounting analysis uh versus using the rawls number um again my understanding there is what we're doing is effectively trying to demonstrate that when the mound when the mounting analysis when that mound goes up into the basin you are losing infiltrate you're no longer infiltrating at that rate we have had some conversations about trying to trying to establish that infiltration rate in hydrocad as a either an ava weighted average number because as that before the mound is there it's sand you're going to get very high infiltration rates once that mound comes up then everything's going to probably what's going to happen you're going to filling that pond we've had that conversation i know they have run those calculations in the hydrocat about additional storage in the hydrocat what we don't know is the time dependent part of that mounding and that's the so really standard the question that comes up is standard three which standard three is the 72 hour drain down right and it's unclear because we don't know how they interact we also don't know for how long that that mound is impeding infiltration from basin one and basin three um in the case of what was we'll put together his number the they may well drain within 72 hours it may drain i think sean was it 30 hours and 1.7 hours in your calculation the latest calc the latest calc yep thereabouts okay um the question is it may well drain that quickly uh even with his conservative numbers it may drain more quickly it may drain less quickly because of how they interact what i can't tell you based on our review is will it will it meet that 72 hours standard with with a guarantee i should say again i haven't looked at all the models and everything but in the past we've been able with mounding and interactions of other basins we've been able to have an applicant show that it would drain in 72 years so um i'm concerned that it seems like a novel kind of analysis not standard madam madam chair if i may i i would disagree with that we're adhering to all standard practices we have demonstrated with our calculations that we do drain well within that 72 hours less than half of that for the most conservative basin and again and that's using numbers that are less than what the riles table would suggest i mean we've looked at this thing many different ways and flipped it all all the way around and i i have the utmost confidence that this system will function as we've represented and we meet all of the standards other projects over the last year many of them i don't recall that any of them used this kind of analysis for the mounding i'm not aware of that but i'm also not an expert still more so i can't i can't i would defer um so we'll wait for your comments from your uh people and i really want them to stick by what the normal book requirements are so that we can understand it and compare it to other projects that's right my only concern is that people have some issues in the past with drainage has become from not like right after but years later and i just don't want to have it again too no we don't need it i'm not sure the school doesn't know i'm not sure okay what else do we have now i'm not sure that's that's what i have for for stormwater okay there were some other again some other items were resolved to our satisfaction uh with mr malone and and the applicants uh over the last uh two calls with them uh i will charge those i positively don't have those with me tonight when do you see uh we should have those by next week early next week what are the other open issues uh there was also the afkin submitted comments for conditions potential conditions and then dan hill has also submitted red line original that so that'd be something that should probably be discussed tonight um i just before we move on um at the last meeting that we had it was a confined meeting with the conservation commission we were concerned about snow storage um i haven't seen anything that addresses that so um i'm wondering how you're dealing with that what sean had said was um that he was going to push the snow from the parking areas on to toward waltham road in that small space but you were putting in new plantings there so there wouldn't have been any means for snow storage so thank you um excuse me we're proposing a condition it's in the latest draft that says that snow will be put in the excess parking spaces meaning the number of parking spaces above the required number and any snow that doesn't fit in those parking spaces gets trucked so the ones that don't count in the number are you had some on the side it looked like they're about eight and then i believe you had a few like maybe 10 in the front that we're supposed to be for in and out parking is that what you're talking about because it would be tough to push it all over to that one area where there's the gate spaces i think we will have to designate on the plan the concept was that though that would be limited to the that amount of snow storage on and the rest would happen at times like what we've just had um it would be very difficult to do that quickly um and get your school up and running i guess i'd like to understand better how that would actually work can i ask a quick question um again carrie de leo scholar consulting opm for the project you know the the size of the parking field we feel on a normal you know day is probably substantially larger than what normal operations are so in a in the end they have a couple of release bells right they can have teachers park at um other campuses and bust them if there was an issue but in the event of snow storage or needs like an event like we had this week um is it appropriate to just limit where the snow can go versus mandating that it comes off right they may say instead you know that's what we're yeah like yeah we're going to restrict our parking versus shipping our our um you know we're not going to have events this week because we don't have the parking for these events or we're going to well that you can certainly do but you still have to be able to have the number of parking spaces that are required by code yeah yeah so i mean we wouldn't it wouldn't be okay just to pick 20 spaces that were in the mix of what you required and just put snow there yeah understood but we would prefer that you have a place on site to store it because going off site is trucks and um you know when it's as snowy as it is now it's very difficult to move yeah and another place to put it i would also agree that the carroll school would probably prefer that as well we have a lot of restrictions on this site in terms of being able to use other areas of the lot that will make that challenge we can talk about that um are there any other questions before i'm looking at history though sitting there very restlessly for the comments we've just been going over are do you have anything to add i do madam chair thank you um just for the record daniel i represent some of the neighbors and supporters to the project and i we did submit red line uh suggested edits to the conditions hopefully hopefully we can talk about that next but before we do that i'd like to just ask a few questions about the stormwater design because i i've become some somewhat of a jailhouse engineer in the last few years having having worked on a couple big projects where these issues of color plot you don't normally see mounding in in these stormwater systems rise to the level that they actually come into the chambers it's pretty unusual so the fact that it's happening here is is raising a huge red flag and i guess the first question i have is isn't the conservation commission also reviewing this issue and are they using are you also their peer reviewer okay so so they're on top of this as well as well as we are um but i guess my my first question and maybe it's to the engineer through the board is the mounting analysis that was done is that accounting for both infiltration chambers at the same time because infiltration system one and three are basically right next to each other so i'm assuming that the mounting analysis that was done is accounting for both systems happening at the same time and then and then second i mean if the if the mound if the groundwater is rising to the extent that it's climbing into the bottom of the chambers then infiltration has to be essentially shut off in the model the model the engineer basically needs to assume that there's no infiltration happening at that point in time in the design storm so there should be a way to do this we've done this actually in other projects and my engineer could could weigh in on this but there is a way to turn off infiltration in the hydrocad model so that the model is just basically accounting for the fact that that mound is in the chamber the dep does not allow that and we've actually we've actually talked to tom mcguire who's the the god of stormwater at dep and he has said you under the stormwater standards you cannot design a system when the bound rises into the chambers that's just it doesn't work because the whole point is that this is an infiltration chamber so it's not infiltrating it's basically a detention chamber so i think more work has to be done on the engineer's side to figure out a solution to this but it sounds like the commission is also reviewing it so it sounds like more needs to happen before the boards can sign off on this um and then with respect to the traffic issue i um you know i know the board is concerned about their jurisdiction and we're talking about off-site impacts i got to say you know what happened this morning at 5 a.m i didn't get the email you didn't see the email
