February 25, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

February 25, 2026 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

Good evening. This is the planning board and it is February the 25th, 2026 at 7pm and I call the planning board meeting to order. I'll take attendance via roll call. Jesse Newberry. Here. Robin Borgestedt. Here. Ira Montague. Here. Annette Lewis here. Larry Kiernan is not here with us this evening.
Okay. I just want to see. I was trying to look at the participants. Can I see that? Why is that not showing up? It should be showing up. Oh, there it is. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Great. The agenda for this evening is the continued public hearing. PB 25-03, 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan approval. Then the board will be reviewing its draft planning board report on the zoning articles that we had a hearing on. And then we'll look at the minutes from January the 28th, 2026, hopefully approve them. Then any updates from the town planner or the chair and board comments and concerns and then adjourn.
Okay. That's the firefly. Robert, is that how we're going to try and take the minutes this time using? I am trying three different ways. Just curious. That's great. I'm trying to try three different ways. I'm running all the machines. Okay. It works.
Why don't we see if the applicant is, can you elevate them? I'm assuming it's Mr. Perea, Mr. Rennie. Uh, yeah, there's not, there's not many. I can see. I can see. I can see. I can see them all. Harry DeLeo. Yeah. I think that's it. And Sean alone. He just joined. Jason Creole. It's all there.
Good evening, everyone. Um, if you could, yes, put on your, um, your videos, that would be very helpful.
Thank you. Um, so at this point, um, the applicant submitted more materials. Um, and Jason, I believe you've looked at them or do you still have to look at, you've looked at them? Yes. Yes, ma'am. We've looked at them. We actually just wrapped up, uh, Sean, about four o'clock today with the last back and forth. Um, pleased to say that I think we are at a spot where we're confident and ready to go here. Okay. Um, why don't we hear from the applicant first?
I'm Madam Chair. For the record, I'm Bill Proyer for the applicant. And I think you can see Kerry and Chris and Sean is, are also here this evening. Um, yeah, so I've, I think that's Jason's report, at least if we don't have any other questions for him. I understand he's preparing a final letter, comment letter for the board. And at some point that'll be submitted. Um, once we get that, we can then go ahead and update all the materials, plan sheets, reports, things like that. So we have final revisions and get those to Robert for reference. Uh, I think that was what we talked about last time. Okay. That sounds good. Um, when you do the update, it would be very helpful if, um, where are you doing the index to the sheets? If you put down, uh, the date of the original one, the inner column, the date of the next review, the change for that one. And then, you know, what the current one is just so that we can keep track and know what the final documents are. I understand. Yeah. We will, we will, we will work with Robert and make sure we get that so that it's easier to digest, uh, than it has been. Yes. Yeah. And whatever you need from us, Jason and Robert, just let us know. Yeah. Well, we need that from the applicant on their plans because on the index sheet, that would just make it clear because it's your submissions that you've made and some of them you've changed and some of them you haven't. Yeah. No, I understand. We'll, we'll come up with a chart or table like that, Madam Chair. Jason and Robert could review it before we finalize it. Okay. That sounds great. So in the meantime, and I was late yesterday, we did submit, um, revised conditions, a red line and a clean version that we thought captured the board's comments and the, um, public comments from the last time we were together. So I don't know how you want to handle that this evening, Madam Chair. Should we go through them? Um, well, um, before we do, well, the light, why don't we, why don't we hit the lighting first? Um, and then we can go, I, I'd like, um, a bit of a summary from either your peer review, your, uh, consultant or Jason, uh, on where we are, because I want to have a sense of what's happening with the Conservation Commission as well. You want to do the Conservation Commission first? Sean, that would be fine. Yeah, yeah.
Uh, yeah, you want, you want to jump in here, Bill? Um, yeah, uh, Madam Chair, members of the board, Sean Malono Consulting Group. Um, we last met with the Conservation Commission, uh, a few weeks ago. Um, we think we're, we're at the, the finishing point with them. They did not have any other comments or concerns that were expressed at that time. They were really just waiting for ECT's final sign-off on the stormwater review. And as Jason just mentioned, you know, we just kind of resolved everything late this afternoon today. So, um, we have not submitted the hard copies of the plans that the, uh, commission requires in time. Today was the deadline and we wanted to make sure everything was set, but we plan on meeting with them to discuss any final issues, submitting the final plans and, and closing that process up. And do you have any sense of when that would be? Uh, most likely it would be not the next meeting, which I believe is next week. It would be two weeks after that. Yeah, I believe it's the 25th of March is their next meeting, which is, you know, yeah. I think they have a skip somewhere in, in their schedule, so.
Okay. Um, because it becomes difficult, um, we're supposed to issue the decision to you on, I believe it's the 27th of March. Um, but without having the Conservation Commission, um, arrive at, at, at dead, at dead time, it would be, um, unfortunate for us to, to, uh, approve something that then you'd have to come back for again. Well, we'll, I mean, we don't want that to happen either. We don't want to put, you know, too many constraints on the board or in positions. So we, we can coordinate this hearing schedule to make sure that works out right. Okay. We'll, we'll take another look and talk to Linda about their meeting schedule and we'll, the plan will be to get that closed first. That would be helpful, I think, for everyone. Okay. Yeah, it, it appears on their, their listing that their schedule runs concurrent with yours. So like Sean said, they're, they have a meeting next week, but today was the submission date for all the hard copies. Um, and so I presume we, we wouldn't be heard. I know we won't be heard next week. So then their next meeting is the 25th, um, which gives us a deadline of the 11th to get all of our information into them. Um, or I guess a week before that. So, yeah. Um, so we'll, we'll work through that. Okay.
So, um, Jason, is there something you want to tell us about? Yes.
Um, Jason Creel, ECT, um, Sean had mentioned that we did meet, uh, with Robert, uh, Linda, and then some select members of the group on, uh, February 5th. We had a conference call to discuss, um, to, to quickly recap the, the concerns about, uh, the, uh, basically mounding, creating a reduction in infiltration and the concern that we may be, uh, shifting more flow off through the system and off the site. Um, coming into that meeting, uh, Sean and the applicant had already gone through, run those analyses. They forwarded those over after our conversation, uh, we responded, uh, and then, uh, Sean and I have had, uh, uh, with Robert and Linda on those emails. We've kind of had a back and forth, uh, at this point, um, and Sean, you can correct me if I've misspoken here at all. But, um, uh, Sean re-ran the analysis, removing infiltration completely from the design. And, uh, we were very, very near meeting the requirements for runoff under that condition. Um, so. What do you mean by very near, does it meet it or doesn't it meet it? Uh, it, well, this is where it's a little bit tricky in that this is not, uh, it's not a, this was a proof of concept as opposed to a, an actual model. The previous model that Sean had provided is probably a more accurate representation. This no infiltration model demonstrated that even without any infiltration, we were, I think, Sean, your net, net on the site was down overall. Yeah. And there was a slight. Well, yeah. And I, I think with, with the memo that we, we provided that we will provide in hard copy to the board, Robert was provided it with PDF. Um, we demonstrated that we still do meet the stormwater standards under the mass stormwater policy. Okay. Yeah. And I apologize. I wanted to be clear that that was what, what they presented to us was to demonstrate that what they had provided previously is accurate. Um, so it, so we go back to that previous iteration and that's what, that's what we'll get bundled and packaged in this final hard copy. Um, the, the, the remaining comments that we've gone back and forth with over the last few days are strictly a, um, how the flow moves through the system and at the, at Linda Hansen's request, um, just confirming that we're meeting the treatment requirements, uh, through the 25 year event. Um, which, um, which, um, which as of today, we've got everything we need and it appears that that does meet the, uh, the standard. So at this point, we've got no additional comments. Um, I think the last step for us effectively is to just verify that, uh, that we've got the latest when Sean, when, when everything gets sent over, we've got the latest and that all the comments have been addressed.
