February 11, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

February 11, 2026 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

This is February 11th, 2026 at 7.03 p.m. And this is the meeting of the planning board. It's a Zoom meeting only, remote access. And our agenda this evening is, well, why don't I take a call to order first by roll call. Ira Montague? Here. Robin Borgestedt? Here. Jesse Newberry? Here. Larry Kiernan? Here. Annette Lewis here. The main order of business this evening is PB number 2502, 169 Rice Road, St. Philopater, Mercurius, and St. Mina, Coptic Orthodox Church site plan approval, review of the draft decision, and vote. The other things that we had on were minutes, but we did approve them the other night at a posted meeting, so we're not going to do that tonight. And we handled pretty much, and we handled pretty much, and we handled pretty much the other two items we pretty much handled. We may, at the end, talk about, no, I think we won't. I think that'll be it. And I'm not aware of, and I'm not aware necessarily of any matters not anticipated in advance. The only other thing that we may get to, or we may not, is the ground-mounted solar photovoltaic installation bylaw and just some discussions on what the board is thinking. But that's it for now. So you've all received the draft decision, and there's still many questions that we need to answer among ourselves. So what I would suggest we do, you all sent in your comments to Robert. I did, too. And some of mine show up here because they are not substantive. They're more organizational, and I wanted them to be able to be read by everyone. So let's go through it page by page and just see if we have anything else that we want to say.
Right now, the title says Findings and Site Plan Approval Decision. Normally, what we say is Findings and Decision on Site Plan Approval Application. It's up to you what you want to do, or we can wait until we see what the vote is. Sorry, Annette. Are we displaying the document? No, we're not. We each have it up on our own screens because I believe some of us may have made notes to ourselves in advance. Oh, all right. And Robert has it as well. So do you want to deal with that now, or do you want to come back to that? We might as well do it as we go. Okay. So what do you think about Findings and Decision on Site Plan Approval Application? That's fine. Is that okay? Yeah, that's okay. So we'll change it to that.
Okay. Then on the next page, this is a thing from me. At 1.11, talking about the section that we're in now is Procedural History, and it's got information here about snow storage. I would move that to three under Relevant Findings, because it's not a procedural history.
It's... Anywhere you want to... Where do you want to have Findings? Under 3.1. Right at the end? No, somewhere where we're talking about the plans.
I don't really know right at the moment. I don't want to... We'll come back. What I'm hoping we can do tonight is go through this, make the changes that we think we want, and then you allow me to work with Robert to finalize it, just to make sure it's in good order, and then allow me to sign it on behalf of the board. If we want to do it now, I would suggest between 3.13 and 3.14, because 3.13 talks about parking. Okay. You know, like the parking lot. Yep. And 3.12 is the plants in the parking lot and stuff, so that's a good place to stick it, because it's sort of parking-related. Okay. What page is that? That's on page 8. Right now it's on page 8. Page 8. So between 12 and 13? Or 13 and 14. 13 and 14 is what she said somewhere in there. Well, now it's considered 14 now. Yeah. All right. We can do that. I'm just writing myself a note, too.
Robert spent a long time going through the record. I have no idea if it's 100%. I went through it as well, but starting in December, we got loads and loads and loads of things, and we couldn't figure out which end was up. And if we were getting things for a second time or the first time, if they were different from what we got before. I believe it's not. I've gone through it like four or five times. Okay. So I think Robert has gotten it. I just don't know if the rest of you have looked at it. I caught the one thing that was duplicates that was sent on the 18th and 22nd, and it was the exact document. And I believe the app can just send this forward, the same document by accident. So I fixed that. That's all I said. So it is in here, or it's not? It's not because it's not because I went through all the emails again. It believes that he just, he forwarded a new document, and it was part of the same email chain. And I looked at it most times. The reason I'm asking is because in the plan sets, when I look at them, some of them are different. Some of them aren't. With dates aren't different. But I haven't been able to look at each and every plan to make sure of it. I took both of them. I took the same screen, and it was the exact same plan. But that was just, that was three different documents that I verified, and I made sure that I looked at it very carefully. But are they in here or not in here? No, I just said the first one, the C-200, C-300, and the Pollution Prevention Stormwater System Operation Maintenance Plan.
Because we had an earlier stormwater thing that was probably November, but I'm not sure. Then we had another one that came in, and the title said December on the first page. But when you looked at it, the footer said November 25. And then they submitted another one after that. And I have no idea if they're different or not. They had the same date, just December. No, I double-checked. I made sure, when I was going through this, I double-checked to make sure that it was the same. There was no difference. Page by page? Yes. Because I thought that they had updated that at one point. No, I mean, yes, but this is the same. It was a document sent on the 18th and 22nd, and they were the same document. That was the four days difference. It was a collection of four different documents. Three of them were exactly the same. They were just sent by the apricot. Again, I just want to make sure that everything that they submitted, even if it was doubles, I think should probably be there because that's what they submitted.
Yeah, I would agree. I believe that in this case, they didn't mean to send it by accident. And I have a time. Oh, we've had them at one point say, oh, disregard what I sent three days ago. And we can't disregard what they sent three days ago because we were already working with it. So it has to be in the list. Yeah, I don't know that the procedural history portion of this actually reflects the chaos that we experienced, but it's neither here nor there. So the one where they said to disregard it, hopefully that's still in here. It was not. Yeah, that was in there. The other one was not a disregard. It was just part of an email change. Just want to make sure because we did have the concern. I mean, I've gone through this multiple times. So I was very careful when I looked at it. Okay, going to page four, the document that I was just speaking about, the Pollution Prevention and Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance Plan, December 2025, submitted December 18th. And I think we should add, if it's okay, with November 2025 footers on each page, because that's what it says. So I don't know if that was a typo or not, but that's what it is. Yeah, that's okay. Then at the very last item, revised cover sheet, it was submitted on the 23rd, not the 22nd. So we changed that.
Now we're into relevant findings. The next one I have is 3.8. If anybody else had anything for that. I had two questions to raise on that. If you go down to page six, 3.8. Yeah. Yep. And what I had to do about the height, adding the height and setbacks as a final condition of decision. And the other one was, if the encroachment of the retaining wall height of the building are more extreme than we expect. Just two questions on that.
Okay. And I have a third. This is mishing, moshing buildings and structures. And I'd like to be able to break it apart so that we talk about the buildings. And we talk about the structures, because the structures has that exemption for the six feet for it that would be encroaching. I mean, I was a little uncomfortable with the way this was written, but we really don't have plans that show us what they've told us. You know, they told us that it's going to be six feet, but the plans don't really show that. Because when you look at the detail plan, among other things, it shows a fence on top of one of the walls, but you can't tell how tall it is. And you can't tell if we're talking about the wall when you look at the main plan or if you're talking about the wall with the fence. And then also, I believe council said that the fence around the sports field didn't have any height on it either.
So first, for the easiest, is it okay if we break it apart? I mean, maybe leave it all under 38, but have one part that deals with, or 3.8, one part that deals with buildings and one part that deals with structures. Yes, because the buildings are all, none of them are encroaching on the setbacks. That's correct. So we can say that the buildings are compliant and then say the structures, we have the following issues. Right. Okay.
I mean, it does say that because it says the very, the second sentence says, all buildings as shown on the plans meet these setbacks. Right. Right. But then when you start reading through it, it just normally went for me when I'm writing a decision, I like it to be crisp, clear, and to the point so that everybody knows when they're looking at it, what it says, and that it, it, it ticked the box. So it might be more clear if that next sentence, it starts with however. Yes. However, 198.702.1 of the zoning bylaws states that just take out, just take out buildings or that all structures, or you can say it also states that all structures shall comply with the SEPAC requirements. So the, the sentence above says the buildings are all fine, and then we're referring to the bylaw and saying that it requires the structures to also comply. And it's clear then that we've dealt with the buildings, and now what follows is about the structures.
Okay. Is that more clear? Maybe. I think so.
Just let me look. It probably is. Okay. We'll try and do that.
And Robert, you had your questions.
In the final plans, don't you later on have that as a condition that the final plans will? I believe so, but I think that might have been, I might have seen that a while ago before we, before that was modified, so. Okay. Well, we'll just check, but I think that, I think it's, I thought I saw it there. And then, um, if the encroachments of the retaining wall are the building heights, they finally show more. It seems to me, I mean, I believe that the way this was written by town council is she was giving it a waiver and we weren't giving it a waiver. We were saying you have to comply. Okay. So, um.