yeah so at 5 a.m there was a huge operation happening at the school i'm assuming with snow removal lights lots of banging and this is really just illustrating the effects of having these types of institutional uses educational facilities farms in residential neighborhoods and we all know they're allowed section three the dover amendment allows it but when they're not regulated this is what happens and and so i just wanted to basically start with that premise that yes there's restrictions i think we all can invoke i think the dover amendment needs to be amended so that it's not just the uses are prohibited but boards have the ability to put on reasonable regulations but the spirit of the dover amendment and this goes to the off-site traffic the spirit of the dover amendment was that towns would not be prohibiting these uses but they would be allowed to reasonably regulate them to the extent up to the extent that they're not prohibiting them right they they can't unreasonably regulate to the extent that the church or the school or the farm can't operate what we've proposed here for the last few months have been reasonable regulations and looking at off-site traffic is reasonable in my view the fact is that their model shows a 200 increase in queuing at those two intersections at waltham road in 126 and waltham road at lincoln road their model is 200 worse than is today now we can argue about whether or not the model is flawed maybe maybe it's not accurate the fact is that's what they presented to the board and it's concerning to me that we're saying well there's no more comments on this issue well there is fair enough there's no more comments to be made because the applicant hasn't proposed anything the applicant is not proposing any mitigation right all they're proposing is five thousand dollars that's not going to do anything you know our view is that there should be at least a condition in the decision that would allow for the board to look at this issue down the road if in fact this becomes a problem yeah that that's that's really all i want to say on this and to be fair we we didn't actually even put that in into the into our red lines that we submitted we just think that's a reasonable condition we think the board should talk about it so that's why all i have to say about traffic i talked about stormwater and then at some point i'd love to go through the condition i think there is a condition about the review and we can talk about it when we get to it we've said it before it said you know every time there's a project we have the increase we have because the town hasn't managed the problem town hasn't created traffic that exists or comes along and yeah you're going to solve the problem for us so whether it's this project or another project that impacts those intersections the same the same issue is going to be raised by that landowner as well so we're proposing to try to contribute something to it you don't think it's appropriate we can talk about we're not doing a public works project to solve a problem that's existed for years and it's been getting worse for years and everyone's known about it and whatever people feel about the dover amendment and how it inadequate or we want to describe it defective it is what it is now and further i think in that spirit the conditions that we are saying we will live with that in some cases are very intrusive on our business and and the school's operation you know going to core educational decisions i would say on a couple of weeks um i think are in the spirit that that dan just mentioned we are cognizant of the neighborhood and the comments of the neighbors and that they live there and we've tried to come in that direction and i don't think anyone could say we haven't whether you know if it's perfect for for them or they think we should do more okay thank you we have another half hour and then we have to recess to go to another meeting um so um we know that we need to be looking much more at storm water and the mounding analysis because personally i'm not comfortable yeah um agreed and um we can uh go over these and you're going to be submitting another report and your fellows might want to respond to it or not respond to it um i'd like to be able to move this thing forward and be done with it um i've read through um your second draft mr uh courier and i read through mr hill's comments as well um and since this i'm assuming we intend to uh attach to the site plan decision um there's some things that in syntax need to be fixed because i don't even understand what they really mean um so uh how would you like to go through this robert do you want to put what i expect that some of this stuff would be trickle into the decision not be attached by that out of my hand saying that these are some lists i think they meant for them to be an attachment similar to what they did with the first site plan approval what we were intending what attachment the call the party um the conditions did you want the conditions to be in our decision or did you want them to be referred to in our decision and as an attachment to the decision in the decision i think they would be part of the site plan lifted out of here and put in oh okay that's not how you did it the last time yes but yeah i believe uh the last time we did an exchange back and forth with the planner and then the planner just pulled them in pulled them in they were pulled in only as an attachment okay whatever your practice is now for site plan decisions we would think that would be the way yeah but not one without the other i guess okay um i guess um what i'd like to do probably to make it easier was if we worked from dan's comments and as we go through i'll give you my comments is that yeah we would love to hear what the board has to say so because three yeah three uh parties here so has everybody on the board had a chance to review these documents jesse yes the first comment was in number three um and we've read it um and many of these things from my point of view the board cannot enforce um i think it is up to the applicant uh to say whether it's willing to do some of them and if they're not then they're not because i don't think under dover we can enforce them so in number three um do you have any issues with the language the right line yes yes okay
in what you had originally stated um i found it a little confusing um with uh and for access and concern in the third line that begins the garage noted in condition nine but the equipment the excluding heavy construction equipment doesn't seem to belong there it seems that it should be equipment customarily used in the course of ordinary use care and maintenance of the property with the exception i mean i don't know or do you want to not have heavy duty equipment i i don't know what what the actual yes we're trying to exclude for the benefit of the neighbors heavy construction equipment you don't want to use it that's not the intent of the road the use of the road correct okay
um the suggestion that in the beginning part of what mr um we don't want it to be secondary access is that the issue what we're what yeah we're worried about solely in secondary access just because i'm not sure how we would even understand what that meant and we're also again we're trying to we're trying to be as transparent as we can here there may be a situation this so this is limiting the use of this road just to get to 10a apple tree essentially just to get to to get to 10a apple tree but not to overburden the road essentially we don't want heavy equipment going back and forth we want to use it just for the sort of normal maintenance of the property but there could be an instance for example where the back property line the trees fall down or some other maintenance issue comes up and we want to drive down the driveway and turn right toward the back part of the lot for some work that has to be done again using the same light equipment that we would normally use to landscaping pickup trucks things like that excluding these this heavy equipment and this idea of solely using it just to come down the road and turn left you know from the campus onto 10 apple tree that's the spirit but we again we may have to go out to the other part of the property behind one of the athletic fields to do something at some point so that makes it a little bit more difficult to just do so you're talking about using it for emergency vehicle access and for access to the garage and it would be for the emergency vehicle i'm not sure what's modifying what for the access to the garage just by vehicles and equipment or are we talking about using this for emergency vehicle access one access to the garage and both of those things being vehicles and equipment to understand the syntax is what's i'm having difficulty with what is modifying what you see vehicles to me are ambulances fire trucks so it's and they would come down there no matter what whether this condition exists or not vehicle access and in addition or access to the garage is that what it is for access to the garage by vehicles and equipment because i'm skipping for a minute customarily used in the course of the ordinary use care and maintenance of the property and what you're saying is that you're not expecting to be using heavy duty equipment is that yes so if you if you needed to clear the field for some reason of snow is that heavy duty equipment i mean it could be much snow i guess that would be fun and loader and extent of the heavy construction equipment i mean it's it's a very big term again i'm concerned if we have to enforce things i don't think the neighbors asked us to use to try to distinguish intensive use of the roads usual maintenance that would happen on campus by the school so we're trying to kind of figure that out with them they also struck the use they just said ordinary care and maintenance rather than use care and maintenance is that an issue for you yes i mean we want the use okay it's already limited by this condition that we're agreeing to but i don't want it to be construed that or waiving some kind of our protections as an educational institution let's move on okay so my question would be in terms of this heavy equipment um just in terms of you guys having further discussions is it possible to delineate let's say with a pickup truck is a pickup truck acceptable or not and then from that you can maybe arrive at like a gross vehicle weight to to really say what's acceptable it's not that's normally how these things are done so if you say you know if a pickup truck is acceptable and something bigger than a pickup truck is it set a gross vehicle weight and then that seems if you're going to set a limit set a limit and that seems less vague than what's trying to be plugged in here i agree with robin on that i think you got to put a weight limit on it or else it's just too it's it's too it's too free flowing um now i'll take your questions okay um yeah i just want to speak on if you have the 2016 conditions which are binding on the applicant it states that that rear access roads for emergency vehicle pulling and temporary overflow queueing during drop off that's all they're entitled to do to say that you can use this road in the ordinary course that they use it for anything trying to meet them halfway use and maintenance was articulated to us as something they need we tried to address that heavy duty construction vehicles heavy duty tends to be f-250 f-350 front loader dump truck f-150 is light so we're trying to be clear about those things the other is we were told repeatedly that bring access to the garage would be through apple train not through this driveway we're trying to if you look at the two tied together we're trying