Okay. And I, yeah, I would like to ask that, um, you, when we get the, um, final site plans, that you look at them to make sure that everything that you commented on and that they said they changed, they did in fact change. Yes. Thank you. Um, and if I may, Madam chair, just my intent, I just want to make sure that, you know, my, my thinking is in line with everybody else's. I intend to submit a full site plan set with all of the plans, one final revision date. So everything is cohesive. That would be nice. And we'll, cohesive is good. Right. Um, so we'll, uh, we'll, we'll submit that electronically and then, um, just want to, and we can coordinate this with Robert, whatever hard copies that the board needs. So make sure you guys have everything that just one, just one, just one, just one hard copy, but they get the electronic version first so that we can use the hard copy for the records later. Great. Great.
Does anybody on the board have, uh, questions that they want to ask of either Sean or Jason?
No, I'm all set. Okay. Okay. Um, then, uh, Bill, did you want to move on to the lighting?
Yeah, sure. I mean, again, as we talked about last time, we asked our lighting consultant to go back and take a look at the design again, based on the comments that we had received. From the design review folks, they did that, uh, they put together a letter, which I submitted. I, again, it was yesterday that I, I sent that through and they're just trying to explain what their process was and why they came up with that final design, uh, to comply with the bylaw and to provide, you know, safe, adequate lighting in the parking lot. Um, can somebody put up the plan that shows the, uh, 25 foot mounting heights and just walk us through the plan? Are, are you, are you talking about a, a rendering of that or are you just thinking, uh, we don't, I don't think we have it rendered. Oh, then how do we have a photometric plan, but we don't have a, a full rendering of what those look like. What did you look at, Robin, as part of the design review? You're on mute.
Um, we weren't shown anything. It was a discussion just based on the height of the poles that at 25 feet, they would be taller than the trees. And therefore, while there may not be spillage, so to speak, the, the actual fixtures would be visible above the landscaping buffer from surrounding properties. Is there a plan that you can, one of your existing plans that somebody can point to where these 25 foot poles would be? I think the last photometric plan had the locations.
I can, someone can try to find that. I can look. Robert, do we have that? Uh, I would have to dig through the files to get it. I don't have it. It's not in the pilot package. Okay. It wouldn't be on the, on the webpage. It would be, but I would have to dig through it. I can look right now.
It's just a little difficult to, uh, address something we haven't really seen.
Perry, I believe that was your, that was from the, oh. Yeah. I'm glad you found it. Yeah. So, um, originally what we had were these smaller poles. These X ones are shown here all along this drive here. And then also, um, along this section here, right? There's some existing poles that exist within, you know, within the site already, but these would be the new poles. Perry, can you slow your cursor down? Cause it's just skipping across the screen. It's very hard to see the actual cursor and what you're pointing at. Okay. Uh, I don't know that I can, I don't, I don't see that on my end, but we can, maybe we can do this. So right here, do you see the markups? Yeah. Okay. These are the ones that were, um, slated to go along, um, along Waltham Road and then here, and then all along here, these are the shorter poles, right? What we found was that regardless of what we used for a pole, these, that, this is so tight, as we know, this buffer between the parking lot and the road is, is so tight. Um, we were getting spillage even in a, you know, dark side compliant fixture, right? So what they studied after, let me, how do I undo that? Yeah. What they then went to is, um, this plan that removes all of these along and went with these, just these tall poles right on the center Island. So there's far fewer of them, but they are higher in order to get the, the light to cast all the way to this curb line, but not make it to the right of way.
So it's just, it's in the center. Yep. Yep. So we eliminated all the ones along here and then replaced instead of, I forget the exact number, but instead of, I don't know, two or six, eight, 10, maybe 10, um, plus these four, five, six up here, you're just dealing with one, two, three, four, five, six, seven along that center aisle. And, and, and, and if I can add Carrie, I think it's also fair to say that, you know, even though the, the pole's higher, they're also being moved. What approximately 60 feet further away from the roadway. Yep. Inbound of the project. Set much further back. Yep.
So the total height is 25 feet. Yeah. Yeah.
Board comments. Uh, I still have some concerns, especially because we haven't seen the fixtures or a rendering. It would be helpful to see something like a rendering that would show, you know, from the side, you know, when you talk about somebody standing out at the street level, what are those light poles going to look like? You know, when we compare it to the, the trees that are on the Waltham road sort of boundary. What's the height? I can't remember the height of the buildings.
The height of the building. I think it's 34. That's what I would have thought. Right. Yeah. It's like 34 feet. It's shorter than the buildings. Yeah. Oh yeah. And just as a, an aside, this is the style of fixture that is being proposed, right? So it's not a large, you know, crazy looking lantern. It's a really very minimal with the dark sky.
Ira? Well, I thought we, we had asked to have it lowered somewhat, but it may be getting that confused with the Coptic church. If we lower these from where they are, we would need to put them, we would need to go back to having lighting on this side of the curb line because we can't quite get the, there is as low as they can be while still maintaining code compliance from a lighting perspective for safety. Okay. Yep. Got it. Yeah.
Jesse? Robin?
Good. Yeah. I mean, I guess it is what it is. It's, I think there's already so much light coming from the site that it's sort of an issue, but if this is how we're being told it has to be, then I guess that's what we're being told. Well, are these lights meant to fill in areas that are not being filled in now in reference to what Robin's saying? What? I'm saying, are there dead spots that these lights are hoping to cover? They're hoping to cover the, the, the parking area. Okay. So they're taking the ones away from the road and because they shine onto the road. And then they need to have lights somewhere.
So Robin, when you mentioned too much, so much lighting there, you're just referring to what's coming from inside the building. Yeah. Every time I drive by at night, almost every light in the building is on. So there's already a lot of light coming from the site.
I just didn't know. Thank you all for your comments. We do have a condition that's more specific and, you know, there are more requirements for controlling the light and timing of the light and an 11 o'clock absolute shutoff, except for security stuff that will be, you know, motion activated. So, you know, with the project, we do have the opportunity to address some of the existing light and to propose, you know, current standards of fixtures and, and, and hit the bylaw, you know, for not, you know, no, no, no light bleed. So, you know, we are trying to look at it from a bunch of different angles and trying to address it that way as well. Jesse, do you have any comments?
No, I'm good. Madam Chair, one other item just regarding the lighting inside the building. Maybe I could add is just a reminder that, you know, the, the fish center that is there now, obviously there are times where there are cleaners in there in the evenings, but that was, you know, a residential property that was converted. This new building by code will require everything to be on occupancy and occupancy sensors. Um, so with the exception of some, some minimal lighting, you know, for, for security, but, um, just by design, these lights should go off in the building much more, um, routinely than they probably do at fish, just given the, the existing condition. Okay. Um, Robert, what else do we need to, uh, go over aside from the, uh, list of conditions? I think it's, we, we, we discussed stormwater. We're almost there with the stormwater with Jason. We have the conditions. Um, I think, I think at that point we're getting closer and then we also want to hear from any, any of the neighbors too, to see if we can resolve any of those issues. But, um, that's part of, that's probably tangent with the conditions as there were hopefully working the neighbors on a list of conditions or a list of doc, uh, additional documents that will, a list of other restrictions that will be attached to the, to the official decision in the end that might be part, actually part of the decision. And that's up to the board to decide how they want to handle that. Um, okay, um, I note that, um, you've added an excess snow storage area. Um, you did send in one plan that showed four snow storage areas in parking spaces in the, off of Waltham road, uh, and then this, uh, new plan C 202, which shows an excess snow storage area in the rear, is that something that you have discussed at all with the conservation commission, the location of that?