So, like for the first one, module block retaining wall, blah, blah, blah, um, appears to encroach in the front and side setbacks, comma, and therefore must be lower than six feet in height. And then the, you know, the, the fence along the perimeter sports field, um, appears to encroach and therefore must be no higher than six feet. Yeah. It just needs to be worded differently. Right. Cause it says that these things are issues. And then later on we say they better specify it in the final plans. But what if when the final plans come, it's eight feet. So we need to say here that it appears to encroach and therefore it must be under six feet. Okay. For each of these items. Yeah. I think that's, I think that's the right way to go. Good suggestion.
Okay. Robert, does that work for you? I would repeat that back so I can, so I can put a card in there. All right. I wrote a note to figure out how to say it, but, um, Robin was suggesting that it would read, uh, modular block retaining wall. Along northwest corner of the site by the sports field along Rice Road and extending along the property line parallel to Hockey Hill Road appears to encroach into the front and side setbacks. And therefore, uh, must be lower than. What I did is I said must be six feet or less in height. Okay. Um, therefore, must be six feet or less in height. And she suggested that we do it in all of them. The sign is the only one that's different. Right. And I thought that we only had two, one, two, two retaining walls. We have the big one that is, uh, on the, uh, on the southeast side. And then there's the one at the parking area on the north near the field.
Where is the, and the third one must be the fire around the fire road in the back. The one with the guardrail must be the fire road. The third, uh, the retaining wall with the guardrail running atop. Um, no, that one I know about because we've looked at that and they have in the plans. I think it's, it's a detailed plan, 501, 502. They show a short wall and a long wall. And I don't know which is the short and which is the long. I've been guessing all along. Um, so I'm, I'm going to ask, we can do this later, but we should look at the plan and make sure that we all think that there are all these things there. Yeah, I think the, the three that are on page six, I remember just fine. I didn't remember the one around the trash and recycling center. No, I didn't either. It looks like there's something there, but, uh, okay, well, well, can we check that tomorrow and just have Robert check that and just make sure that it's there? Yeah. And if it is, it gets the same treatment. Same thing. It's just, and therefore must be six feet or less in height.
Hey, I'll take a look at that now.
Okay. And the thing in yellow on the next page, the sign, right? You added that. Is that okay with everyone? I believe it was, I think it's right on the property line. No, it looked, I looked at it too. The front, um, post is on the property line. It looked like it was anyway.
Um, I don't, I don't, I don't have a problem with that, but I just, I had to make sure that it was on there. I just think we need to mention it. Oh, absolutely. It's fine. But that one, we were allowing.
Correct. And that's, um, yeah, that's fine. Okay. Um, on the next paragraph, I just added the word road after Turkey Hill. And I checked the elevation. It was 246 and goes to 2485. The number right now was, before it was 280. But it looked at, it looked at, but it went to 285 on the. Okay. You could see that. Cause I didn't see that at the roadway. It's like, like 246 to me. It looked like it was higher. It was, it was, it was pointed down from 246 to 285 up to the, to the very top. Um, yeah. Okay. Then the question also is, um, do we really need to talk about it? Um, so, I mean, the planning board notes that I'm looking at the, at the, I mean, that's fine if that's right, but in, uh, the bottom of that same paragraph, the planning board also notes, the closest residential structures are located 146 feet from the rear line and, and 155 feet from a, and. Yeah. I thought that was odd that that was in there. I did too. I didn't, I didn't think that it was, I think that it's okay. If you want to say, um, where is it?
Oh God.
I'm just reading the notes. And even saying that it's reasonable in light of the protected use, the protected use has nothing to do with the need for a retaining wall. Right. You could be building a daycare center. You'd still need a retaining wall there. So how should we deal with this section? A store, I guess I should say. Just take that part out. Which part? It doesn't serve any purpose. Everything from, um, although encroaching into the setbacks all the way down to, to the end of that paragraph.
Down to, down to the website. Yeah. Because we're, we're allowing it. If it's within the heights that we're allowing, we don't need to provide more information.
Okay. Um, do you want to leave in that about the closest residential structures are located? No, it's not relevant. Yeah. It's almost like too prescriptive. Yeah.
Okay. They did say that though. And they had a plan that showed us that that was in fact the case. It still doesn't seem relevant to the decision. Okay. It's not why we're allowing it. Right.
Okay. So the whole rest of that take out.
Okay. So it would just end at completion. Mm-hmm.
Just reading my notes too. Sorry.
Um, then, um, based on the plan submitted. It would be relocated on project site. It's not showing the plan. Okay. So that one's okay. Does that belong up in little subparagraph five or? Probably.
It seems like a fun, it's sort of. Yeah. The stuff, the stuff is a little disjointed. Yeah. It's just orphaned there. Right. It was, um, the very, after we got the first version from town council, she had mixed, um, findings of fact and conditions in one place. And it was really confusing. So we asked her to break it apart.
Okay. So should it go to five then? No, it would just move up. The relocated shown on the property. Ba-da-da-da-da-da-da-da. Based on the plan submitted and existing. We might have to reword it a little bit, Robert. But you, but we're moving up to, up to, up to, up to five. Up to five. Yeah. All right. I'll take a look at the reword now. And for some of this stuff, I'm happy to try and do it just to make sure it's crystal clear. Uh-huh. Then on 310.
Um, oh, also Robert, I don't know if it's on yours. Um, it, I think what you sent us might've said based in plans. And it needs to say based on plans. Is that the case or not? In the paragraph that you're moving up. Based on the plans. Does it say based in or on? On. Okay, great. Then it was already corrected. Um, then 310. Okay. Again, I'm just reading. So, um, we're counting impervious surface. We do include buildings as well as those other items, parking lots and the piazza. So we added buildings and it should say buildings. Oh, put an F's on again. You put an F's on. Okay. Yeah. Um, while the planning board finds 61% of lot coverage to be well in excess of bylaw provides for single resident uses, the board acknowledges scope of review is limited. I would delete everything after section three, after section three, right? Well, you basically stopped reading and notes at the 5.5 acre size acre. Oh, see, I see. Right. Okay.
Okay. Is that okay? Yeah. It's fine with me. Is that okay with everybody else? Yeah. I didn't understand why that additional stuff was there. So yeah, I'm fine. Yeah. Okay. I mean, town council had reasons, I'm sure, but yeah, it's, you know, it's up to us to decide what we want to leave in.
Um, I don't think there was anything new in three 12. I think that wouldn't just couldn't get rid of the yellow. Same thing for 13. Got it. Oh, now, now, now 13 is 14. So now it. Okay. But what let's stick. Oh, I was going to just stick with the numbers that we have. Just say this just for a second or not, just saying the number and then what's, what is DOS offers. So, you know, what would. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Um, in. Was a Sari Annette on 313 was in light of protected use of the site. Take it out. Yeah. Um, Robert commented and I agree with him that it's not because of the protected use. It's just because, and we can say this, that, um, local residents who might arrive on bicycle. I mean, they don't anticipate many local residents arriving on bicycle. Yeah. Kind of a use. So, and I think we use that language with the, um, oh gosh, the Islamic center in that decision. All right. I'll take, I'll take a look at that. Okay. Um, because I agree with you, Robert, I'm just writing notes. I'm sorry. Um, and the next one we would be putting in there would be the snow thing. Um, and then moving on down at 315 little three I I've been looking at the plan and again, I think we should look at them again in one place in the decision. It says that we don't know where the mechanicals are going. And that in fact is what we were told, but on a few of the plans, it shows something exceeding the height of the building and it might be mechanicals, but it doesn't say it's mechanicals. So I think that they need to be able to show us a plan that says what it is. Cause right now it looks like it exceeds the height.
Well, like with the retaining walls. That that is a mechanical. It's just, yeah, it mentions on the plan. It does mention on the plan. It does. It shows it on the plan mechanical screen with mechanical equipment's going to go on top of the building. Yes. So then like with the retaining walls, do we set a maximum that will be allowed? Since they haven't shown us now. Mechanical. There's, I don't think there's a limit on mechanical. You, you have a height limit. Right. And chimneys and other things that are on the top. There's not a limit, but we always ask them to screen it. I'm going to open the plans again. So I can take a look at the final plans. Are you doing that now? Are you going to do it when you're doing it right now? You can move. You can move on to next thing. I'll come back to this. Okay. I'll write myself a note. In this next section, the planning board finds that buildings B and C meet the height limitations for buildings in single resident zoning district. The planning board finds that the height of the church is measured to the top of the central dome or the top of the main building mass exceeds these height limitations. However, based on the protected use status and case law, applying height restrictions to similar protected uses, the planning board is constrained in limiting the height of this element of, needs to say, of the church, is before it said something different and it was not comfortable. Are you guys okay with that? Yes. Or do you want to say? It's better than what was there before. Yeah. I like this wording better.