to make that very clear that again we know that they'll use it they do use it but there shouldn't be parking on here there shouldn't be heavy construction vehicles they shouldn't be able to use it for whatever they want they don't currently have the right to do that that is something you can enforce so candidly if they're not going to to go with this i would say that you should just reinstate your own condition can you state your name and address for the record it's adam curry one apple tree name thank you moving on i have a question in number four can i just make one quick clarification that at the time of the previous condition the school did not own 10 apple trees so it would be bizarre to make to have that be open to access the neighbor's property right so that there has been meaningful change in in the use of 10 apple tree as it relates to this project thank you and also apple tree lane isn't even part of this project as i understand it um number four um a review of student arrival dismissal trends above other riders may be conducted by the planning board to what end we'd be doing it but we have control over that at all so to review it the other thing is um you understand it would be by the planning board on its own initiative or by the planning board upon the request of two or more neighbors is that it the two of those we didn't write this i'm looking at the fellow behind you too yeah so annette this wasn't intended just to elaborate on the condition that you had in 2016 where it says a review of traffic and parking may be conducted by the town about less than six months or not more than 12 months after the issue was the first so you do have the authority it's parking and on-site circulation that's within the allowable areas of regulation that underdover pointed this condition reiterate what we said back in 20 well it's much longer than what you said back in 2016 when you approved it um so uh is it the fact that acted that you would want it to be either conducted by the planning board on its own initiative or conducted by the planning board upon the request of neighbors is that what is meant here okay um and when it says two or more abutters um or neighbors what's the difference between neighbors and abutters in your mind we said abutters and neighbors within school well within 300 schools in parentheses so consistent with 48 section 11 which defines what abutters within 300 feet right it doesn't say neighbors right sure okay again meant to enforce these i want to understand what it is that we're meant to enforce so we could get rid of numbers um also that if you're saying giant master on a lot madam chair it's also slightly confusing because i didn't write this so it's confusing what what they mean by who's who's at the set of notification now this is yes i haven't gotten there yeah i agree i agree you haven't gotten there yet um so again um with if you have um you could have two abutters living in one house so that would be one house making the request that wasn't the intent it was it tended to be two separate property owners and we could define this abutting property yeah and we could use the words from 48 section 11 which is parties and interest and that's defined as a fire or a party yeah that's what i would use but well i'll look at it again um it still could be two people in the same household and that wouldn't be in my mind kosher and then this whole notice requirement um would require a newspaper i mean just trying to understand a newspaper ad we would place and we would have to pay for a newspaper and then um notice mailed out to abutters by the town the intent was just to incorporate the standard notice you already do for public hearings which is 48 section 11. i don't think that's not the company i read it so i read this condition and i thought oh and i have to notify the neighbors notify the towns and put them together right so i'm just reading i'm reading it from from a late german or i read it from i gave this to sue to to anita she probably would say i need to notify the town right and i well that's what this says exactly right so that's that's got a cost to it for us in time in time in time so um and then when you get down to the other notice parts where um i don't know if it's here or later on uh no i guess it's later on i'll get to it later okay um if anybody else on the board has anything that they want to ask if we're still speeding through this please do yeah i just on that same paragraph four i just think you know if we had such a hearing and we have no ability to do anything i mean that's what i'm wondering ridiculous waste of resources we even if we agree that there was some issue after we've approved a site plan we have no power do do we have more power than we think we do i don't think so i think it would be difficult in number five can i just address that point um i mean i ordered any authority to modify conditions or but i think it's useful whether it be up so that concerns can be raised we discuss and to make changes even though there may not be any legal authority to change i think it's beneficial to have a hearing and the applicant is okay with this so think about it number five the applicant agrees i'm saying this for the board to a further one-time payment to the town of wayland of five thousand dollars to be used for additional study and for the implementation of mitigation measures within the public way it's essentially accepted it was more money uh the last time what was in one of the conditions and the question i'm asking the board is do we even want to get into this because traffic is not something currently that we can do under dover last time they they agreed and the board i guess agreed i wasn't on the board at the time
again having been part of those discussions in 2016 or whatever i believe there was a similar condition so what we don't know is if the town ever took action we can't find any any information that was ever transmitted back like oh we took your money and we're going to go do whatever so it's a problem for us too right so yeah i mean it makes sense if there's going to be funds exchanged that they actually get utilized to the best you know and i think like like kelly was saying there were some comments about you know no through street signage and things like that that could this could help with but you know we just want to make sure that if if there is going to be money exchange that it gets utilized to improve i'm sure i'm not aware of us having any current money in this bargain it's not on my list of bargaining but we only wanted to are they aware of having given us the money we're not bad you know we're not yeah we're not sure either yeah
okay yeah so i don't i don't know what ever kind of happened with that condition so as you all know i mean the planning board frequently starkey was notorious for having all yeah so i i don't think it's that uncommon for the town to have we have we've been having issues with those kinds of funds um with our auditors it's not fun and um hours and hours and hours trying to sort it through right so that's what i'm asking the board and and the kind of planner so we'll consider how to deal with it and maybe maybe we should talk to the board for the work so maybe there's another vehicle to put this money into because that that really is the intent is there is there a way to make it so that it's not necessarily not necessarily funds that are given to the town but funds that are available for the town so if for example there's a cost where there is a cost of making it a school zone which is something that's been discussed the town can come and say okay well we spent two thousand dollars getting signs and please pay those two thousand dollars and then there's another three thousand dollars left sort of on account and i wonder if we can word something that way we are not we don't know about municipal finance honestly my opinion is it goes into the general fund unless there's a segregated account that's probably why your auditors are saying what they're saying so we're willing to put it anywhere that you'd want it so it's safe and it's dedicated because i think everyone here wants to be used here yes right but i don't know how to do that okay let's see if we can do something um then in number eight um they've added an exterior that they wanted it to be clear that there's just one surge that and how big it would be we don't know we just know where it's going to be and be very limited in size only because it it's it's going to be adjacent to where there's already you know where the dumpsters are that part of the site and so so it would be one shed do you have a problem with an exterior is that okay yeah one shed was the idea but again i mean i don't know how big it will be it'll be determined at some point but we know where it will be but it can't be very big because we just don't have it on the plans we would have it designated on the final plan set that it would be here okay and the other thing is i mean it's a storage shed there might be other things in there there could be bags of mulch or sand you know bags of sand i don't know but so it'll be a storage shed for stuff like that but it might be more than these things can we hear from mr hill perhaps what is it that the butters are concerned about being in this storage shed you know can they say they won't store toxic waste and that'll make you happy i i don't know i mean what are you worried about well you try to you try to cover that number of ways that can't be we were being responsive to what that represented to us in our meetings it was not going to be a salt storage shed and things of that nature so we're just trying to get clarity on that again what was represented to us trying to mobilize it just make sure everyone's on the same page for five ten years down the road we all know what the deal is that's the intent obviously not wanted to the language it'd be to massage it but that was anything beyond what was discussed we can say there won't be salt straw we know that there could be other sorts of things i'm team of them can just ask a question shed the type of structure that doesn't require it presumed that it doesn't have a foundation yet and for a certain size otherwise it does require those thresholds yeah yeah well i think it might be put on a pass or it might even a two even a 200 square foot shed in wayland if it's on some sort of foundation requires a building permit yeah anything