Uh, we have not, um, yeah, Sean, if you want to chime in on your comments when we asked you the same question. Sure. Yeah, no. And, uh, no, we have not discussed that with the conservation commission as of yet. Uh, it may be a topic at our next meeting, but we are outside of any buffers. We're not cutting down any trees. We're not disturbing, uh, any ground. Um, it's just going to be a pile of snow at times when the site can't hold, hold it. Um, I'm looking at the pond. What's the distance from the closest part of the excess snow area to the closest part of the pond? A little over a hundred feet. So we're, we're outside of all the a hundred foot buffer. Yeah, it's just that when you, when you, uh, move snow, depending on what kind of salt you've used or whatever you've used, that is in the pile as well. Mm-hmm. It just seems awfully close. I mean, it'll certainly, but you know, it's up to the conservation commission, but it seems awfully close. Yeah. And certainly it can be a discussion with the conservation commission, but usually the standard is that no snow storage within the 100 foot buffer. It's not an extra 150 foot buffer or 200 foot buffer, whatever, whatever it may be. Um, so that's, we're, we're definitely staying out of the buffer. Okay. And I, it, I can't see any contours on this. I, I don't think I see any contours on this map, but, uh, or in this plan, um, but my recollection is it's relatively flat back there.
Correct. Yep. And then kind of starts to slope down towards the wetland areas. Once you get into the, the buffer areas. Does anybody on the board want to talk about any of that before we move into the, um, conditions? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, Bill, why don't you take us through, um, this, I, I'm just going to speak for myself first. Um, some of these things we can put in our decision. Some of them I'm very uncomfortable putting in our decision, uh, because for example, um, the, you can certainly have a side agreement with the neighbors, um, but your site plan doesn't include the garage area that I've seen, unless you're review, redoing the site plan. Um, and we haven't noticed that address either, um, or that parcel. Uh, so us putting restrictions on use of something that isn't part of the site plan is a little problematic, uh, for precedent purposes with other Dover amendment matters that we would have. So take us through, uh, what you've done. And then I gather, um, that, that, uh, you submitted them to us at the same time that you submitted them to the neighbors council. Yes. Okay. Yes. We sent them to take us through, uh, I've read through it. I don't know that everybody else has had a chance to.
Yep. So on the, on the first page, um, condition three, again, we were trying to address that use of that driveway on the property. Um, I think that would still be applicable since it's on the land or the property, as you describe it. Do you want to use, look at it in the final or in the markup so that the board can see what you've changed? I don't know who put the thing up. If it's Robert, could you put up the markup or if it's, um, yeah, I'm looking at the markup. I thought maybe going through that would be. Yeah. I think so too. Useful. Thank you.
So on three, we tried to break it out to make it more, um, you know, sensible and read more specifically relate, you know, in response to comments we got, we threw in the gross vehicle weight, which was a good suggestion. We tried to tie it back to a specific federal highway standard definition, which is weights and medium medium, medium duty vehicles, uh, to avoid sort of to get in the concept that this wasn't going to be a heavy construction equipment being used there, but it was going to be basically capturing what we were doing now. And the vehicles we were using now with a little bit of margin and the event that some of the trucks we have or equipment we have, you know, bumped up a little bit in weight, but we, we tried to again, capture what we were doing right now on the site and what we have been doing in the past and we discussed the garage. And I, I, I take your comment. I, I mean, the, the land is owned by the school. Um, it's, it's going to continue to be used by the school. Um, it's not being changed. I mean, if you look at the site plan bylaw, you know, I guess one way to deal with it is, I don't think it's a very efficient way, but you know, the site plan bylaw talks about if you have an approved site plan and then you want to do something else that might deviate from it or, you know, slightly change what's happening on the land, you can come in and ask for about a determination that site plan review does not apply. Right. So I sort of look at that kind of concept and that structure to be permissive enough to permit these conditions to be put in, given that the land is owned by the school. It's not really being affected by the new academic building project, but it is still going to be used by the school. And it's an opportunity to define how it will be used, you know, with the neighbors in mind. So, and one could use a finding of fact that you presented that information, but as to making it a condition that we'll check with our council.
I would appreciate that. I mean, we're voluntarily doing it. I understand, but we have a bunch of Dover amendment applications and they're all quite contentious and I don't want to, I don't want the board to do anything that becomes problematic for another case.
So when you say finding a fact, does that mean something that would be discussed in the decision? Yes. Usually with the decision, we lay out what you've applied for, what the procedural history, the materials that you've submitted. Then we do findings of fact.
And then we do the decision, give the decision and then conditions. So it could be stated in, I think, the findings of fact that that's how you'll be used. You know, there's a neighboring property and you told us that's how you were going to be using it. So essentially lifting these sorts of ideas and text and putting them in a different part of the decision. Yeah. Okay. But some of them can definitely be conditions, the other ones, but that one. Yeah, no, I understand. I hear what you're saying. Dan Hill's on, so I would appreciate at some point he'll, I'm sure we'll weigh in on that. The question is, should we go through all of this first? With you and then have him weigh in, or would you like to do them point by point? However you want to do it. I think it would be good to hear Dan's point of view on this one. Okay. Because we have worked on it with the neighbors for quite a while.
Dan Hill, can you elevate him, Robert?
While we wait for Dan, can I raise a concern? Sure. On that same issue, on number three, it says may be used for the following purposes.
That's not very restrictive. Do you mean to say may only be used for the following purposes? May be used just means these are some of the purposes, but there could be others. So, it's not actually a restriction unless you put only.
Yeah, I think the intent was that we were going to use it in accordance with this provision. Then I think you need the word only. All right.
Dan, are you there? I'm here, yeah. With respect to the restriction on the garage use, we feel very strongly that that should be in the decision. I appreciate the fact that the garage property is not technically within the bounds of the site plan. It strikes me that that could actually be pretty easily fixed. And I wonder, since this hearing is not being closed tonight, that between now and the next hearing date, maybe the applicant can just simply add that property to the site plan. And I recognize that someone would have to check the assessor's list to see if that drags in any more butters. But it may not. It's more than that, Dan, because we do notice and all of that stuff. At this point, I don't think that it's appropriate or that we can do it easily to add the other parcel. We have mentioned this now since the beginning. But we can do it two ways. And I was thinking about this as we went through. Some of these things that you've talked about, and it's great that you've come to agreement on most of them. Are not things that the planning board should be involved in. We can state in findings of fact that certain things were said. But I don't think that we can, on some of these, make them conditions that we would impose. And you can have a side agreement if you want to attach it to the document. That's great.
But again, we have to worry about precedent for all of the Dover Amendment cases that we're getting.
We just can't leave ourselves open to significant differences between the ways that we're dealing with them. Okay, so Madam Chair, it's Bill again. You did say that you would ask town council perhaps with some input. Okay, that would be helpful. I appreciate that.