Just got to change order of. All right.
Okay.
Then 316. Let us know, Robert, whenever you want to go back. 316. One of the statements that town council made is not true. So it would need to be revised. But I don't know that distance to property lines is relevant. Yeah. The only thing that's relevant at all is buildings to the property line, I think. I think starting that section off with respect to both is it doesn't. It's not as formal as the rest of it is. It's almost like a conversation. You could just start it with the planning board finds that the new church, with respect to bulk, has.
But the planning board finds that perhaps that with respect to bulk, the new church has? Is that? Sure. I mean, I don't know. Respect makes it sound like it's a continuation of something you were talking about previously. Okay. The planning board finds that the new. The issue here, I think, is that the board had been dealing with bulk and was uncomfortable with the bulk and wanted to, I thought, say something. But we can do whatever you want here. But I'd like you all to be reading it and figuring it out. So there's another option, which is to say that the board finds these buildings to be large and out of scale with surrounding residential properties, and then take that same language that we tacked on to the one above. However, based on the protected use status in case law, applying bulk to similar protected uses, the planning board is constrained in limiting the bulk element of the church. Okay, wait a second. Repeat. Just take what's up above and change height to bulk. Yeah, I think that's a good compromise there. And make, you know, sort of lack of a regulation also constrains us. Okay. So just so that we can follow it completely, could you read me where you're starting from? So although the board finds these buildings to be large and out of scale with surrounding residential properties, based on the protected use status, case law, and lack of specific massing regulations governing this zoning district, the planning board is constrained in limiting the height of this, the bulk of this element of the church. And you really want that? Type that up and send it to Robert. Yeah. Yeah. That would be the best. You can do it later, but that would be good. Yeah. So going back to mechanical, there's no, they just show a mechanical screen on top of it. I don't believe we have any floor plans that show the roof itself. Yeah, we do. It's, we do have a plan. It's, um, I'd have to go. It's, I'm going to look for it right now. Okay. Um, just the plans is, I'm looking at the plan of the plan. It just takes so long. Yeah, I know. To move, especially in the last piece of it. And I hope I don't disconnect us. Um, it's in the one that's compiled plans. Yeah. There's a building A. There's a building. Okay. I'm going through because I saw this before and I was having difficulty with it. Oh, it's taking time to open up. Um, yes.
Top of mechanical screen. Top of parapet. Okay. Is that where they told, and then there's the roof. So you think that.
I mean, I'm looking at the plans. I see. Because before I didn't, I didn't see anything. Yeah. On it. I mean, I'm just using logical sense that it's a top of the mechanical screen. And so they're using the scene that there's, they're going to screen the top of it. And that's when mechanical is in a girl. No, that's, that's true. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I didn't see it. And I think there's more else. It says, um, that we didn't know about the mechanical stuff because that's what they told us during the hearing that we didn't know about it. They didn't know about it.
What else do you put in a parapet? If, um, if not, uh, mechanical equipment, I'm looking at building B plan B five west elevation dated 8, 26, 25, and on the left, it shows the top of the parapet. It shows the roof, the top of the parapet, and on the right, it has the roof and the top of the roof. And it is higher than up to the roof. It's 35 up to the top of the parapet. It's average natural grade. No, it's not. Sorry. Got it. Okay. Just looking at one more. Um, looking at, uh, building C, C one west elevation, um, from the average natural grade. Okay. Nevermind. Okay.
What, what do you use, do in a parapet other than mechanical equipment? Robert, do you know? I have no clue. I'm an architect. Everything I can think. I mean, you could have stuff there for like hanging banners or like window washing equipment, although that's kind of mechanical, you know, sometimes there's stuff like that hiding on the other side of the parapet. Communication antennas or something. I don't think so. I think that would be sitting up on top. Well, okay. Whatever.
We have to look for the other place where we talk about mechanical then to, to make sure we fix it. Um, so Robin's doing that one 317.
They're not allowed to have cars. And Robert had, um, addressed it. They said, he said they may not have, um, I think he addressed it. I can't have permission to park a car on site. Permission to park car on site. Right. But they can't have cars. Someone could have a car. They just can't. No, they can't. It said no cars. So they can't have a car. No cars, no parking. But, but it said no permission to park a car on site. It didn't mean they, they can't have a parked car, parked car somewhere else. And then, no, it says no cars. I mean, I, to be under the December 10th, um, list of what you needed to be able, what you, what the criteria were for living there. It was no, I believe it said no cars, no cars, no, no cars slash parking. I thought what they said was no overnight parking, which kind of assumes no car. Cause if they're staying there. No, that's not what they said. They said no parking. But what about, uh, the settles? No cars rather. I'm sorry. I mean, that was the reason that the people needed to live there. Because they wouldn't have cars. Right. I'm fine with wording, but I expect that they'll have shuttles. Yeah. And they can do, yeah. But that's part of the, the 900 and whatever it is, parking spaces that they're going to have. Right. Right. How do you want to praise it? Um, I would say, um, may not have a car, but if you, cause it's not parking on site. Um, do you want to check having a car, they may own a car and leave it somewhere else. Like, that's not the, that's wasn't, did you look at the criteria? It was in, it was in, I hope, I don't know if I have it yet. Yeah. It's a senior, senior housing policy submitted. They have to live there because they don't have a car. Right.
No car, no car in the parking. Let's say they can hide it someplace. It says no cars slash parking. And I refer that as they can't have a car on site. And I'm sure that that is, they can't have a car and I leave it up to the rest of you. They have repeatedly stated that people need to live there because they don't have cars and they can't drive.
Um, the only point is we want to manage here the location. We are not going to investigate if any of these people have a car registered in their name that is not in Weyland. We aren't going to, but we haven't gotten yet to the affordable unit stuff. I mean, this is, I mean, this is just a finding. So it's not a condition. So you could, we could write, we could write down what exactly is said and keep it at that. Because they say, no, they would copy and paste it, no cars slash parking. What it says here is we'll not have permission to park a car on site. That's what Robert added. Because you can't have cars, period, if they're going to be living in this facility, because that is the reason they are building the facility, because these people have no way of getting to the church. That is not what they said. They said they're elderly. Absolutely what they said repeatedly. Annette, they said they're elderly. Driving is difficult. They did not say the, none of these people own a car.
I leave it to the rest of you. I heard repeatedly them say that we need to have these houses, this housing on site, because these people don't drive and can't drive. And there will be, we don't have to count their cars in the parking numbers, because they will not be allowed to have cars. The only piece that you, they will not be allowed to have cars at this location. That is not what they said.
But I, I, my only issue is that, is it within our scope to decide that they can't actually even own a car? Or can they have a car that their niece drives, but they don't bring it to the site? So, I think, our concern is whether there's a car on the site. I mean, it's just a finding. To keep in mind, it's just a finding. So, it's not, we can, we can repeat exactly what they said. If you repeat exactly what they said, that's, that's, we're using a finding of this is what they, this is what they tell us. So, I, talk to you guys how you want to exactly word it. Right. I was just repeating what they said. That's fine. So, we can write, we can just write, we'll not have permission to have a car and leave it at, like, it's, it's just a finding. It's not a condition.
To have a car? I wrote, yeah, we'll not have a, we'll not have permission to have a car.
If it, if it can't have a car, then it can't have a park on site. So. What, what is the permission? Where does that come from? Yeah, I don't know where. I mean, who's over, I would just leave it, I don't know, it's understood that a non-directed statement conceptually that residents will not have cars, period. Right? Yeah. Larry says, we're not going to go down there and. 55 years old. Enforce it. Yeah. We will not have cars, it's fine. Yeah. But if they're parking, we see parked cars overnight, then we take action. I don't know that we would do anything. We'll send you down there, Larry. Yeah, I mean, again, it's a finding, not a condition. Yeah. So, we're just, we're just trying to accurately repeat back what we were told, right? How about just, we'll not have cars. Yeah. That's fine with me. Yeah, I think. I think that's fine. I think that's fine. That's perfect. Take turns patrolling.