we were going to depict the you know approximate size on the plan just so it's identified a location and where it would be approximate maximum yeah the reason why number three and number nine are separated in order to put together it's the function of trying to use the thousand sixteen they could be blended together well number three is the driveway and number nine is the yeah but they're going back and forth referring to each other yeah um i want to try and speak through um okay so you're not going to be number nine they've added uh no stockpiling of salt sand or other materials again that seems to me that that goes with what we were just talking about it should not be let for personal approval we need to have that it's a big garage nut it's not even on the property it's not even part of what we're approving but it's not part of the site plan approval i'm just asking if they put in more than they had to agree to already this thing to provide access to tenant meaning that driveway access something that's off-site it's separate property it's their property that's so that's you have a driveway that goes into the road that's why the garage is do you have a driveway that goes into the road and that's essentially what they're doing here they're doing it a back way and it's down to their property so the garage is not legal under zoning unless it's accessory to the school it falls under door i'm sorry the use of the garage as storage for salt or it's not part of any house it's just an extra garage right that's not there's no zone that that use is not allowed in the zoning is it in the zoning districts if it's accessory to an educational institution that's a that use is as accessory to an educational institution that's only allowed in your dover in this zoning district so even though it's not shown on the site plan it needs a dover amendment to legitimize the use of the garage doesn't belong to any house on that street i'm just asking i don't know doesn't it belong to the headmaster's house it's next door to it it's on a separate line that's adjacent to the is the garage in the totem center yeah it's parcel 10 one parcel or is it two parcel i think but if they have different one is ten and ten it would merge anyway it would merge as the same owner pardon me it would merge right yeah but even still it's not it's being used for the school it's not being used for the headmaster house it's storing equipment that's being used anything they haven't applied for any site plan for that piece of property i hear what you're saying i mean do you want to spring a zoning enforcement action i mean we're trying to cooperate we're not trying to you know we have another meeting that we're supposed to be in um and so i think that we need to recess for probably 20 minutes go to our other meeting and then come back um so can i have a motion to recess and join the finance committee move to recess so that we can join the finance committee yes robin uh jesse yes you're going to have to um check out to the finance committee okay i'm sorry
how many things 25 and the planning board is back in session and we'll continue on um okay yep we're past five yep got it
i think you sort of handled that the stuff it's a nine uh when we were talking before about um what you could store in uh storage facility uh um in number 10 um mr correa the uh neighbors had suggested that the applicant may elect in the future to add a cafeteria um and request to modify the condition i don't know if you have a cafeteria that would change the uh septic capacity and those sorts of things so you would have to at least go back to the board of health um so do you have a problem with adding in the future it's going to be in the future because we're saying we're not doing it now right we don't have everything i mean it seems plain until it's in the future so but i don't want to say that it explicitly saying it's i think whatever it was under six will do and i think the board the board deals with that a major determination i see i mean the condition seems the least of the issues it's really it's a change of use and that's what the more important thing there's also a condition a sort of a catch-all later condition here that says there's a change of use or ownership or then we have to do whatever is required as well and come back under six or whatever the thing okay
yeah 13 we can explain that i know i know dan put up for explanation so the reason we did that is
to the monday through friday that makes sense but what happens there potentially it's a school right so there could be a play in an evening a concert or sometimes the trustees will meet or there's an event with parents so there will be periodic events that are special events during those hours and we we left it till 11 just to make sure there's enough time because usually once those events are over the custodial staff has to come in and clean and we wanted to make sure they had enough time so that's why we put the 11 o'clock and also i would say that you know if this special event triggers the parking and notice protocol and that would also take you this kind of parking lot substantially full or the number of guests it's that number that you know the neighbors the person who's that are on the notification list gets notified and the police department so well you're going to link it so we'd like to try to keep it the way it was just to accommodate those kinds of things um did you want did you say that monday through friday was okay yeah of course we talked Yeah, I think Monday through 5 is fine. Madam Chair, do you want, I don't know if we gave this to you in a Word format? Is that, you'd need that eventually. Yes. I need to comment and paste it. Oh, you did it? Okay. To the decision, yeah. In Word? No, I just comment it. Just comment and paste it all into it. I talked to it. Okay. Perhaps you could send it to us in Word. Yeah, I mean, we'll probably want to send it along. So, Monday through Friday, they've got the program as well as scheduled events and occupancy for applicable cleaning purposes, interior and exterior. They, you want the ordinary course. The language, they've crossed out some stuff. I guess we could leave that generally out, but we do want to make the point that it varies because there will be things later than eight sometimes. So, we wanted to make note of that, those sort of special events that we're going to have. So, could we have this whole section be about ordinary course and then have the section about events and notification address lighting as well? Those events and notifications. Does that make sense, Bill? Yeah, I mean, can be good. Just do it, like, kind of, daily, normal operating. Number 13 is lights are on A to B, and then security lights are on however they work. And then another section says, in the event of special events, lighting will be adjusted to coincide with occupancy in events where whatever the triggers are, the neighbors will be notified. Okay. Maybe just even separate paragraphs within 13. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we can clean that up. Okay. And you can write that. Okay. There's still a, there's still a time that was always wrong. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I would, like on the weekends, would you just have security lighting on? Like motion sensor lighting? Yeah. Something that's on the property. And stuff inside the building is required by police and fire. Yeah. And service circles. Yeah. Yeah. We just need to re-draft it. Okay. Based on the comments. But the motion sensors, why is it maybe triggered by motion sensors? Why aren't they triggered by motion sensors? Security lighting. Possibility of that. Sometimes lights that are on in certain hours and then they become motion sensors. Okay. Let it, why don't we, we'll take it past it. Okay. Revisiting this so that it's really clear, like what's happening in the normal situation, what's happening on the weekend situation and what's happening in the event situation. Okay. Design review meeting from last night? You should. So I wanted to raise, there was a design review board meeting last night and we addressed this application. There were some maybe heated is a little too, too, too big, but there were words about the lighting. One of the architects on the board, Bill Sterling felt that the 25 foot tall light posts will, even if there isn't technically light spillage from those, they are above the height of the trees that are in the plant, you know, the buffer plantings. And so the light fixtures themselves will be visible from the abutting properties. And that was something that was not really adequately resolved for us by the applicant. And it will be in the decision. Well, the recommendations from the design review board that those light poles are higher than what the design review board would like to see because of that issue. Not, it's not an issue of spillage. It's the fact that the actual fixture when it's on will be visible from the abutting properties above the trees. So that might be something to just look at again. I know Mr. Proy, you didn't value Mr. Sterling's opinion, but he is an architect with a long history and he has done a lot of lighting plans in his time. Um, and it is a valid point. I would disagree that it didn't value his opinion. I did not appreciate the way it was delivered. But I did end that by saying we would, we did hear what he said. Okay. And we would make sure that we didn't overlook something. Okay. If we could solve that. Okay. And I did ask to take another look at it. I will say that Mark, Mark was trying to convey that lower poles are going to mean that they're along the northern end. That was something that we've looked at a million ways and there was really no way to use fixtures along the northern edge of the parking lot. Unless they're more directional. That's the only thing. Without, and comply with the spillage into the street, we would have a little bit of that. And Mark was pretty adamant that they looked at all the potential fixtures and locations. So that's why we came back with a fewer to shield it from them. So again, we will take another look at it. Is there any condition where the town, if you recall the first photometric plan that we submitted, there was that small section right where kind of the 37, 39 doesn't have the vegetation that there would be spillage into the right of way. Would that ever be allowed by the town? It's not under the bylaw. It's not allowed. Yeah. So that's the challenge we were having is that just that one section really, even with a shielded dark sky compliant light, we couldn't get it inbound of our property far enough because of the parking lot. And if you push the parking lot, then you lose the storm drain. It's just like kind of a, you know, domino effect. Right. Yeah. We also got a lot of constructive comments on the building. And he was also