I think my concern, just Annette, on the garage, is that if there's no restriction on the use of the garage, then technically the school's use of the garage, if it's not approved under the site plan approval, is not a legal use in the zoning district. So the only way it is a legal use is if it's authorized by the board under Dover. So that kind of leaves us in sort of an uncomfortable no man's land that this parcel with this garage on it, with equipment and so forth, isn't really, hasn't been authorized and doesn't comply with the zoning bylaw. And I'm concerned that if the neighbors don't do anything, are we going to be barred somehow by race judicata or something? You might be barred already.
How long have they been using it? Maybe.
I mean, they've been using it probably since, when was it, 2019? I don't know when that garage came about, but where there's an actual site plan approval being issued here, and if we don't appeal it or if we don't challenge the use of the garage, I'm concerned that that somehow precludes us and puts the neighbors in a bad position unwittingly. I mean, we don't want to. We'd rather have the garage approved. I understand that, but we'll talk to town council again. I understand all of that, but we can't do something because we have other cases that, and some of which may be appealed. We can't do something here that exceeds what technically our authority is, because that will then be brought up in the other cases, and that's a problem for us. So I hear you, and we'll see if there's something that we can do. And, Bill, if you can find out and let Robert know how long you've been using that garage, that would be helpful. Just one comment. There's no doubt that this is part of the use of the school. I mean, and maybe the proper thing would have been when the school acquired it is to, you know, file under, what is it? Is it 601, 198, 601? And it would have been recognized that administratively because it didn't trigger any of the requirements for a full site plan review. And I think that still applies in this case. That legal concept still applies here. I would argue that or discuss that. But your plan doesn't show that property. There's no requirement that the plan show the property. Site plan review only is triggered by certain things. The school owns the property. It's just by definition a Dover use. There's just no doubt about that in my mind. But I don't want to fight about it here. I'm just saying that's it. Yeah, and I don't want to fight about it at all. It's something that, no, I know. It's just something I think town council might want to consider. Okay. It looks like that that section of the site plan review bylaw provides a mechanism. We'll look at it. Even retroactively here.
But we'll look at when we started using it. Please. Yeah. Thank you.
Dan, do you have any issues with the language? Otherwise? I agreed with Robin's comment. We had also suggested some language that the garage not be let for personal or private use.
I'd like to see that language built in. But I also kind of wanted to see that language built in somewhere overall. I think we had proposed some language that the school facilities in general, the gym, the fields, et cetera, that they would be used exclusively for the school and not be let out to other private or public organizations. Isn't that in the existing decision?
Well, even if it is, it should be really helpful. No, I hear you. I'm just asking. I'm not sure. I have it in front of me. I can look at it real quick. I think it's in the existing decision. Well, if you want, I mean, feel free to work that out with Bill. And if they, I mean. Well, I had proposed that to Bill and they didn't like it. So I. Oh. That's an area of disagreement. One of the few. So that, again, that's just something I don't think it should be controversial because they don't have any intention to do it. So I'd rather just have that memorialized in the conditions.
What I'm going to suggest as we go through this for those kinds of things, Dan, send us the areas that you think need to, as we go through this, that you think language for what you think needs to change and we'll deal with it if we can. All right. Sounds good.
In the excess snow.
We had no issues there.
Okay. So I guess for, I just noted that because I think the board last time had some comments about four. So I didn't presume to make any changes. It was something that Dan's clients had drafted. We tweaked it a little bit, but we were happy to leave it like it is. But I know the board had a comment about that at last time. So I just flagged it this time. Okay. I'm going to let others talk first. Does anybody want to make any comments from the board on number four?
It wasn't entirely clear on what they were getting at. Right. I think that the issue becomes here to what, we asked this before, to what end? And give us, Dan, some kind of an understanding of what you would bring to us that you would want us to deal with.
So the purpose of this provision is just to provide the ability for the board to look at how the, how the project's working and how the increased enrollment has been working for the neighborhood and to open up communication with the applicant to address perhaps some mitigation that might need to be implemented. Or, I mean, I think it's mostly viewed towards traffic impacts because I think we all are concerned about the increased trips and the intersection operation, but it could have to do with the student drop off, pick up protocols. And no one's really sure exactly how this is going to work in practice. And so the idea of this was just to provide the opportunity, you know, to provide a framework for there to be that conversation in the future. But then once we have the conversation, what's the board's ability to do anything about it? And when you read all of the language here that they're reserving all of their rights,
it doesn't seem to me like there's something that we can make happen. I think just having, again, the formality of a process is very beneficial to the neighbors that we, otherwise, how do we, if the school doesn't want to engage with us in the future, and I'm not saying they won't, but just if they don't, what ability do we have as the neighborhood to get everybody back together in a room to talk about adverse impacts that might be happening? So that, and I've seen this in other site plan approvals in other towns that I've worked in. And you're right, you may not have the ability to change the conditions. I think that's what you're getting at. And I'm not saying you necessarily do. I don't know if you do or not. You might, but I'm not suggesting that that's the purpose either. Again, I think there's a lot of, this is a unique situation where this is not an exact science. We don't know for sure how this is all going to work. And there also, we've had, I've had in my, in my office, several cases where Dover amendment uses have expanded in ways that no one really anticipated when the special permit or the site plan approval was issued. So again, this provides an opportunity for people to get together and say, look, what you're doing here is actually not consistent with what we agreed to. And if that is the case, that that's the only reason we would have these hearings is if there was a situation that was uncomfortable or objectionable to the neighborhood. But the thing is that student arrival, dismissal parking protocol is consistent with what we're approving. It's not that it's not consistent. The only way that this paragraph would make any sense at all would be to, and it has no position, no business being in our decision, is for the parties to agree that they would, you know, go to the chief of police in Wayland and Lincoln and have him come and review these things and have the police chief, you know, from the surrounding towns come in and arbitrate and decide whether there needs to be action taken. The planning board, it's, all you're doing is asking us to have a meeting where people come and gripe, but where we have no ability to take any action afterwards. Because the traffic and the student arrival and dismissal and parking is all, it's already approved by that time. There's nothing else we can change. Right. Yeah, again, it's meant to be just the ability to have a forum so that if this protocol is not working, if there's long queues on Waltham Road, if there's accidents, if students are unsafe because they're crossing streets, I mean, it could be a variety of different issues that could happen in the future. We just don't know. But then the chiefs of police in Wayland and Lincoln are the correct people to take those concerns to, not the planning board.
We're not arbitrators. We're not, we're not mediators. May I say something? It's not the role of the planning board. Yes. My point of view is a little different, which is that the approval we're getting has conditions and the project is defined. And there are certain requirements the project has, meaning we can't queue on the streets. I mean, there's specific, you know, parking drop off, you know, and dismissal protocol is something we have to comply with. If we're not complying with that or any other condition here, then that is grounds for the board to say to us, hey, or through the building department or however you enforce your site plan decisions. Hey, guys, the parking protocol isn't working. We've, you know, we witnessed cars spilling out or parking or queuing on Waltham Road. That's not permitted. You're going to have to fix it. So I think there is a mechanism for that. I hear what Dan's saying, and I sympathize with that point of view. So that's why we were trying to get something in here that was responsive to the neighbors. But I don't think all is lost if this particular provision isn't in there. I think, again, like I said, there are enforceable conditions and there are performance standards. And we have to live by them or, you know, we're going to we're going to get our feet held to the fire. I mean, the zoning act permits that to happen in any case. And, you know, regarding any project or any condition that a project is subject to.
So, you know, just just my point of view on that. But again, we don't have any objection to this, but I hear what the board's point of view is. If I could just provide one last defense to this. Sure, Dan.