Then in 318.
Okay. What's on, what's highlighted is that the residents of these dwelling units will all be parishioners of the church, not subject to an affirmative fair marketing plan. So that's coming out. That is coming out. Yeah. It depends on how we tell you do this, because if you say that there can be five of the units that are going to be affordable, then the five affordable units have to be subject to a fair marketing plan and a lottery. Um, but if not, then that, then I see many can stay. So it's, it's, it's, I draft. They committed to the lottery. They committed to the WHA administering these units. I, I didn't. It wouldn't be, it wouldn't be WHA. It wouldn't be, wouldn't be in partnership, but it would be like, and for say, but it would be a lottery and the lottery would have to follow a fair marketing plan for five of the, of the affordable units. The other ones can, you can do whatever you want. Yeah. It doesn't matter. But of the, it's 24 units, 19 of them can be, um, can, you can, you can do whatever process you want. However, just because you have to do a lottery does not mean that, you know, people who, who, who qualify and want to live in the parish might not, they might apply for a, they might apply for a lot of other ways. But that doesn't, if we're saying that in 3.17, finding the fact is that they're going to follow the St. Simon's Elder Services Program protocol that they gave us, that lists that you have to be a member of the church, and you have to go to the church services, and you have to go to liturgy. And the applicant did say that they did not want to, I know that, I know, and I'm just going to say this, and then you can counter Robin, but they did say that they didn't want to do a lottery because they only wanted it for their church people. Right, but then they came back later on in that meeting on 12.29 and said that they would. So I guess 3.17 should say will include 24 studio and one-bedroom apartments, 19 of which will be designated for elderly parishioners.
Sorry, they're all designated for elderly parishioners. No, later on in that meeting, and I went back and listened to it, and at 48 minutes and 13 seconds in, they did come back to us after speaking off microphone for a while and indicated that if we'd get them across the finish line, they would make them affordable units through the Weyland Housing Authority, as we had discussed earlier in the meeting, and they had said no, they came back and said yes, if it would get them across the finish line.
Yeah, I kind of remember that. So 24 units, 19 of them would be designated for the LLE, people who follow the assignment LLE service, and then the other five would go for the lottery, go for the farm market plan, all that. Yep. Is that what you're understanding? That would be a separate sentence. Oh, I know. That could be 318. I'm just speaking out loud. Yeah. But that would mean that 5% of them would then be eligible to be included on the subsidized housing authority. Oh, God. If it follows the affair marketing plan, all that, and there's a lottery.
Is that how the boy would proceed on that? I would. What about Larry Ira? Yeah. Another yes from you, Larry, or Ira, who I can see who said that. My only comment is, you know, I think the applicant felt held over a barrel and could deem this to be an unreasonable request, but I don't know.
I'm uncomfortable with it. I feel like we're stuffing it down their throat to our town's benefit, but, you know, I'll go with what the board wants to do.
Jesse?
I'm fine leaving it the way it is. The way it is? Yeah. Without that? Yep. I'm uncomfortable because I felt like they said that they didn't want to do the lottery, and I felt like they said they just wanted it for their parishioners.
So I don't know.
I just feel like since they came back and said if it would get them across the finish line, that's a quote, then they were saying they would do it. And to me, that's an important part of this. To be fair, he had no idea what they were saying they were going to do. He literally had no idea what this choice was. The lawyer didn't know what he was saying? I'm pretty sure Jonathan Silverstein knew exactly what he was saying. He demonstrated a significant lack of knowledge. Now, the others may have known about it and advised them. I don't know, but he didn't seem really up to speed. Originally, if you recall, he said, yeah, we'll make five of them affordable. No, that was Mr. Barson who said that, not Mr. Silverstein. He said it too, but in the end, he was looking at the old version of the bylaws and not the new version of the bylaws. And there was a discussion about small A affordable and capital A affordable. To me, when they came back and offered it to get them across the finish line, it was to go capital A affordable. Because they had already said they would do small A affordable. So the only other change would be to go capital A. Their counsel had asked if they could see our draft decision, but we didn't really have a draft decision that we'd agreed on to even show them. We could do one of two things here. We could make the changes that we think we'd like to make. And again, it's certainly up to you. So we could then show that the affordable thing or write him a note about the affordable thing and say where we're headed and that we thought that they agreed with that. And we could do a conditional kind of vote. But, you know, it's up to you. Whatever you think is best. I think that's a good idea. I mean, the letter says, faced with the threat, the church is therefore agreed to have a return of 20% to be affordable. And so I just took the information that the Article 22 is earning by a lot to people earning no more than 80% of the area of median income. So I just took that and then translate to what that means to make a finding of that. But because it wasn't fully, just totally discussed. But if you're going to deep, if you're going to deep a straight 20% of it, then this is what it looks like. It's going to, you know, consider it's going to, you know, kind of bump into the, into the Simon, say Simon Elner service program. Right. It does. But, but then they let us say they offered 20% of it. So it's like, it's, it felt like they slightly compromise and say, okay, we'll do that and we'll meet you in the middle, we'll meet you in the middle. Does not mean it takes away the whole thing. The 19 of the units still could follow this and you still have five units and most likely you're going to have the five units will probably be people that would want to live there anyways. So whatever the boy wants to do.
Let's come, can we come back to this? Sure. Because it's going to come up again. Yeah, I saw that. Let me just put a tab on it.
Okay.
So that would be for 17 and 18, right? That we need to check. Yeah. Now it's 18 and 19, but. Yeah, no, I just want to do it on the numbers that we have, or else I'm going to get really confused. I can't read the rest of it.
It's pretty much dark.
Yeah, it continues on. I guess there's a section that we took out because we took out the. There's multiple sections out. Yeah. Eliminate. Depending on. Right. We'd have to go back and fix those depending on how. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. I think Robert added this and I think it's good. 320 that the applicant shall identify the comparison between, I think, I don't know if that's the way we say it, between the affordable and market rate units for items such as parking amenities, appliances, finished details. I think we have language that we did in the MBTA communities thing that we can just pick that up. I can look back.
On the market rate for the units, I assume these aren't condos. Condos, they're rented. Is that rental rate? Is that how they do it? They said they would rent them. Yeah. Right. So when they say the market rate. That's just a generic term. That's just a generic term. Is that market rate of what residential units, apartments are going for in the area? Isn't that pretty subjective though? No, I think that they have what it costs to rent in the Metro West area. Yeah. And then they use that. Yeah.
That's fine.
Okay. Then going to the next page. We just changed soccer field to sports field. Throughout the process, they kept talking about soccer field, soccer field, soccer field. And then in some of the documents, it calls it a soccer field. But as Robert pointed out, the actual plan says sports field. So we went through and changed anything that hopefully that said soccer to sports. What number are you on? I'm on 326. Okay. On page 10. The town council asked, do we need to, for the noise stuff, since it's not necessarily within our purview, do we really want to include this? And I personally do.
We're not telling them they have to do anything. It's just defining a fact from documents that they submitted. And we were saying, what is here now is that essentially, even though we don't have jurisdiction, the board encourages the applicant to incorporate noise buffering elements and landscaping into the final design to reduce the impacts of mechanical equipment in the sports field. Yeah. That's good. Okay. Then we're down to the decision and conditions.
So we have. I added the, I added the, the waiver for the, for the sign. For the sign. Right. And it gets in the light, like a light blue. Right. Okay. I think that's okay with everybody. Yep. Okay. Now we're into the decision. Um, the only reason that, uh, thing in four to one is highlighted is because we haven't taken a vote yet. So we'll just to remember that we have to deal with that. Then in general conditions, um, because we have so many different plan sets. Um, I would like, if it's okay to use the December 22nd, 2025 compiled plan sheets, um, to be what they work from when they start putting everything into shape and send us the final documents. That makes sense. Okay. Okay. In all of these things, I hope you've read them all. Um, it's a little disjointed in how they're presented. Um, in our original draft, we put things in chronological order and what you would do first, what you would do second. And this is all mishmashed. Um, so if these things are okay, I would like permission to just move them in a logical sequence so that we can follow along and make sure that the compliance is happening. It's fine with me. Yeah, absolutely. I didn't have any of that much. I wasn't out today. I didn't have much more time to, to. Yeah, that's fine. It came from town council this way. She took what we had and then sort of put it in here. I changed. It says, it says you need to file a free fit to 10 clip. Um, yeah, because before it said something about the building department. Yeah, I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you.