looking at trying to incorporate some of those comments into the design. So I thought it was productive. I think in general it was, we just, we slid off a little hill at one point. Yeah. We climbed back up. Yeah. On the snow storage thing, I think we talked about that. If you can think of something that you can give us that is more workable. Do you have any, I have a feeling you have a vision of where the snow might go. No, I don't. I really don't. I just don't, you know, I don't. I mean, originally I thought that pushing it onto the strip between Waltham Road and the site, the parking would, sounded fine, but then when trees went in, then there's not a way to do that. I mean, is there a way, is there a way to push it beyond your buildings? Or is that too much of a stretch to do that? I mean, I mean, you have a lot of space behind, you've got fields behind, is that something big? Not without using the driveway, which is why I was giggling before. Yeah. There's plenty of opportunity there. Yeah. It could, yes, it could easily be done. That's the logical spot, but that counteracts the concerns of the, of the neighbors. So put it out in the backyard. Yeah. So if you had your hand up before we recess. From Fiverr, who considers these conditions, the school and the neighbors. Pretty much, I'd like to give some context. Back in 2016, the school, but soon after automated law was 39. Rather light industrial zoning change, but there was a change of zoning. But since then, assault ships, 14 wheeler semis, come onto that property twice a year. It's light industrial. It's been widened, excessive use of residential neighborhood. The same thing to happen to 10A. That's the six bay garage, which neither belongs to 10 private residents, but you're saying does not fall under the site plan. So what guarantees be assuaged with, there's a change of use for 10A. If it's not going to be in the site plan, is it residential? Does that restrict what it can be used for? If it's part of the school and they have a driveway and can use it for whatever they like under Dover amendment, why isn't it in the site plan? So... Is it a house there owned by the school as well? 10 Appletree Lane is owned by the school. Right. And so 10 Appletree Lane has a garage. No. 10A. But it's... 10 Appletree... If they don't... I can't do this on the fly because I haven't looked at all of this, but if they have land and they don't need to make changes, they don't have to come to us. And they can do what they do. So if they bought a house on Appletree Lane as part of a school, it is part of a school, they can do what they want on that property. Yes. And we don't have any way of stopping it. When you say change, are you saying a structural change or a change of use? Either. And your change of use, I understand what you're saying, I'm not a zoning enforcement officer and I haven't looked at the issue that you're specifically raising, but it is not in front of us at this time. And that's fine. We go back to stating that the school, these conditions, wants to review those conditions and it feels to me as though perhaps to strip them back and prevent the neighbours from feeling more trustworthy of our neighbourhood, the atmosphere that we have. We are not trying to do that, but if we are to take what you agreed to and put it into our decision, we have to understand what it says and make sure that future boards will understand what it says and we need to make sure that it is doable. So the concern that we have, or I have anyway, is that if we have a large snowstorm, there isn't going to be time enough to get it offset so that parking will be available to make a place run. And if we have this going to snow, there's not going to be any place to take it to. I understand that concern. Do you understand my concern that either come down Apertory Lane or come down the driveway, which sandwiched, my property is sandwiched by those two roadways. I do not want heavy trucks coming down either of those passages any hour of the day to move snow from the front of the property to where you're suggesting at the back of the property or somewhere in... In town, I live on Clayford Hill Road and we have a school at the end of Clayford Hill Road and very early in the morning before the sun comes up, the snowplows are out there. They're out all night and into the morning and they're there. Yes. So I understand that you don't want to... And do you not think the same happens currently at the school? I don't know if it does or it doesn't. They do have a car pile. It's all the pictures that the gentleman sent to us and I'm assuming that it was snow removal. So then Claypit has the same situation except it doesn't have 14-wheeler semis coming on the property for delivering tractors. I don't want also some huge dump truck trundling past the back of my property in snow. The school has agreed this memorialized it. My concern is I don't know how they can agree that it won't happen. Because I doubt there's going to be a point in time where the snow will not be able to be moved and it will have to go somewhere. Then can the condition be regional emergencies? Might the community be broken? The school wants to be good neighbors. We've heard that from the school. They want to assuage concerns of the neighbors. This is one way of doing it. If the board is going to say no, we're not allowing this agreement between school and the neighborhood. It's not that we're not allowing this agreement. We just want to make sure that whatever goes into our decision is in fact enforceable and doable. So on the enforceable front, at the first meeting we found out that the baseline water runoff from the site exceeds the 2016 conditions that were part of that approval. In the case of the new baseline it is what it is. So are the board ever coming? The promises made, guarantees made during the application. And that should have happened. I was not on the board at the time but some other people in this room were on the board and they didn't check it. So, you know? If you want to start blaming individuals, that's fine. I pay my taxes to the town. I don't pay it to an individual and I don't expect the individual to pass the buck to some other individual. The town is responsible. The town will go and have, during this project, a peer reviewer going out onto the site to look at the construction project as it advances in strategic terms. And that was not always done when we had our last planner, unfortunately. But we're going to be doing it now. As to other things, we're not going to be out there monitoring everything all the time. If there is a problem and neighbors raise the problem, we'll deal with it as long as it is within our jurisdiction and it is something that we can address. You could also be the helpful arbitrator. When you start striking things like abutters and neighbors, no we can't have that, neighbors doesn't work. Nor does abutters and that's why the neighbors and the school agreed for that wording. There is a whole context to why these were put in place. Your council agreed that we should change the language and follow the statute which would incorporate neighbors. Again, we can't enforce abutters in neighbors because neighbors isn't a term of art under that statute. But abutters has not worked because neighbors in Lincoln, living directly opposite the school, have been notified as they should have been if they are abutters. So those neighbors said, can we expand it? And abutters isn't working, so can we have neighbors? That's the problem. It's legal piece, unfortunately. The abutters and under site plan is different than special permit. The statute that your council has asked to refer to is special permit. Special permit would include abutters and abutters to abutters who are the neighbors across the street. But for site plan, our regulations and our by-law do not require that we notify people in other towns. The school is having to do so. Why is our town wanting to restrict what we might like to enjoy that the school is willing to provide? I think it goes down to how to enforce it. We put this condition in. I have to enforce it. The next plan has to enforce it. The playboy has to enforce it. So you have to write it in a way that it's enforceable. So using the word you keep on about a neighbor and abutters, it's because you have to be correct. If we don't do it correctly, it can be enforced differently. That's what we have to do. We're not trying to criticize the things. We're trying to make sure that everything is in there is able to be enforced. I would like you to have the context of why this agreement has been hammered out between the school and hammered out is probably the wrong word because it's been very cordial. People are on board. The school wants to be a good neighbor and is willing to do things to be part of our neighborhood. And if the town would like to rewrite things for legal reasons, that's fine. So long as it doesn't dilute the agreements that we have come to. Then we don't want to dilute the agreements that we have come to. Okay. Well, my apologies for misunderstanding. But as I sit here, it feels like these conditions are being pared back. No. The conditions that you had here have not been pared back. Your council has a few things that were going over. And the other things were not clear and had to be made clear. But I don't believe that we are pulling anything back. Well, I do hope that's the case, but from my seat there, it felt like it wasn't the case. Members, are you hearing anything back? I think we're finding what we actually control. I think in 2016, a bunch of things were put in this agreement that no one even knew. But the school and you fight it by them. So we're just, I think, trying to do what we can actually execute in a... Maybe a separate MOU needs to be... If there's something that's not in here. I think we're also being mindful of making sure that there aren't things in this agreement that we have absolutely no ability to enforce. So something like if there's excess groundwater runoff, we have no way of knowing that. We're not going to go out there and measure it after this has been approved. That's not our purview. And so we are trying to make sure that to the extent that it's possible without limiting what you have agreed to in good faith, we try not to have things in here that we are just not capable of enforcing. And some of these things are things that you guys will have to work on together. If you're not happy with how the school is handling things, then that's going to be on you to enforce that. There are certain things that we have no power to enforce at all. Well, what you're saying, that not