So I think I mentioned before in the town of Milton, whenever the zoning board hears Dover amendment cases, they typically put in an expiration date on the site plan approvals. I know no one really wants that here, but that that is what they do. And they basically say this this approval is good for five years and it's automatically renewable unless somebody comes forward with an objection and wants to ask the board to review it. So there there is that kind of mechanism in Milton, for example, where applicants have agreed to that language, including historic New England. And they agreed to that condition with respect to the uses of state, which is a nonprofit educational institution. Do they have anything in their bylaw that allows that? Yeah. No. And then in condition 11 of our 2016 conditions, this board imposed a condition that said a review of traffic and parking may be conducted by the town not less than six months and not more than 12 months after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building. So I this condition that I drafted, I feel is consistent with that concept, that that concept in 2016 was, look, we're not really sure how things are going to work out. We have the right to review this a year after everything is up and running. Why don't you send us that condition with the things that you're talking about? It's just easier for us to have it on one sheet of paper that then we can look at and plug in. You want to see what? The condition from 2016 that you're talking about. Yeah. That condition seems more viable than what's here. OK, that's a that's a fair backup for me. If the board is OK with that condition.
Robert, do you have it or do you want me to send it to you? I was just going to say, I mean, we have the we don't have we have all the paperwork. What would be easiest for us is by the time that we're done with this, you have things that you want, Dan. And if you could just put them all together in one document, OK, that would be the easiest for us to deal with. Sure.
I mean, yeah, I mean, that condition is again, it can be put in a decision. It's a town can always review traffic whenever it wants, anywhere, anytime, you know, on public ways. Again, you can do that. But that condition isn't going to empower the town to force any, you know, Dover use to do anything further. Right. Well, I mean, we'll take a look at that again if we can agree to it. I might have to still put the waiver. No waiver. I just want to see it. Not we're not committing to anything because not everybody is following along. Yeah. OK, what else? In in some of these, you talk about not doing stuff on holidays, but the holidays are undefined. And it could mean legal holidays as established by the state of Massachusetts or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I don't know if you have in mind other holidays like Ramadan or the Jewish holidays or, you know, I didn't know what holidays was. And you guys have to work that out, I think, if that's what you have in mind. We usually say holidays, a la what Massachusetts has established. I think that that's what we were thinking. But we can we can refine that and make sure the definition is clear. And it shows up throughout the document. Yeah. Thank you. I think we had also in number five, we had also talked before about not wanting to collect any money that was just going to be sitting around. And we wanted to be able if if we were going to do this at all, we wanted to be able to essentially bill for it. Isn't that what you said, Robert? Yeah, I don't want I don't want to collect the money, but I don't have to because I'm just I'm digging up on the money we have in the past. And so if my not sometimes mine, I use it could sit there for 20, 25 years. I just I just don't want it. I don't want to practice of taking money and just letting it sit there. OK, we can we can provide that. We'll I'll change it. I didn't understand that. I'm sorry.
I mean, it might it might. So my works fine for me. So let's say let's say let's say you give us five thousand dollars and we actually use it. But if you don't use it and I leave, it could fall off. And that's what that's what we've been stuck with is we collected money over the past planners, town planners, town managers, leave, play boys, you know, leave and can fall off. And we we lose this consistency of where the money came from. And then we're digging and trying to do research where does money come from? How did we get this? So I would rather not just give us money. I would rather just find a different way to get the money later if we need it. OK, Dan, you have any objection to that? I can I can throw that in there.
Yeah, no, I suppose if yeah, I suppose that if the town wants to charge you something to build a sidewalk or something like that, I guess that we can build in language to require that. But I mean, my overall comment on this, Madam Chair, if you don't mind me saying it is consistent with what Adam Curry sent. Adam Curry sent you an email, I think. He did. And we looked I looked at it. Yeah. Yeah. And he pointed out that there is actually precedent for towns to collect mitigation funds for traffic improvements. And I know that was a concern of yours. So there's at least one land court decision that that a firm with a special permit where the applicant did not comply with frontage and did not comply with setbacks. So I've read I had read all the earlier cases before that, and I hadn't seen the one that Adam sent, but it's still a special permit and it was a noncompliance thing, too. So I saw the conditions, but I don't necessarily think we're talking apples and apples. Well, my read of the case was that the mitigation was to address the projects impacts on neighboring streets didn't have to do with the frontage or dimensions, but well, if you look at the Tufts case, that made them have a garage, but that's about it. So anyway, our position for what it's worth and for the record is that the board should require greater mitigation or the ability to collect greater mitigation for improvements on Waltham Road, given the unique facts of this case where the school's own traffic studies are showing really adverse consequences consequences to the intersection operations at Lincoln Street and Conquer Road.
I'm happy to run that by counsel again. We've been told in the past that we couldn't deal with the traffic.
So we'll talk to her about that, too. And again, in the other case, which was a special permit and they weren't in compliance with the basic Dover setback and frontage. The planning board or the zoning board, whoever it was at that point in one of its first decisions did look at traffic because they could because they weren't in compliance and they didn't think it was reasonable in that case to to allow that particular Dover use on that parcel at that location. And so the last decision was, you know, there are multiple decisions before that.
OK, moving on.
And 12, I think, is sort of the next. I was, again, reacting to some of the comments last time we just broke this out into subparagraphs to try to clarify how the lights would operate and the limitations for specific times of the day and certain special events that we had talked about before and how to define those better. So I hope, ma'am, just sort of got to some of those comments, but willing to hear any feedback on these. Dan? On 12, my only concern on 12 is just that there isn't any restrictions on the so-called special events that could occur on weekends and at night. And we've had multiple conversations with the school's representatives about our concerns. I think Renee has given us some assurances that this isn't something that's going to happen every week, that they're more sporadic, that there's a couple weekends in the fall and in the spring where they have admitted students come and they have alumni come. And so if it's really that infrequent, then it's not a concern. I think our concern is that the language of subsection B doesn't really put any limit on the frequency of these events. So I don't know really how to address that in the condition. And it might be something that maybe we discuss with the school and have a side agreement on. But I just want to raise that as our concern.
I'm trying to find it. There was some place in here where it was not clear that the lighting would be on a monitoring system after hours. It said something like it may.
Can you find that, Robin? No, I don't see that. It just says that it, you know, that the lighting shall coincide with these hours and that the... Yes, here it is. I just found it. It's in 12B at the end. Provided all lighting shall be turned off by 11 p.m. Except for security lighting that may be necessary or desirable and that may be triggered by motion sensors. So is your security lighting all going to be triggered by motion sensors or are you going to have some spotlights that you're planning on having on all the time? Chris or Carrie, do you have any input on that one?
I mean, I think that there could be a situation where there may be some motion sensor lights up against, you know, up on the building or nearby the building. I mean, just, again, if people are there after hours that shouldn't be there. There's not an issue with the motion sensor lights. It's just that the way this reads is you may have motion sensor lights, but you may also have stationary lights. Yeah, I think the stationary lights will be controlled by, you know, a management system, right, like a timer or a program. So I would suggest that that should be clear that your security lighting is going to be on motion sensors. Yeah. And again, that may not be an issue, right? Like if, you know, that may be something that they choose they don't even need. But if there's trespassing issues, there may be a situation that that might want to be implemented down the road. For on motion sensors. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Right. Like if we have the all the lighting on timers and every night it goes off and nobody has a problem with it, that's great. But if people are found to be trespassing beyond those hours, there may be a desire by the school, you know, or the police to put motion sensor spotlights on the building or something. But I can't imagine it's probably going to be an issue. Yeah. The concern, again, is that we deal with it and it's clear that they're on motion sensors and they're not security lights. I just think you have to change the sentence so that instead of it saying that may be triggered by motion sensors, it's that will be triggered by motion sensors. Sure.