We'll revisit that piece of it. Okay. And, um, we don't have church spires here. We have towers. So I changed that word to towers from spires at, um, Roman numeral little VII. Yep. Um, and this, what the heck plan sheet. It just, um, these are a few things that still needed to be done. Um, the plan sheets needed to be revised, uh, so that the legends match what's on the plans. That was a comment at the very beginning. We were told they had been done, but they haven't because you can see that the stuff isn't there. Um, at least some of it. And then, um, um, on page, I talked about this before, um, plan sheet 501 is the one that has the, um, the retaining, I think they're the retaining walls, but you can't tell that they're, they're retaining walls. And one of them has, um, a fence on top. The other one has a fence on top, but we were told at the hearing that only one of them has a fence on top. So we just need to get that straightened out. Okay.
Okay. Then, um, okay.
Robert made that a separate numbered paragraph. Um, Robert in 436, we have two different things happening in this decision. One is for temporary parking during construction. And the other, I think that's what, what, why that's there, but I'm not sure. And the other is for, um, long parking after construction. Um, so I'm not sure this temporarily, I'm not sure since this is construction, if the temporarily is right, wrong, or indifferent. Well, we have, later we have a, a long-term. Right. Right. You should. Right. I guess the question is, do you want the temporarily? It looked like you were saying it's not just for temporary. I mean, they need one permanently. Right. And that's later on. That's there. Yeah. But I, I think the, I suppose perhaps they'll have one arrangement while they're in construction and one arrangement later. But I guess they just have to have an arrangement the whole time. Cause even like when they're doing construction, they're going to have to have cars parked offsite, just to have. Absolutely. That's right. So. Okay. So if we, if I can fix that so that they both mesh with each other and aren't confusing. Yeah. The other.
You could just say if offsite parking is required during construction, that's what this paragraph is about. And then later on, we address the permanent one. Yep. That works for me. Let me see something. So normally when we do these conditions, we have construction, we have general conditions. We have conditions during construction. We have conditions after construction. And that's what I'd like to be able to reorganize, not change anything, but just move them where they need to be. That's fine.
Robert answered one of the questions and he moved. Um, no deviations from the plans into a separate paragraph. Um, and anything has to be requested in writing just so that it stands out. Yep. Um, and then during construction and then, um, the last paragraph under four, three, six is the one that I wrote to town council about last night. And she answered today because technically we don't have jurisdiction over parking, um, and not parking over traffic. She said that we do have jurisdiction over things in the parking lot and the entrances, but, um, that's not what this says. And I think it's overreach. And I don't really think that we have the jurisdiction to ask for more traffic assessment. Yeah, I would agree. Can I go back to 4.3.3 for a second? Yep. So the second sentence, all such deviations shall be requested. They're not requesting a deviations. It's approval for all such deviations shall be requested in writing. Okay. One second. Say that again. Approval for all such deviations. Shall be requested in writing. Okay.
Approval of all deviations, I said. Um, yeah, because technically they're not requesting a deviation. They're requesting an approval. Got it. It just bothered me. This is very helpful. I mean, really it is because it's been tough.
Pretty rare that having two lawyers is better than one, but I thought that would make you laugh, Larry. So are we taking out that section after on 4.3.6? Yes, the last paragraph is coming out. Okay.
3, 4, 3, 8. I'm going back. I've been working in between. We had in our, when we were just doing phase one, we had conditions and I wanted to just check to make sure that the ones that needed to be carried over were in fact carried over. So I have those conditions in front of me. Um, she already said in the findings, the fact that, um, what we're doing here, well, that, that there's subject, I think it's here somewhere, somewhere we have to say, yeah. In the findings that, um, it says that we're, we need to be, um, a permit application has to be submitted to us for removal of trees and for the, um, size of the opening and for the stone wall stuff. Um, but then, and then she says, okay, it requires, uh, whatever it requires approval from us, but this decision, uh, isn't consent. And that's great, but I think that it could say something like, prior to the issuance of the first permit from the building department, in accordance with the statute, um, the applicant must receive approval from the board of public works and the planning board for removal of shade trees. Um, and then another one for, um, um, more than one driveway and the widths of the driveway. I'd rather not restate the findings again, because we already stated the findings. It's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So do you want to, do you want to, do you want to, we work that out? Uh, yeah, I'll, I'll send you the stuff. We'll work together. I mean, it has to be, it needs, something needs to be in there to, to, to, we can make a finding and we have to make a condition because then the condition is what we're going to be based on prior to something. Right. We did make a finding before. I believe. Yeah. But we didn't, but I would not remove it out of the conditions because it's that. No, it's going to stay in the conditions, but what it, what I would like to say, I'll read it to you is, this is from the last time prior to issuance of the first permit to be issued by the building department. In accordance with, whoops, prior to issuance of the first permit from the building department in accordance with mass general laws, chapter 87, section three, um, and chapter 40, section 15 C. That's the scenic road by law and the, um, Shade tree by law or statute. They're both statutes. The applicant must receive approval from the board of public works and the planning board for removal, uh, public shade trees located within the town's right of way. And then see also one 58 dash five at seek of the town code. And that deals with our own scenic road by law.
Yeah. That sounds good to me. Just, I would just, you just send it to me. We'll put that in. Okay. Anybody else have any issues with that? No, that's fine. Okay. Um, the same deal with 438, um, in what we had originally, it was prior to issuance of the first permit to be issued by the building department in accordance with, uh, 158 dash nine at seek. The applicant must have received approval to construct more than one driveway, each with widths greater than what is prescribed in the bylaw, as well as approval to remove and relocate stone walls within the town's right of way. You'll note that what town council has, she doesn't say when you have to get these things. And I think it's important to know when you get them. Um, and so the board needs to decide if it is prior to issuance of the permit first permit, because there'll be a demolition permit. And when you're demolishing, you sure want to know that. I think that you can, uh, remove the trees and get in this to the site. Yep. I would say that is fine.
Okay. Howler, if you have a problem with any of this, please.
Right. If she's the first building permit. Um, town council asked, um, where in four, three, nine, removing the road to Turkey, the access to Turkey Hill, um, where this is proposed by the applicant, but not requested by the planning board. Do we want to delete it as a condition? And I don't think so. I think we want it as a condition. We offered it. Okay. Yeah. We got to leave that. Can I ask something? How many building permits are going to be issued on this project? I don't know. Yeah. That's a great question. I mean, normally there's, if there's a large section, that's one permit. And then the next. It's up to them, how they do it. It's up to them or it's up to how the town approves it. It's up to what is presented to the town. Um, yeah, since they wouldn't do it in a phased approach, like we suggested, we have no way to know how they're going to apply for the building permits. And it doesn't really, it doesn't really matter. We just have to condition things. And is it possible to apply for one building permit for this whole thing? I think that they won't be ready to do that. Uh, I mean, it's, I suppose it's possible, but in any case, it doesn't come back to us for review. Um, at 4, 3, 11, uh, prior to it, this is my suggestion. Um, she has, the town council has prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit long-term written agreement to accommodate overflow parking offsite. Um, I kind of think it needs to be before the first building permit. Well, but we have the construction, we, we have one, up above, we have that they have to have one, they have to have an agreement for during the construction. Right, and that's why, because it says temporarily, but we can break that apart and talk separately. And, and as you said before, Robin, one thing that they have to have is they have to have the one for construction and they have to have the long-term one. And technically, when we approve something, we're supposed to see the plan and the agreement. We should have seen it already. But I, if we're saying that, well, it's up to, it's up to the board how they want to deal with it.
If you want it to be certificate of occupancy, you can. Well, I think what we, what we discussed a minute ago is that we want them to have at least one prior to the building permit that is for during the construction phase. And then one prior to the certificate of occupancy that is more permanent. Okay. Is that, are you okay with certificate of occupancy? People, do you want to know before? I want, I want one agreement for prior to building permit, and then a second one that they have to provide prior to occupancy. Suppose they don't have one prior to occupancy. We just, are you, is this just a formality or are you looking for additional inspections? It's not inspections. It's that they should have to have arrangements for offsite parking. Oh, oh, oh. So that they're not parking cars on Rice Road or Turkey Hill Road or something like that. Prior to the CL, they should have one. If that's within, it's within the next five years, they should have a, by that time they should have a written agreement. So I, I think, I think, I think you, I think you'd probably be good before the first CO. Because if you, if you're going to occupy this space. Maybe it should say the first CO. Because it just says certificate of occupancy, and they're not going to just have, who knows if they're going to have one or not. I think first CO is fine. I think it's okay because we talked about the building permit sequencing process above. Okay. So we're asking for it twice. Okay. At least that's how I read it. Okay.