everything has to be absolutely legally enforced by the planning board or whomever in the town. Some of these conditions, electively given by the school, memorializes because, you know, Chris sits here tonight. Ten years ago, it was Judy Silden. So when Chris's successor takes over, if there's nothing memorialized that the school made a promise to the neighborhood, legally enforceable or otherwise, how is Chris's successor going to know? So if it's in the conditions, it shows the intent of the school and its current leadership to be on to its successors. So I would ask the board to be a little more lenient in memorializing what the neighborhood and the school have agreed to. It isn't contentious. And in return, we would ask you to be more understanding of the fact that you have come here tonight talking about how you're a little upset with us for not having enforced things when that enforcement was not. You may have put it in your conditions, but it was never within the purview of the planning board to do that enforcement. So you have to acknowledge that some of the things that will be in these conditions are not for us to enforce. I'd like you to identify where I criticize the board for not enforcing something. You just did the thing about the ground, water and water. That's not in the conditions. That's not in our neighborhood conditions of 2016. That, as I understand it, was the planning application. Nothing to do with the neighbors. But it was... Let's go on, shall we? I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Again, with this next topic, you can think of something that would assist. That would be helpful. Two of you. I don't know if you're at your end or not, but if you and Dan could try and think about it. That would be great. Number 16, the construction management plan that's coming to us. It talks about a community communication plan, which you probably know what you mean, but we don't know what that means. Yeah, I think currently there's email distribution that comes from the school. But often when we do construction management plans, we would do that either more frequently, you know, depending on the site. Sometimes you put up a bulletin board or sometimes there's even a website, you know, all that. I think, you know, we could do that a number of ways. At a minimum, it would be email communication to keep status. So I would just say... So that's a definition of what the community... Yeah. What is the community communication plan? Or what, you know, what you had in mind. At a minimum. Yeah. Yeah. I think, yeah. A minimum email. Also, one, two, well, count up from the bottom. One, two, three, four. I'm looking at your document, Mr. Pereira. And you talk about the duration of the project, but the project hasn't been defined either. I don't believe. I mean, I would say everything approved on the site plan. I mean, the project is building the parking lot in the building. Yeah. Okay. Then we would talk duration of whatever. Yeah. Madam Chair, Ira has joined me. Oh, no, it's okay. Hi, Ira. Hey, Anna. I've been up for the past hour, so don't yell at me. Can you raise your hand? I don't know you're there. You've been here for the past hour? Yeah. Yeah, raise your hand. I can't see it. We only came back at about 35 minutes ago. I just had 20 minutes, too. Okay. Let the record be broken. I remember that you joined the meeting at what time? It was at 9 o'clock, Ira. At 8 o'clock? Yeah. Okay. I didn't answer, but I just want to ask of the applicant. In number 17, there would be no new flow of stormwater designed to flow on people in the road. Have we resolved the fact that the old stormwater that was flowing on to Waltham Road is not going to be flowing on to Waltham Road any longer? I believe that is the case and would just offer that. I'm not sure that we recognize that there was an issue until it was brought up in these meetings. So, that was taken into account into Sean's... We'll just move back on that. Everything's for sure. There would be no flow of stormwater. And, again, if that is a requirement of the site plan, then I don't know that we need a condition that says that, right? Like, if that's a...yeah. No new? Is there a new flow? The meeting, I'm sure, is very similar to what we have today. We have, in our temporary well applied conditions, we have limited hour constructions and we also have a condition usually about construction vehicles being brought on site. So... Yeah, as long as they're following it, I think that's fine. I just wanted the board to note those times. Sure. Can I go back, though? Sure. To number 17? Because if we're striking new, we should also be striking designed to flow. It should be with no flow of stormwater onto Waltham Road. Whether it's designed to flow that way or accidentally. Yeah, and again, I would propose that whole end of that sentence should go away. We're just taking out designed to flow. You guys are not going to approve us if we have water flowing. So, once we get approval, we should just make sure the bioretention bases remain in operating condition. Right. If it's what you guys agree to, it can be there, but we don't need designed to flow either. Right. It should be no flow of stormwater onto Waltham Road. Yeah, I'd rather keep that in there. Well, but I'm saying, I'm saying broaden it, because whether it's designed to or accidental, it should come out. I'm fine with your language. Oh, okay. I want to strike the whole set, last part of it. Right. But I'm just opening it up. There are many that I was having trouble reading. So, the project should be constructed and operated in compliance with the site plan. And we're talking now about this new site plan, or we're talking about this new site plan? The one you're approving. Okay. They have one from the last one. Oh, all right. Yeah. I mean, we could put in the 2026 site plan or something. Yeah. Except that you're not, you're changing. Well, site plan is applied term. It was not, it should be. We should be referencing the plan. Yeah, I know. I think it is. That is sort of a general condition of your... Yeah. So once you... I think it'll fit in once you do your preamble. Okay. I'm just trying to be clear of what... Yeah, yeah, yeah, no. That's the intent. Yeah, it feels right. I mean, you would have... Plans and the revised date or something like that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So the second sentence, I was having trouble with the syntax. These conditions apply to the approved site plan and the related approved ancillary materials filed by the applicant regarding the project and any change therein for... What is it that you're saying? A lot of this came from the... I think there's an analog condition in 2016. Basically, you're approving the project as it's depicted on everything like we just talked about that you recognize as the final plan set and reports. And then changes in that require... Are subject to whatever process the town has for permitting changes to a project like this. Okay, so these are two separate thoughts, right? Right? It wouldn't be an and any change. It would just be any change. Two separate sentences. Two sentences. Yeah, exactly. Any change. Okay. So we've got a condition earlier where a board and say, we want you to look at this. And the planning board could say, oh yeah, well, we're going to impose different conditions because you didn't do ABC or it needs something else. But the applicant might not agree to it. So, this says that any change which could come from the planning board, that you would have to do it. That's how I read it. No, the intent is if we want to be subject to the review that applies. Say if you're reworking a couple other paragraphs just here. Something like any changes proposed by the applicant require filing of a new site plan. And when we're talking about the applicable thresholds and criteria in Article 6, currently only a portion of Article 6 applies to the Dover. So, I think it probably needs to have that section referred to. Or at least say relevant portions of Article 6. Yeah. Right. It doesn't look like a portion. Yeah. Figured by applicable. I get your point. Because thresholds and criteria are what it triggers the site plan to begin with. But for your purposes, it's only a very small portion of the by-law which aren't any thresholds or criteria, but not thresholds. Yeah, I hear you. We can clarify. I mean, that's why the subject to is also in there. It is. Okay. Separately, from the lawyers, and just as a layperson, and see if you understand what it says. And then in the student arrival and dismissal stuff, the syntax in event management plan, as rewritten by the budget, the abutters is really unclear. I'm not sure exactly what's being said. And I don't know if you even agree with what you think it might be saying. What isn't clear is, it's not clear if everybody has to give their email addresses to the school, or if the abutters just get noticed, and anybody else who isn't an abutter has to give their emails to the school. Yeah, we can clarify that however one wants that. Yeah, just however they clarify. I think it's really the other person's because their abutters will be able to help. Or whatever. Just however it's clarified. Just so that it's clear what the school has to do and doesn't have to do. In that introductory paragraph for any special event hosted, you might want to have for any special event, comma, whether hosted on the property, or for which the property will be used as parking for an event at another campus, comma, and take those out of parentheses, and for which the school reasonably anticipates, one, that the generation of over 400 guests, or use of substantially all of the parking spaces shown. I think that's what you're saying, but I'm not sure. Could you repeat that? Sure. For any special event, comma, whether hosted on the property, take out the parentheses, or for which the property will be used as parking for an event at another campus, comma, and for which the school reasonably anticipates, A or one, that the generation anticipates the generation of over 400 guests, or two, use of substantially all of the parking spaces shown on the site's circulation plan, comma, the school shaft. I think that's fine. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. I think you're saying the same thing. It's more clear. Okay. So I think that's it. How about anybody else? Anyone else have any comments at the revisions? We'll determine which things we will take out and put directly into the decision, or whether we'll just keep the whole thing together, and refer to it in the decision, and make it an attachment. Yeah, I think once we do another iteration of revisions, we can just send you the word document so you can pull it, and that way the formatting should auto-correct and all that for you. That would be great. Is there anything else, Mr. Hill, that you have to say? No, I think we're good. Okay. Next, Erin. Yeah. What has to happen? We have to get the report from Jason, and then your person has to look at the report and see if it needs to have a response. And Jason said next week, so that's the first week in February, and then your person will need time to look at it. And then we're going to be working on this, and I think that's all that's open right now. Anything else is set, Robert? I agree, so yes. Save the 11th. The deadline for you is currently February the 27th. Yeah. The week of the 9th, we have to have one or two meetings, but we can't deal with you that week because we're just over-voted. Our next meeting is February the 27th, 25th, and that wouldn't give us time to do your decision. We've just been meeting every week, and I can't keep asking the board to do that. How much time do you need? Well, would you be ready by the 25th? Yes. Would you be able to do that? I think so. I think if we had Jason next week and give Sean a week, then we could be ready to submit in advance, well in advance of the deadline for that 25th. We could continue until the 25th, but then, I mean, Robert can start on the decision. Yeah. Um, but I need to ask you to do this, but that doesn't work either. I'm out of the first week. I'm out of the first week in March. It's just that, yeah. So we're going to have to meet again the 25th? Yes. Is that what you mean? And then we'll pick a date, too? For the decision to send it? Yeah, I get it. Is that okay? Can you do that? I mean, will you- Because we will not make, if we meet on the 25th, we will not make the 27th. Yeah. Oh, no, no. We can grant that extension on the 25th. Okay. Right? Unless you want to do something now so that we're comfortable. As long as you don't need every minute of it. If you can do it, I'm teasing. But yeah, I mean, like a month. The next meeting after that is March 11th, right? Yeah. And Robert's away the week before that anyway, so- What's the next one? It's the 25th of March. So 30 days from the 30th. Will that give you enough time? I mean- Oh, the 27th. Yeah, we go to March 27th. Yeah, March. Yeah. And is the process that you draft the decision and then we review it and then it comes back for discussion? Or how does that process work for you? Usually it's drafted and we look at it. We will close the hearing by then. Yeah. And normally that's just how we do it. We don't normally should. Okay. But now you're going for most of the decisions. We're going for right now. And everything else will be- Or payment. The record and findings of Sarah. Yeah. Can we get our microphone? Uh, try. Well, but if- We can set it up so that we're all close together. Yeah. No, I'm not too worried. We don't have to fill the whole- Whatever route we can be. Anything else on? Sarah, you can do it at 7. Yeah, one more. Okay. Sarah, what time did you say on the 25th? 7 p.m. We could do it virtually. I have. How would you feel about doing it virtually? We feel great about that. You feel great? Yeah. How would we feel about doing it virtually? I feel fine. I live down the street, but I just know it, you know, there's a lot. Well, and we can all hear each other. We can put plans up, and we can all see them. Right. Mr. Hill? I don't live in a park, so. Then why don't we do a motion to continue the hearing until February the 25th at 7 o'clock, a virtual meeting by the Zoom. I move that we continue the public hearing to February 25th at 7 p.m. to be held virtually. I'll second. Got you, Robin. Aye. Robin, aye. Larry, aye. Jesse? Aye. Ira? Aye. I move to continuation. Question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Want to do minutes? Yeah. I'll see you back there. It's a good one. I know. It's smart for my living room. Yeah. It's so cold. It's remarkable. I don't care. Do you have any air? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, it's good one. You know the changes we have? I put on the screen. It's not the clear one. This is just the track change version. Of what? It is. This one incorporates them all, right? Yeah. These are the patches. Oh. How do you find it? Put the clean one on. I'll put the clean one on. I'll put the clean one on. I'll put the clean one on. When I was thinking of these, all I kept thinking was, I wonder if AI could do a better job. I don't know. Can we try? Nina does the thing where she's got the AI running. Can we compare them? Sure. It's a lot of work to make sure these are right. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just not sure AI is necessary. Yes. No, I know, but yes, I thought it would be nice to see a comparison. Yeah. Definitely. I'll put that on. Here's the clean version. Here's the clean version. Okay. Jesse, did you have any comments on it? I reviewed the marked up changes and I think they're, I was fine with them. No, I haven't. No. That's what he said. Do I have any changes? No. I think that's what he said. I'm an interpreter now. Do you think that they're accurate? Do you think that they're accurate? I think so. I think I was looking to see where in the minutes we get Silverstein saying that he definitely agrees that they will be capital A affordable. I'm not sure I see that adequately reflected because he did eventually say that. Okay. That discussion was in one place. Yeah. But I think what he meant by affordable. But in the end he agreed that he would do the whole WHA capital A affordable thing. No. I don't think he knows what that is. There's this line that he talked about. Jay is still seeing. He said the applicant plans to charge the projects and offerings. Continue willing to provide five of the most housing units as affordable. And he even said a million income. That's a capital affordable. Yeah. He didn't say the word. It's not the word. Yeah. But I thought in the end he did agree to that. No. He can't agree to it. Because it's... He doesn't know what it is. Well, he sort of does. And I think that the issue is that it's not clear that the state will take them as SHI units. Right. Because it's reserved for one religion. Well, yeah. That's my point. Right. I didn't hear him say, we'll allow anyone... Oh, no. He said it wouldn't be. When I asked the question, he specifically said, no, it's only for church people. Right. And with that condition, it's not clear that it would be eligible for the SHI. Right. This is what I was... Because the SHI... The SHI stuff. Um... You have... You have... You know, it's a good party. You think you have to have it? You have the pottery and all that kind of stuff. And then how to do that? Yeah. But I... Okay. I thought... He said he would try. Oh, try. No, no. There's not a pickup too. Folks that live there don't have... So... But what I had written when I was drafting... Is it conditions I sent you? Yeah. And I said that... That any capital A affordable units would get designated parking. Yeah. We didn't do that. I don't think that that ever made it into the decision because... They were only giving it to church people who didn't have cars. Yeah. I want to go back and... Well, I... Yeah. I listened to these minutes like for several hours. Because they were all over the place. I mean... Because... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know. I'll go back and listen to it because my recollections... And granted... Long day for me... That they kind of went off and... He... He went... He turned his camera off for a little while. Oh, yeah. I think they had a discussion. And then he came back and said that they would make them affordable. So I'll go back and listen to it. Yeah. I... My recollection was that he said... They... They might have gone in circles, but he said that they could not guarantee that. I thought any of it. He said they would. I said... I said a little bit during... What did the housing person say? To the draft decision. You want to tell us what it says? It says... It says that you... That the units that are... The five units... Would not be restricted to the... To the... Parish. But at the end of 19, he can't. Oh, yeah. They want the whole thing restricted to the... And so... That's... That's... That's... That's... Because the larger key... You have to do a lottery. So you... You can't choose... Who applied in the lottery... People in the part of the parish. Right. So... It's... It's not a guarantee. So let's say four out of five of them are in the parish. Maybe one person's like... I really want to live away like... But they said that wouldn't... That would not... Um... Satisfy their religious purposes. That's what they said. My... My... My margin was... My margin was to... To... Yes. Now I got it. It's pushed as far as possible. Okay. Well, we'll look at it. When we all look at this. Hey, Robert. Yes. Like... So the draft decision for this... Have you circulated that yet? I know we had one from... No. I've been going back to town council. Yeah. Okay. I... I had some stuff in. It's just... I don't wanna like... I don't wanna give you 20 copies of it. I gotcha. Yeah. I wanna give you a clean copy that's like... Ready to go for more comments. And that's why... I can appreciate that. Anything that you wanted... In it. That you send it to him. So that he can... Incorporate it. Yep. Yep. Yep. And when you think we'll get that? I had the copy of it from town council. We looked it over. Responded to my comments. And then I provided it to the chair. Yeah. And I'll probably get through this... Yeah. That's fine. Do we have to get to these tonight or can we wait until the next meeting? We can wait. You can wait. I would suggest we wait because I read them on my phone. Right. And I'm like, I don't think that was right and I've gotta... The person who takes the minutes, lots of it wasn't right. And it had... Yeah. It had us... We had several different discussions on... I know. Yeah. And it was like, I read hers and I went, oh God, I don't understand. Yeah. There was a lot of talking over each other and that must be very hard for her. Yeah. We changed subjects and went back to things and... Yeah. Yeah. No, that's great. Okay. So we'll wait on that. All right. Update. As you mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that the select board has put on their warrant a potential zoning article and it made the town manager aware today that if a zoning article is getting the warrant for the select board that they need to put it back... I wasn't going to tell them. I was... Yep. I knew they had added this and I wasn't going to tell