OK, is that acceptable to the school? Yeah, I think that can work. Is that acceptable to the school?
Yeah, I think that can work. Yeah. OK, then the next one is, I think it's the new number 14.
Right. And you said you were OK with that, Dan?
Yeah, we're fine. Unless unless my client, Andrew, wants to make a comment. I didn't have a chance to talk to him before tonight, so he may want to raise his hand and speak to that issue. He's the one that lives along that access road. Curry? No, no. I don't see Andrew on line. Yeah, Andrew's not on line. Andrew or Catherine? No. No. Nope, neither of them on line.
Well, let us know, Dan, if you have a chance to talk to them. Sure.
On 15, Madam Chair, I think the board had asked for the community communications plan. Take a look at that. We worked on it the last couple of days. We do have something we can send it in tomorrow. OK, that would be great. For you to look at, to make part of the construction management plan specifically. And I'll send it to Dan, too. And Robert, for construction management plan, this just says it goes to the planning board. But when you're doing them, and I think we just did this with the last over, doesn't the construction management plan go to a bunch of different departments? Yeah, I mean, I think the conservation, conservation, DPW, the peer review resultant. So if it came in to you for, like, the land use group? I would send it off to everybody. Right. Submitted to the planning board for administrative review and approval.
I just want you to understand that it, I don't know if we need to put it in here or not, but it won't be just the planning board. There's a whole land use group. I would just change it to town of Wayland instead of just saying the planning board. Well, why not say the land use manager? Submitted to the planning board. There's no land use manager. Or we can say for administrative review by the land use group or whatever, and then approval prior to.
I mean, we could just say to the town and to whatever departments the town deems necessary, something like that. Okay. Because I know I did see the other condition and had listed of the fire department, please. Right. But we can just make it generic and you can have any department you want, take a look at it. Okay.
I think you're all, I'm assuming you're all okay with number 16?
Yes. Yeah, we wanted to, yeah, we took that out, clarified that.
And the holidays thing goes all the way throughout here, so. Yeah, no, I'll make sure we make that a defined term. Number 18.
See, Dan, when we get down to this, it says these conditions apply to the approved site plan. And right now, the site plan doesn't have the garage. Um, I was not, oh, this idea that a change in ownership requires you to come back to the planning board. I wasn't, I didn't think that our bylaws talked about that.
Because if it's a change in ownership, but it's still a school and they're still going to use it the same way. Yeah, I agree with that, for what it's worth. I don't think that should be in there. Um, but I, but I do think that, um, I don't really like the language where it says, if such filing is mandated under the applicable provisions of Article 6. I don't think articles, does Article 6 actually address when amendment requests are required? Um. Yes. It, for you, for change in use, it does, I believe. If the plan is amended, has.
There's, there's a provision that you can come in and ask, essentially, it's, I think it's in 601, 198, 601. The way I think, or the way I read that is, if you have an approved site plan decision, site plan, you can come in, you can do certain things, make certain changes. Because they're de minimis, typically.
But the board, it, it's two, sort of a two-stage thing. If you don't trigger the requirement for a site plan review, to me, it looks like you don't need to come and modify the decision. And, or you can ask the board for its opinion on whether what you're doing requires you to come back.
Anyway, this, this condition I didn't draft, you know, out of whole cloth. It mostly came out of the existing 2016 decision, I believe. Yeah, I'm actually looking at Section 608, Bill, and that does seem to address amendments. And it, it basically says in 608-1 that no revision or amendment to any approved site plan shall be made until application for such has been approved as required by this article. Right, but in the beginning, where Bill was reading, that sets up the thresholds. Right. Yeah. And, and that, if you're not going to change anything, and it's going to remain a school, I don't know that site plan is triggered. But if it's not going to remain a school, then it is. Yes.
Well, I think it's a site plan is just like they're here today, right? They're here today because they're expanding it. If they're, if they're expanding again, I think that would require an amendment and they would, they'd be required to file an application. So I, I guess I'm. As long as, as long as. Yeah.
The site plan, if we're just going to stick to the Dover thing, maybe. But if you read in other things, they might, it might not need to come back, depending on what is happening on the site.
Because the way that the site plan regulations are written, there are thresholds. And if you don't hit those thresholds, then you don't need to come in for an approval. So in any event, this, this is a little, we don't, I don't think we can say anything about a change in ownership.
Yeah, that was in the 2016 condition. And I don't, I'm not sure why, but I agree with that. All right. I'll get them ownership out of there. Um, so I want the student arrival protocol. I know there was a lot of, there was comments about that kind of clunky. So I tried to tighten it up a little bit, keep the same requirements for notifying people. I don't know if that helped anyone. I thought it was a little more consistent. And we tried to tie it into the special events that we talked about earlier in 12. And the event management, um, in the second line. Yeah. I was having trouble. There's the F it's, it's, it's hosted on the property and, or which the property should it be, and for which the property.
Yeah, I can put the four back in there. I guess I deleted the wrong thing. Okay. Because I was reading and I kept going, what? Okay.
For syntax in number, in number one, at least two business days in advance of such event, notify by email, direct to butters and any other party provided that each set of butter and each other party has provided their email addresses to the school with a request for such notice using that. I think the sentence needs to, I mean, you like it this way. It's great. But I think it needs to be clarified a bit. The syntax is a little off, but the idea is okay with us. I think speaking for the board, with all of you on the board, please weigh in. Don't feel like you can't. No, I just agree about that sentence. It's one very long and convoluted sentence.
So Dan, are there any other areas where you don't have agreement? No, we were fine with that protocol. And just going back to the other conditions, we skipped over number nine. Can we go back to that one?
Yep. So in the middle of that paragraph, there's a sentence that says, regarding this condition, the applicant may elect in the future to add such institutional kitchen, et cetera, et cetera. Right. I think it should say, may elect to, in the future to add such kitchen, cafeteria facilities to the property, comma, as a request to modify this condition. That should come, I think that should come before the board. I think the point of this was just simply to say they could in the future add a kitchen, but that wasn't part of this review. So if they want to add a kitchen, the cafeteria, that should come back to the board for. If they wanted to add a cafeteria, wouldn't that just be the Board of Health? It's the interior of the building. Normally, we can't control the interior of the building.
I think adding food service generates other issues. So there's now food waste storage, food waste collection that isn't part of the current waste management plan. And, yeah, it could be Board of Health, but I think it could be a simple check-in with this board as well to review those arrangements.
There also could be more deliveries. But I think that the way this is all written right now, if they were to, if we don't have that, if it's that it's a Board of Health issue, then any increase in the use interiorly for a kitchen or whatever, they have to fit their deliveries within the schedule that's agreed to. And they have to fit their waste disposal into the area that's approved now. And that would be a limitation for them. Not that we would expand it, but that they would then have to fit within the current regulations. I don't think your clients want us to allow them more trash storage and more delivery times. So then there's no reason to come back to planning board if we're, if we want to hold them to those delivery hours and the truck sizes and the storage of food waste, then it's really a septic issue. And a regular Board of Health kind of a change, not a planning board change, right? You don't want them to be allowed to have more trucks and more food waste storage, right? Right. I think it's just more the adequacy, the arrangements that, that, that's in place. But let me go back to my clients and, and talk about this. And I can come back to you with any proposed language changes if we have any at all. It does say we have to, if the bylaw requires we come back, we have to come back anyway. Right. But I think for just, if it was just adding a kitchen and food service, if you're going to comply with all the other conditions, such as delivery times and trash storage, you know, where that fits in the plan and all these other things, then that may not be necessary.