Read that and make sure you're okay with it. I, the, the sections were screwed up. So I fixed them. And in the note, I wrote what the section number should be.
And Robert had put in this, the thing about the controlled motion by motion sensors, which I thought was fine.
Okay. So on the lighting, the, I thought there was a evening limit or something. Yeah. I thought we did too. Um. If they had a noon day service, and that would mean no lights, right? Noon. Yeah. You mean like a, a, a, a reactive relay that sets, it's like what your iPhone does when it's dark. It's like, I'm not following what you're asking, Larry. Um, I thought we had a evening, uh, cutoff. Yeah. Yes. And the board had talked about that. The board wanted, I think, nine 30 or 10, something like that. Um, and, uh, the church kept saying 30 minutes after the last service, um, town council said, you know, because there's Christmas and other evening holidays with midnight massives and things, it would be difficult to limit that. Plus under the Dover amendment, we don't necessarily have the right to do that. Okay.
All right. So you guys. Yeah. Well, it'll be the only church we've done this restriction on. I know it's, uh, um, scenic road, uh, but it is, all the other churches have lights on until very late. Uh, I think all night, many of them. So, so the way this is worded, if the last service was, it ended at four o'clock in the afternoon, then all the lights have to be off by four 30. That's what Larry was saying. I wasn't right. Right. But that's what they, that's what they asked, what they asked for. So then that's fine. That's what they get. Yep. You know, there's no service. There's no lights.
Seems unreasonable. Well, that's what they asked for. That's what they asked for. How do you want to state it? We're talking about the parking lot lights, right? All the lights. All lights. Even the outside peripheral? Safety lights. All outside lights, except motion sensors. Oh God. But if that's what they asked for, then I think that's what we're doing. I'm reading it again. What happens, just to throw a wrench here, if the service is gone, and then an hour and a half later, there's another group that comes in to have a meeting or whatever. Yeah. Is that a service? Turn all the lights on?
You know, again, we kept pushing and asking these questions. And the answer that we got was 30 minutes after the last service. Well, I don't think they really thought that through. No kidding. All ladies. How about if we pick the time we said, 9.30 or 10, or the last service?
How about if you said like a half an hour after the last usage of the church for that day? No, because they've got residents there.
So that doesn't work. I can see if we do 9 o'clock or 30 minutes after the last service, since they didn't ask for that. It would be generous of us, I guess. The point of Christmas is a good one. What do you do then? Apply for a waiver? No, but then it would be or the last service. Oh, I see. It's the or. Oh, God.
So what's the general gist of what you want to accomplish? And then Robert and I can craft it. So then I think you have to say, you know, at 9 p.m. or 30 minutes after the last service, whichever is later. Okay. Yeah. You know, 30 minutes after the last service with a congregation that large is not much time. And that's what they asked for. To like, you know, socialize and then get out to your car and all that. Well, Iron, when it's your turn to check if there's cars in the parking lot, check the lighting. At 9 p.m. or 30 minutes after the last service, whichever is later. Yeah. That makes sense. But, you know, most of the parking lot lights, things like that, the pathway lights, most of those usually are motion censored. Yeah. It's not like we're leaving them in the dark. But a bump. Okay. All right. Moving right on here. Okay.
Four, three, one.
I'm looking in the old one. We had a provision, which I don't think is in here now. That prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, all site perimeter planting shall have been completed, including those along Turkey Hill Road and the property line with Turkey Hill Abutters. Now, I don't know if that's doable or not.
That was what we were originally looking at. I think that would be helpful for the abutters. But I don't know if it's doable. I'm sorry. What number are you on now? It's not there. It was in when we were doing the phase one thing. Okay. It was in that. And it was prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for phase one is what it said then. All site perimeter plantings shall have been completed, including those along Turkey Hill Road and the property line with Turkey Hill Abutters. So the question is, now they're doing the whole project. And I don't know if prior to doing major work on site, it's even possible to put up the buffers. Well, why don't you put it in there and have them react to it? Yeah, I think put it in. Because it's a final permit. Yeah. And the reaction is, I'm going to sue you.
There's a seasonal aspect to when to put the trees in, like the fall or something, right? So the timing is hard. Yeah, I think when it was in before, it said to the extent possible. Yeah. I like putting it in there. Okay. Is there a reason why it was taken out on that? I don't know. Town council just took the phase one thing and reworked it. So I don't know why. I think any kind of screening is better for the residents around. But this wouldn't be that that was prior to certificate of occupancy for phase one. What would be the the timing for the site perimeter plantings?
Who said as reasonable, whatever? They're not. They're going to want those plantings in anyway to their benefit. Yeah. I would say as soon as practical after the initiation of the the initiation of construction. Yeah, yeah, that's it.
Okay.
Moving on page 14, the construction conditions. Robert, this needs at four, four, four need a little bit of understanding of what you're saying here. Um, when they do a, um.
Well, and it's on Stonewall. So that when we do according to the the submitted construction activity sequencing plan, then when they do the the big pieces that do we have the peer review review the right, that's what I thought you were saying. So it needs to, it needs to just be rewritten so that it's a little clearer. Um, because that the construction activities and sequencing plan, I don't think we'll say this is when you can come on board and look at this stuff, but we will know when those things are happening and then we'll come look at it. Isn't that how it would work? Yeah. Okay. So is it. I'll rewire that a little bit. Okay.
I mean, look at these, these projects are major, so we really need someone to actually go out there and verify. Yeah. So we have our sense.
Okay. Um, you already made a separate paragraph. Um, and, and prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Okay. Uh, no construction vehicles or vehicle visitor site shall be permitted to park or idle on Rice Road, Turkey Hill Road, or any nearby town property. Is that okay with everyone? Um, four, four, seven. Yes.
Moving on to page 15. Um, well, before we move into 15, um, just want to check the other, uh, list of things. The next is the dwelling units. I don't believe that it belongs here. I think that, um, we have it in the findings and we should have it in the conditions and just, I mean, not as a separate condition, just, I mean, a separate condition, but in with other conditions. I don't think we should have a whole separate section.
And even with the fire safety things, that's weird because there are other things that they have to submit the NFPA or whatever it is planned for the fire department. So I think that those things need to get melded into what we have already talked about in those sections. Into general?
Yeah. And we can have, you know, it would be a number. And then if there are things under it, we can have something. I just, it just seems very strange to me to be sitting out here all by itself. Could be special. We usually have, sometimes we have this thing that says special conditions. We have jet in past. We've had general special construction. Um, it's just too special. And then I'll add, I'll change it and put special here and then throw in fire safety and the dwelling and stuff, whatever we decide. Okay. Because I mean, it's not, it's not really generalist thing, but it makes more sense.
Okay. Can we go down to four points and then loop back?
Okay, everybody, getting into the dwelling units thing. Um, if we were going to have it be, um, well, let's do the easy one first. If it weren't going to be capital A affordable, we'd still need some kind of a deed restriction or a binding agreement between the church and the town to assure that those units would remain affordable. Now, five units? Yeah.
Um, and there's nothing in here currently about that. Um, and if we are, uh, and then we'd also probably still need a monitoring agent, as Robin suggested with, um, the housing, whoever, the housing authority, housing partnership, however it needs to be done. But so that's, if it's not a capital A affordable, if we go with a capital A affordable, then it needs lots of stuff. And Robert, uh, has it in here. So the first thing, uh, you know, in the first paragraph, whether it's 4.6 or 4.6.3, like we were going to do up above the community building will include 24 studio and one bedroom apartments common 19 of which will be designated for elderly parishioners. Um, that sort of, no matter what we're doing, we need that language to say there's 19 that are theirs and they can set the rates however they want, but five have to be different.
Right. And then there's a paragraph that says the affordable units. So I think it has to say the remaining five affordable units may, but then it depends on what we're doing. Okay. Where are you? Um, after 80% of the area median income adjusted for household size. Hold on.
Are you on paying? In that same paragraph, 4.6. 4.6.