them. Yeah. Because they should know by now and it's there for them. True. True. From my point of view, if I don't... It's sort of going to fall out of my ass, unfortunately. Yeah. You do it, you don't do it. It's like, at some point, but also I want to make sure things are done right. I also want to make sure the time manager and the select board know this is the process. We've got to follow it. Right. The proposal that the select board has is that they change the appeal process that we have in our bylaw for site plan. Right now for site plan, there's not an appeal of the decision. And again, site plan is not provided for in state law. Only special permits are provided for in state law. So whatever the locality comes up with is what we have. So what our bylaw says is, in the appeal, the decision then goes to the building commissioner. And he's supposed to enforce the decision with his building permits. So if we've said certain things and that's not what's being applied for, he doesn't have to give a building permit for that. And if he does give a building permit that doesn't conform to the decision, then somebody can appeal that to the zoning board. For how long? I don't know what the appeal period is. It's within the building permit. It doesn't revoke back to anything we've done. And then the zoning board makes a decision based on whether building commissioner issued an appropriate permit. And then that can be appealed to court. So when you get a permit? Maybe. But once you've started, if you get your building permit, and you start doing the work, or not start doing the work anyway, you still have that permit. And there's nothing, I don't believe, that would impinge on your ability to start the project. And I don't think... Even if the process doesn't go to court, you've got to get a TRO. Right. And you're not going to get it. Right. You're not going to get temporary restraining order. You wouldn't get one. So the project would go ahead. All right. Okay? It just takes the town out of it. Yeah. So the select... Neighbors were having a fit over the... Veritas. Yes. Veritas. And they went to the select board and said, we need to be able to appeal this now to stop this project. Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba. And so the select board said, oh, well, I guess we could... And they said, other towns have it, where you can appeal a planning board decision right to the court. Oh. So even if they appealed it to the court, they wouldn't get a temporary project. Right. Go ahead. It's highly unlikely that anybody would prevail, particularly in a Dover amendment case, if we follow the Dover requirements. And all that we do is cost the town money to have to defend. So I think it's stupid. I mean, I just... I don't... And I was told when I saw it, I saw them talking about... So we need to defend that the building commissioner's permit has been appealed. Well, they would just make it... They wouldn't... They would change the process so that rather than having to wait for the building commissioner, if somebody didn't like our decision, that that could be appealed to court. However, site plan is for projects that are excluded from zoning. They're not required to go through a specific zoning process. They only go through local site plan. Yeah. So it's highly unlikely that there would be anything that happened that would be appealable appropriately and would win. Is there anything in the law or in our decisions that says an applicant has to cover legal fees if that's how it's going to go, decisions, because all of a sudden it's going to become very expensive for the town and it is the applicant who should bear that legal cost. Well, the applicant or the people. Yeah. Yeah, but we would be defending the decision, not the... The town is going to be... Yes, but it would be if in the by-law. It would have to be in the by-law thing and it would have to say anybody who does the appeal Yeah, it only works for what you said. Yeah, the applicant has to cover our cost if somebody else appeals the decision. I don't think it's... Yeah. That's what I'm asking though. Like, this isn't a bad decision. I mean, we've obviously approved it. So the applicant benefits by our approval. So obviously they're not covering the cost if we deny it, the applicant appeals. It's like I said, the second of my time, they're on the... And then two calls with the TV, like four or five hours together, so... Right. But I think it's worth asking if we can add that in. Any expenses of the town in litigation. I'm a lawyer, I think... I am a lawyer, but I don't play TV. Yes, I do. Not everybody. That's right. Robert, we need to have... What's the name? Zoning report on our five articles. And then if we have to... We have to have one of this other one. When you're needing a force by... Is there a timeline? I don't look at the timeline. I think... I don't know. I'll look. I think we have a while. So we might have to... Already now, Mike. If... Unless the select board polls is honorable, we have to have a policy hearing for this now. For this... But hasn't technically been removed from... Yeah. We have the meeting with the select board on February the 9th, where we're going to be talking about Route 20, our zoning bylaw articles, and their article. And I think we should be very clear with them what our thoughts are, and know what mine are, on this new proposal, I think. We just have to make sure the process is done correctly. One group just doing this, and then it affects us. Because... Oh, I can't believe it. I mean, I called the chair when I saw it. I'm a little shocked that I just had to find out, you know, the 27... Right. But I did call the chair when I saw it, and I said, what is this? And she explained it. I said, well, I can't imagine how it shouldn't be coming from you if you want, you know, petitioners to do it nifty. But, you know, you have to talk to us. It's not your role. Jesse, do you understand what we're talking about? I was going to ask, what happened? He missed the beginning of this conversation. Oh. The select board has submitted an article, but it's a zoning article for town meeting, which they propose it and offer it, but it's something we have to do a hearing about. And it affects us. What is it? So it says that the process for appealing a planning board decision, right now, that's the building inspector and then zoning. And so this article will say you can go straight to court. Oh, wow. Okay. Punch up there. It isn't really okay, because it'll cost the town money. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then every single one of these Dover ones and they're expensive. Super expensive. Oh, God. Interesting. Okay. Yeah. But I really think it puts the town in a position of basically defending the applicants. And it's their business interest that we're not spending taxpayer money to defend. So. Did they talk about this at the finance committee meeting tonight? We might have been, but we didn't. We only ran down there to do our. Yeah. Yeah. Curious. So I got to think the finance committee would see risk there. What is the point? We could have called. Okay. Um, did you look into, I emailed you about State Road Auto. So I have a friend who has his car serviced at State Road Auto and he's friendly with the guy who runs the shop. And apparently that property, that building, and a bunch of those buildings on the backside there are owned by these couple of sisters and they're trying to push State Road Auto body out of the building. They're trying to not remove the lease. And are they doing that because they want to consolidate the lights? I don't know. It's a weird shaped lot. It's a very weird shaped lot. It's a very weird shaped lot. And I don't know if they just own one lot with multiple buildings or if they own multiple lots back there. I looked and it was, I think it was one lot and it was several acres. And it went along the rail trail and then a part of it goes onto the roadway through 20. It's very weird. I don't know what they're doing for frontage. I mean, there's no frontage there. The site shop is a separate property. Yeah. There's a lot of weird ones in there. But, you know, I don't know if it means we should hustle up. Not that we can do it for this town meeting, but we should hustle up and try and come up with some... Well, we're going to do that if we ever get out from under. Dover application. Yeah. We should have them re-chatting. You know, re-chatting. We need to have questions about the whole process and stuff. If they're... We actually are all thinking, would you like to do some more concise... Let's discuss it. Yeah. Let's see what the feedback is. That we could do this overlay and this, you know, redevelopment area could be beneficial. We saw what the... Bistro and then up the floor, sort of private rooms. The outdoor thing hasn't been... Has that been approved? It got approved. Oh, God approved? The site plan was approved. Did they put conditions on like we would have? Did you send them the conditions? I did. It's disgusting. I can leave the... I scared to go drag it. Half the meeting, they're like, is this a site plan? Or a special program? I had a chair and I'm like, this is a site plan, guys. And I give them the backup story of why you're hearing this. So they want to have outdoor seating on the back side of the building? Yeah. Okay. No way in the meeting, it was against it. Oh, really? Did they have a question? No, it was one day where I had a question about something else. It was on the vent. The outdoor event. Not the event, but the event on the outside of the... The restaurant. The kitchen. Yeah. I mean, the nearest house is on the other side of the depot. No. No. No, no. March Bastion's right next door. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess there's... It was how Dung and Don was asking, What's the process of getting off-site plan to? Was it approved? No. It's coming back to the plan board. So now Dung and Don has to come back. It's like, Dung and Don has to be done. They'll be coming back to the front of the plan board. At some point. What? Outdoor seating. Oh. Oh. They require... They require them to be for the CO if they want you to see it. So I'm linking my eye out, but if I work with the CO, you know, and whenever they come back to the CO, they've been told me to focus on how they can have an outdoor seating once they have the same kind of tool. So let's see. Are you ready for a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. I second. I second. All in favor. Jesse Newley. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Annette Lewis. 5-0. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. So...