Maybe. Yeah, I think it's sort of goes back to the same discussion we had before about the thresholds. I think my concern, Bill, was that this, the language of this condition kind of implied to me, at least, that that would be an exception, that you're basically reserving the right to add a cafeteria without having to go back to the board. Because otherwise, this is kind of superfluous. So why, why do we even need this language? You know, you already have the right to amend your site plan. You could come back and add a cafeteria.
We are not approving which rooms are science rooms, which rooms are social studies rooms, which rooms have chemistry. That's just not, the planning board does not approve the interior of buildings. And we don't approve septic systems. We like to make sure that the buildings will fit with the septic systems on site. And we do look at that.
But if they want to do a kitchen, again, there'll be a condition that they have to get all the permits that they need to have in order to operate. And that would be board of health, I think, not us.
So is there really any benefit to having the sentence? I don't know.
We didn't write it.
We're trying to accommodate both parties as much as we can. But as I said before, some of these things we can pick up and we'll be in the decision because we would normally put them in the decision. And we put them in a certain way so that our people in town can easily find them under the sections that they're used to seeing them in, like your hours of work, your hours of operation, your hours of construction, those sorts of things. And some of them will wind up being, I think, and some of them will wind up being, I think, a private agreement between the parties. And if you want to attach it to our decision, that's fine. But I don't think that the board will be sanctioning some of these things. That's my current feeling. I don't know if anybody on the board feels differently.
No, I agree. No, I agree, too. And I think as long as town council agrees, we can reference and attach the agreement between the abutters and the applicant, but we don't necessarily have to incorporate it into our conditions. Can you identify, Annette, what specifically, what conditions you don't want to see in here?
I've been trying to do that as we've been going along.
The ones about the garage. Yeah, the garage thing is, and again, we'll ask town council, but it's concerning.
The one, number four.
Oh, okay. So, garage, look back, I'm number four.
And we'll ask town council about the contribution, but I think we can handle that if we do do a contribution as a voluntary kind of thing, finding a fact that they've agreed to give us whatever. So, I guess on four, not four, on nine, can we just strike that sentence about the applicant may elect bill? Bill, I mean, do you need that in there?
I'll talk to the school. Well, probably, probably isn't necessary, but if the board isn't comfortable with that in any case, then it might just go away, the whole condition. I mean, as far as this decision goes. Right. That would be a finding of fact, that it will not include an institutional kitchen. Yeah.
And these hours of, for all the different things, I believe they were already agreed to between the parties, the hours of construction, the hours of operation, the hours of lighting. Yeah, we hadn't changed any of those since last time. I didn't think so. No.
Okay.
So, Dan, you'll send us the sections that you thought that you would like to propose to us and to Bill? Yep. Okay.
Jason, when do you think that we will receive your report? Well, if I can get you that ASAP with comments up through now, Madam Chair, but if you would like that report to also effectively check the box that everything has been done on the, then probably, I would say probably about a week after we receive it. Okay. Well, obviously, endeavor to do it more quickly than that, but I don't want to overpromise. Yeah. No, that's fine. I mean, one final, I think, report would be good.
Dan, are there any other comments that you wanted to make this evening? No, I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Is there any public comment from anybody who's in the audience? If you have any, please raise your hand.
Madam Chair, I don't see any hands up. Okay.
So, at this point, Bill, when do you think that you're going to put your materials together? Probably by March the 11th for the Conservation Commission?
Yes. And you'd probably have your hearing on March the 25th? Yes. Right now, our decision for you is due on March the 27th.
Yeah. So, how shall we do this? Our next meeting after March the 25th is April the 15th, but we need to see the final plans, and the board needs to have a meeting to discuss the final plans and arrive at a decision, and then we need time to write the decision. So, our next meetings after March the 25th are April the 15th and then April the 29th. So, get some input from the team here. I think that, can we put, I'm asking Sean mostly because he has most of this work to do to get the submittal and final form based on all the comments, you know, if we can target the 11th for that, for you, you know, for the planning board and for the Conservation Commission, we could still keep the 25th for the planning board to look at the final package? Is that what you said? The board would like to review that? Yeah. And then, yeah. I don't even see Sean here. Sean had to drop off, unfortunately. So, yeah. But I think that, I don't think that there's much for him to do. I think he, the 11th, I think is reasonable. Okay. And so, the board needs to look at that, and then, Madam Chair, you said a subsequent hearing to review the decision, draft decision. I presume Robert does that, or town council, and then discuss it and vote on it at a subsequent hearing. So, will the 15th, will the 25th work for the document review and the 15th work for the decision discussion for the board? I sure hope so. So, that should be okay. Because on the 25th, you'll be sending us the stuff at the same time as the Conservation Commission. But you think that the Conservation Commission is okay at this point? They'll be okay with what you submit? I do. I think the only outstanding issue was Jason's stormwater comments. I think everything else they had reviewed and were satisfied with. Okay. So, then we could, we'd have the information by the 11th, we could review it on the 25th, and then review a decision by the 15th. If we can do it before, we will, and then we would file it, maybe, perhaps, two days after that, 15th, 16th, 17th. Or that Friday, that's what we did last time. What's that? Okay, what's that Friday? I thought we did last time. We did that Friday, just to give us a... What's that Friday date?
April. Hold on. The 18th? It is the 17th. 17th. Yeah, the 19th. Do we continue, do you want to continue the hearing? Yes. Do you want to continue the deadline to the 17th of April? Is that what you're saying, Madam Chair? No, I want to continue, I want an extension of time until April 17th to issue the decision, and I want to...
Continue the publication. Continue the hearing. I know, I'm just looking at the dates again. To March the 25th at 7.
Is the applicant not also before the Conservation Commission on the 25th? Yeah, sorry.
Yes. Yeah, but we can split the team for that. I hate to make you do that. They could take you earlier, and we could come later, if you'd like us to do that for you. Well, yeah, I mean, whatever time you think works. We have typically gone on earlier with them, and I can ask Sean to ask Linda, Linda, if she can do that. Okay, because they start usually at 6.30, and we could try and start just in case at 8. Does that work? 7.45? Well, Annette, just remember, you can't go backwards, whatever time you set. Right. You go too late, and then something happens, then you're sitting there. Okay. 7.30, 7.45? I think that's fine. Again, I think Linda has been part of the conversations that Robert and Jason and Sean and all of us have been having, you know, to try to get through these comments. So, I agree with Bill. I think they're just waiting for the final letter from Jason that says peer review comments are complete, Stormwater is approved or complete. So, I don't envision our time with CONSCOM taking that long. So, if they start at 6.30, you could start at 7.30. Okay. And then if we get hung up, like Bill said, he can jump over and start talking about the decision, and we'll wrap up with them.
Because they do all of their meetings remote, right?
Yes. Yeah. So, we can figure that out, because we don't have to be in two places. We can work through that.