And where are you? I'm not following it. I'm reading it, but I'm not following it. You're at, on page 15? Um, yes. Okay. So sort of a purple paragraph. Yeah. Mine's blue, but whatever. Um, so it would be, oh, wait, regardless, no purple paragraph, but literally, okay. Should be designated affordable. So you're working in paragraph 4.6 right now. Yeah. Okay. I wasn't there. I was working. They're sort of similar, but I just started with the first one. Okay. Yeah. Well, that makes sense. Yeah. So after it says earning up to 80% of the area median income adjusted for household size. And I just put a period and say the, the remaining five affordable units, but then it's all, you know, depends on what we're going to do, but I think 4.6.3. It says the same stuff again.
So again, this needs to be sort of. Well, that was a common, that was a common pace from the original language. Right. So it's really pick your own venture, which, which path you want to go down and which one will be showing up. Can I just make a few, uh, comments about, um, and either now or later about little A affordable versus big A affordable. Make it now. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. So says the guidance from the attorney general says residential housing can qualify as a protected religious purpose when it supports a religious organization's operations. Um, so we know that, um, the focus is on whether the use primarily advances the religious mission. And there is not, um, secondary motivations or broader secular benefits. So it seems to me, if we perhaps ask any affordable requirement, it could be deemed unreasonable because it's outside the areas that we, uh, are allowed to limit use. And it's kind of a further inhibitor to them to practice their religion. And, um, um, if we require non-religious, non-religious, non-religious members. So I think we may be in trouble either way. Uh, we're definitely outside the board, uh, the, our role on the capital A affordable. Um, that's my, uh, interpretation of what the Dover amendment restricts us to. So, and while I agree that that may be the case, it was the applicant that came and offered this first for small A affordable. And then for, in, in my interpretation, big A affordable, um, you know, we had this discussion at the meeting and they, they volunteered that if it would get them across the finish line. I agree on the little a, they did offer that.
Let me ask this. I was just looking at the list of attendees and I wasn't intending to open this to anyone. Um, their council is in attendance. Um, do you want to hear from him or do you just want to proceed? What the way? Yeah, I would. How about everybody else? Whatever you recommend, Annette. I don't know. I'm okay. I'm not recommending anything. What was your suggestion? I'm sorry. I said that I was looking at the list of attendees and their council is in attendance. Oh. Um, and I was wondering if, um, the board wanted to hear briefly from him on what the understanding was that he may have had. So the question is, what's, what's the pleasure of the board? I heard Larry? I heard Larry. Yes. I'm going to say yeah. Robin? Um, I guess so. It allows us to finish this up tonight. Yeah. This issue. Um, so I don't know if Mr. Silverstein wants to speak, but if he would, does and would raise his hand, um, he doesn't have his hand up, um, he doesn't want to raise his hand and doesn't want to help us clarify what he may not be listening that closely. I don't know if you have access to, uh, your council, um, or if you might recall what you think you agreed to, um, it would be helpful if you could raise your hand and. Who are you asking for? I was asking for Tom Kearns at this point. I have Miguel. He's presenting. I wasn't asking for me. Tom put his hand up too. Do you want to hear from Tom? Tom. Tom. I'm sorry. Why don't you give me their last names? Cause what I really wanted to hear from was their council. He's yeah. He has not. He doesn't have his hand up, but to the other people from the team, do you have their hands up? And who are the other people who have their hands up? Yellen and Tom Kearns. Um, so it's Tom Kearns and, um, Mr. Barsom. Yes. I'd either hear from Tom Kearns first. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Kearns, just state your name and, um. Madam chair. This is a. Okay. My screen is coming on. I believe. Madam chair. This is Tom Kearns, the president of studio DSK architects. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you please, uh, restate, restate your. Yes. We have been going in circles. Um, we felt that, um, that some of us felt that what was offered was, um, five little a affordable units, um, uh, not that would not be subject to, uh, the lottery, uh, for affordable housing, uh, and thus would not be able to be counted in, um, our SHI, which is, uh, the subsidized housing inventory that the town has to maintain. Um, but, uh, in reviewing the last meeting that we had and statements made by the council, um, that was slightly different. And, uh, the statement that we thought we heard was, or some of us thought we heard was that, um, if in order to get this across the finish line, and that's how he stated it, um, that they would, uh, subject it. Robin state what it was, what he said. Exactly. You say Robin or Robert, um, he stated that, uh, he, he would agree that it would be subjected to administration by the Wayland housing authority if it would get it across the finish line. And our question is, is it the case that these can be, uh, part of the lottery or they can't be part of the lottery in your understanding? Okay. Um, uh, thank you, uh, madam chair. Uh, I also, I also have Jonathan. Yeah. If Jonathan's here, I would be better. I'm going to mute. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. One point. It's a point. Good evening. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Um, just for a short conversation so that we can then continue. Thank you. Uh, so. I recall the conversation and I, I think what we said was. Um, that we would abide by the requirements of the bylaw, which Robin had said include some requirement regarding the housing authority, although the version that's published online, uh, and that's available for public viewing does not say anything about that. So, um, it would be helpful to know what we're agreeing to. Um, if there's a requirement that, uh, the published bylaw does not reflect it, it would be useful for us to know that. I'm looking right now, uh, for the bylaw. My recollection was that the bylaw made, um, houses subject to the SHI. And if you're subject to the SHI, you have to do it by lottery. Right. But there's no reference to the housing authority. No, but whatever it, whether it's the housing authority or whether it's the, it's a low, it's a local action unit, the local action unit. So it's, it would just be, it would be the lottery, the monitoring, a monitoring agent, and then also the affordable housing, um, plan to say, so that's right. If they're just, if they're just, the requirement is that they be LAU unit, um, affordable units in accordance with the bylaw, we'll agree to be subject to the requirements of the bylaw. And so my suggestion would be to simply refer to. No, that doesn't answer our question. Um, I'm going to look at the bylaw again. Um, our question, the, the, what we're concerned about. Is, um, the lottery issue with the, uh, housing. And I, I believe that, that the bylaw pulls that in. And I just want to make sure that it does, uh, because inclusion 22. 22. Okay. 22. Administration. 22. Applicability. Calculation. Allowed types. Eligibility. Standard. Affordability. Requirements. Development. Standards. Alternative measures. Enforcement. Separate. 201. I have to read this real fast. I'm sorry. Considered local initiative program. Dwelling units. Compliance with the requirements of the Commonwealth. Department of Housing and Community Development. And that is to be included in the town's inventory of subsidized housing. That's 2201.2 of our bylaw. So you would be agreeing to, um, have this subject to the lottery. That's how it would work. Right. We would be agreeing to comply with the requirements of the bylaw, which include, um, compliance with the requirements of HLC. Yep. For inclusion on the town's SHI. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Could I mention just one thing? Um, quickly, um, the requirement for overflow parking agreements. We don't work. We comply with parking. And so we're unclear as to why to occupy the building. We have to have agreements for overflow parking if we're not going to need overflow parking. Because we generally do that with all, um, institutional, uh, programs, um, just because things grow over time. But for special events. So like laid down the line, you have a, a plan for a special events, but it's, it's. And your clients had also already agreed to that. No, we never agreed to. Yeah, you did. A requirement for. Mr. Mr. Barson did to me when we were on our site walk in particular, but it wasn't the first time. I, I, I, I, I, I, I muted, I muted him because I think it's going off base now. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Robin. Okay. Robin. Okay. Um, so Robert. So I think we would go back. So it sounds like we're on the same page. This is, would be included on the SSI. And so the five units would be, would include all the information that to be compliant. Um, and which is very, pretty standard to the information that they're provided. I believe in blue, it's, it's pretty standard to, um, to have all that stuff. Uh, part of the first building, you would have all the documentation. And then you would include it and you, and all that information. If you read it through, this is. Right. But it's just going to be not for the 24 units. It's only going to be for the five. Yeah. I think it's in there. Uh, well, it says the community building will include. Which section? The one. I'm looking at 463. So then we have to do the, it includes 24 units, 19 of which will be designated for seniors who are members of the church or something. My suggestion would be, since you've been following this mostly Robin. Yep. That you, um, figure out how to, I mean, everything in here we've had before and town councils looked at it, but you make sure that it works. All right. With Robert. With Robert. Hmm. Is that okay with everyone? Yep. Um, I think we also have to. And do you look at 22, um, article 22, just to make sure since. Okay. Yep. Um, I think we also have to, um, specify that these, uh, five units have to be allowed to have parking. Huh? Yeah. If they don't, or they do. Yeah. So they would be required parking. And then that messes up their numbers. Well, the numbers for the occupancy, the church are still the same. I don't know that it really does that. So we're going to always make it some kind of finding that. Do you do this at the end of the saying that the five, you know, the five parking spaces that's being occupied by the five affordable units is not going to mess up all of the cash regulations. Okay. So Robin, if you could deal with that, that would be. Okay. And the previous paragraph where we said you were waiting. Yep. Then going to page 16 at the bottom. Um, this lapse provision, I would like to move into the findings. I don't really think it belongs here. Um, I think, I think it is in the findings already. Oh, I thought she took it out. Let me see. She's got something, but I don't know what, what it was. I don't think it was this. And if she does, then we'll deal with it. Deal with it. Uh, she might have. Or if it's not exactly said that way. Okay. Uh, so I think it, I think it has to go up front because it's a fat. Well, it's what the bylaw says. So we're, we're restating what it, it deals with. Um, but I would like to add, um, the purpose of it, uh, which we have talked about before. Uh, and the purpose of the time limitations is to assure that projects are begun and completed in a reasonable timeframe with the least disruption to the surrounding neighborhood. And in addition, site conditions and regulatory requirements can change over an extended period of years. That's a good ad. Okay. Um, and I thinking that this should probably go after paragraph 3.5. 4.5 is on page, is on page, uh, six. Is that where it is? It should go at wherever it is. Maybe I'm wrong. It go, it should go in. No, that's probably where it should go. Three, six. Before that, it probably in between three, five and three, six. First, the requirement of the bylaw about how you have to finish in a certain amount of time. Then, um, they first submitted something that was for a longer period, and then the lapse provision discussion, and then they submitted one, um, for completing the whole thing within five years. Great. Council wanted to put in, and I don't know how I personally feel about it, um, that, uh, that the bylaw or regulations also require, uh, say that you can get written extensions of time, uh, and explains how it works. Yes, the question is, if we're going for five years, should it be more definitive than that? Should we just talk about impertinent part? The other stuff is stated, or do you want to state the whole thing, and that we would not be inclined to allow an extension, or how do we want to deal with it? An extension is fine with me. Beyond the five years? Yeah, if they had a good, they would have to apply for it and give a good reason, right? Right? I mean, after five years, they gotta be pretty close to finishing it. People are thinking. I noticed. If you didn't have that, what would you actually do at the end of five years? You don't necessarily have to state it here, but we're just, she's just reciting what the bylaw says. Yeah. You know. I'm okay with leaving that in there. This is the lion purple. Yeah. Yeah. The only thing would be, you know, for, for the future board that would entertain such an application for an extension. Do we want to put in some of the history, so that they understand, you know, how we got to this five year point. Well, and that'll be in there. It'll be in there, I guess. Yeah. If they look, but. If they look. You can come back to that in a minute. Um, the, uh, the very last one was already in a finding. So I don't know. Well, applicant. This is applicant declared it would revise its timeline to complete all three and five years. Well, we, we did that as a finding of fact already. Um, so again, these are conditions. That's not a condition. Yeah. To me, it reads like it's there to provide that background for a future board. That's looking at the, the one above, but if it's already, if we, if it's already in here elsewhere. Yeah. I don't think it's fine to take it out. I think it should come out. Cause we already say it. It's all part of the history there. Okay. So you're all okay with leaving in the written extensions of time things. Yeah. Okay. Um, so. Wait, do you do a leading 4.7.2. Is that what you said? Uh, yes. Yes. And we're not going to have that, the lapse thing there. Anyway, it's going to be. That's the findings. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, so, um, I'll go through and make the organizational changes that we discussed. Um, and, uh, get with Robert and tomorrow and see if we can't wrap this up. Uh, and if you could get him as soon as you can, cause we have to file it before 12 on Friday. Yep. The other one that I rewrote, I've already have in an email. Okay. Ready to go to Robert. And I'll work on this one tonight, probably, and then get him that tonight. Could you copy me on it? Just so that I have it as well. Thank you. Thank you. Um, was there anything else in the decision before we vote? Is there anything else that we said we would come back to? No, it was the affordable units thing. I think that that's the same page nine. Right. At page nine as well. That Robin will. Yeah. We'll take over that. Yeah. There was something else that Robert was looking at. We were going to come back to though. We, we, we came back to it. Okay. Yeah. I think we, I think we covered everything. I think we came back to it. Okay. Um, I would ask for a motion. Does anybody want to have a discussion, first of all, about any of this? I would ask. I'll just say, thank you for getting all this done, Robert. Yeah. It's an incredible amount of work. And I know Annette and others have, I thought it looked very good right out of the block. So thank you. Thank you for thanking us. Robert has been working very hard. Did a great job. Um, just looking at something else. Yes. Maybe. To name. Probably. We need something. We need a motion on the vote. And I mean. I'd like, I'd like one motion. If we can. Motion to, to prove it or deny it or whatever. And then also to help. And then have Annette. Allow me to, to work on it with Robert. And sign it. On behalf of the board. Correct. Okay. So can I have such a motion? So I'll motion to approve. Uh, this plan decision. As amended at this meeting tonight. Uh, and further with Robert and Annette. Uh, editing the actual document as per our discussion tonight. And signing. And signing on our behalf. Yeah. Of the board. Thank you. Second. Okay. We're doing this by roll call. Uh, who'd you start with? Start with Larry. Yeah. Larry's Larry. So we start with Larry. Yeah. Okay. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Annette Lewis. No. And the reason for my no is we do not have a final set of plans. I am not comfortable with the plans changes that were supposed to have been made weren't made. And I don't know what we're actually approving in a plan set. Although the wording is here. So that's my vote. So it is four. Yes. One. No. And, um, thank you. Uh, and I will, um, we'll work with Robert, uh, tonight. Well, I'll do it tonight and work with him tomorrow. Okay. Is there anything else anybody wants to say? I hope that the applicant is happy or content. Uh, I think projects usually come to us in, um. Um, a more organized fashion and well thought through so that we actually know what we're looking at and it's not just, um, a sample template of maybe what's going to happen. And I would hope that other people who are listening will understand that and do the same when they're filing documents with us. Um, do we want to talk about, um, the note that we got from the sustainability manager for continued work on the ground mounted solar installation thing, or do we want to push that off since they're meeting tomorrow night? And people are invited to go, but you have to be careful of the open meeting law. I can't go. And we've already had two meetings this week already. Um, I'd like to wait and see what comes out of that meeting. Okay. But also just one other point. I think, you know, I think the select board was pretty clear that they, they think we should send it for comment. So I'll do that as long as everybody here is okay with that. Send it to who? Um. Oh, you mean that? Yeah. A day it's available. I mean, it's, it's, it's all out there. Yes. All over the website. But I was thinking I'd take a word version of it and just fine and ask them to do track changes. That sounds great. All right. So I'll, as long as everyone here is okay with that, I will, I will take care of that. Or actually Robert, you, I probably should have you take care of that, right? No. Why don't you do it, Jesse? Okay. So it's coming from you. Okay. You can say on behalf of the board. Okay. I'll take care of that. Just see, see me as I'm aware. Yeah. Okay. I gotcha. And it was, it was in what followed from the Monday in the meeting. No, I think we talked that out after the last, after Monday's meeting. So, um, if there's nothing more, uh, just one more thing. Our next meeting is on February, the 25th. And we're doing the Carol school by zoom and Larry will not be here. I think it was going to be hybrid, but we, we correct it. Okay. I thought it was by, I thought it was by zoom. Okay. That's fine. I booked a room, but it was hybrid. That's I was just asking. It might've been, we might've decided on zoom. Because I remember asking around the room. If people were. If we did it. I have a virtual too. Oh, that don't worry. That's I'm fine with it. Okay. But I will, but I'll make sure I know that. Okay. And Larry, it's the case that you're not going to be there. Yeah. On the 20th. Yeah. I will likely be recovering from happy hour at that point. Yeah. What? You're not working. Thanks for not sharing. Yeah. Um, we also have to submit the planning board report by, um, February the 27th. And I asked Robert in his spare time, uh, just to put something together. Um, and I believe that when we filed the things, we each wrote up something. So hopefully he can use that. And use the format that we do. I'll start working on Monday. Or Tuesday. Monday's a holiday. Okay. Okay. May I have, unless there's anything else? Anybody have anything? Thank you all for, uh, working on this and paying careful attention to what we're doing. Appreciate it. Um, I'll take a moment to, uh, adjourn. I move to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Ira Modigyu. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you, everyone. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Good night.