Okay. So, do you want a motion? Yes, please. Before, Robert, what we're going to do is mean by Zoom or by hybrid before you get into it? I'd like to do it by Zoom if we can. Is that okay with everyone? Yeah. Yeah. All right, go ahead, Robert. Okay. So, I move that we extend the deadline for decision to April 17th and continue the public hearing to March 25th, 2026 at 7.30 p.m., which will be held virtually. I'll second. One moment. I know we're in the middle of this, but will the applicant request an extension of time, granting us an extension of time to file the decision until April 17th? Yes. Okay. And you'll put that in writing. Okay. And Jesse, you seconded? Yes. Okay. All in favor? Ira Montague? Ira, just unmute yourself, please.
Yes. Thank you. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. Thank you, everyone. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night. Thank you. Good minute.
One, I think they mentioned getting everything to you, getting everything to conservation. I do believe Darren is waiting on their final documentation on Board of Health also. All right. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you, Jason.
Thank you. I think this, hopefully, that everybody has seen this. There was a few more additional comments, but nothing major. And I'm hoping you can kind of run through this quickly. This is the reviewing the draft planning board reports for town meeting. Can you guys see it? It's on the screen. Can you guys see it? And Robert, just for next year, technically, you should have your report done 21 days after the hearing. Okay. Okay.
It's very small.
The font or what's small? Just showing up on the screen, very small. Oh, I can see if I can zoom in.
That's not too bad.
Better. That's better? Well, that's the same. Okay. It's better for me anyway. Is that better? That's better. Okay. So there was just a few minor changes from in the first paragraph, deleting a D. I think there was just a changing one of the letters. Yeah. It said proposed or purposed. Right. Yeah. It was a clinical. The second one is another deleted D here. And just stop me. If there's anything you want me to further discuss, please, please chime in. And that's everything for the first one. So any comments on the housekeeping piece? Or just go by one by one? Nope. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Moving on.
Flood plane. Just make it shoot. Oops. I can change it around.
Some minor changes. Manned. Bylaw. Delete. A lot of this is just deleting words. Deleting the word federal environment management agency and just keeping FEMA, which for some reasons I thought I kept it in originally. Um, I mean, most of it is just really clean up, capitalizing words, adding letters, words. Um, um, that's everything for that one. Anything else? Comments on that one? No.
Okay. Accessory apartments.
Get rid of the S set of units.
Uh, adding approval from plane board and accessory dwellings. It is larger. Just deleting some context of it.
Again, so just some minor changes. It's hard. It's hard to see exactly where they are. How come it doesn't just. Because this is a Mac word. Oh, Mac word, I see. This is different. Yeah, I'm on a MacBook. So it just shows up a lot different. So it's a little hard to see.
Um, and then on summary of key proposed changes, there was a suggestion to write if they otherwise meet the requirement for the by-right protection use units.
Originally added at a special permit, but someone suggested if you write if they otherwise meet the requirements for by-right protection use units. Does it mean comma, Robin? Um, yeah, probably. Okay. Um, yeah, I had suggested because otherwise it was not clear. Yeah. Um, was, to were, amendments, and that's it for accessibility dwelling units. And I believe that was it. I'm just going to quickly scroll through. And that's, that's it for the rest of the two articles. Was there anything else on the last two, the ground-mounted and the, uh, V20? Was, did anybody else have anything else to add there?
Robert, for, um, formatting. Yes. Uh, can we figure out how to get the formatting so that, um, we don't just have a header like you can see at the bottom of three with nothing underneath it or, or get them on a single page? I don't know. Yeah, I guess they can just, like, page break them. Yeah, just put a page break in. Yeah. I think after I originally had, I think it was on page breaks. Each one was on its own page. I can, I can change that. Well, I mean, they, they want the, uh, select board doesn't want to have lots of pages. So I understand why they might not want it on an individual page, but somehow they would just need to get the formatting so that it's real clear to people when they're looking at stuff, what the recommendation goes to, which are. Yeah, I will, I will, I'll clear it up before I submit it to the town manager's office. Okay. Um, I think that, that this will require, if you're all set, this does require a motion. Before we do that, um, I want to ask a question. Jesse, um, why don't you bring us up to speed on where we are or where you think we are with the ground-mounted solar photovoltaic installations one? Yeah, so there's been some emails flying on this. And of course, um, our friends at the energy commission weighed in. Um, they'd love us to push this off and wait for the energy commission or the energy, uh, committee committee committee. Yeah. So they're, they, they want us to wait. They're suggesting we wait. I mean, after reviewing some of the things that they sent, I'm fine with waiting. I just want their participation and input if we go to town meeting next year with another one of these. Um, so we'll see, we'll see if they actually do that or not. Is there anything that we really, really want to restrict? Like the, the large units and the battery storage, do we want to put those through now? So that we have those. I was just wondering about the battery storage too, because the materials that you, that were shared with us, um, this, it goes into effect that essentially as a bright goes into effect in October. So why not put the large restrictions and the battery restrictions in, and then we can, like we did with ADU is do what we have to do and then go back and do the, the things we're more likely to see in town anyway, that need more, you know, finesse next year, instead of leaving it completely unregulated, here's what's interesting about this. So it's not regulated, but the building commission actually has some guidelines for, for, um, storage systems.
I didn't even know about this until I found it the other day, but they're just guidelines. They're not, you know, it's not, it's not a hard and fast. Yeah. By law. Does it have stuff about how you have to, uh, decommission? No, definitely not. And it, and it also, um, it's done by kilowatt. Instead of size. Right. And that's, I noted that apparently that's how the statute is set up as well.
And so with the battery storage systems, do they have, um, kilowatt numbers, megawatt numbers 20 that I saw on the guidelines for the battery storage or the, um, for the, it's, it's, they call it energy storage systems. Okay. But essentially that's what they're saying. And it's 20 megawatts or 20? Kilowatts. Let me just pull it. 20 kilowatts? Yeah. Wow.
Uh, what, uh, 20 kilowatt hour. 20 kilowatt hours. Yeah. Of storage. Mm-hmm.
That's not very big. I don't think. No. No, and it, and it's just asking for them to submit plans to the building committee, the building, um. Oh, you're looking at the building department. Yeah. Yeah. No, I was talking about the, the state requirements. No, I'm just thinking, cause like, you know, they have some guidelines out now, but like I said, they're just guidelines. Even though teeth. Yeah, exactly.
So, I mean, like I envision if we keep this going to town meeting and having them all get up there and say, we don't want to, we don't want to have this one pass. Right. You know, and I don't want to deal with that. So that's what I'm leaning towards, just pulling it. But is it worth talking to them and seeing if they would agree that these really large, uh, you know, installations and the battery things maybe could use some, some regulation now, some by law, um, and then we can do the other ones in a more thoughtful manner for next year. Yeah. I can, I can ask them that. And for the, um, the smaller units, um, ground mounted ones, just at least putting something in about screening and, um, decommissioning. Sure. I'll toss that out there to them.
And do make them tell you what their plans are for the landfill. I did put that in there. I don't know if you saw that. I slipped it in there. Yeah, I did. Okay. So, um, we need to submit the report by the 27th, which is Friday. And, um, we need to do a report anyway. If we were going to pull this, I would suggest, um, making that a separate report on that zoning article so that it doesn't mess everybody up. Yeah. Yeah. And, and we would just have that, um, in our records. Um, oh God. Yeah. They can have two documents, one with the four, and then once with that separate, separate it out just in case it needs to be pulled. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I don't know about, I don't, it has, if, if it's not going to be pulled, it should all be together. It's too confusing to have multiple, um, appendices for us. Um, and I don't want to make life difficult for Robert. And the, uh, select board also wanted to have our report before they voted on what they thought about the articles. So, um, we could have a motion to approve the report, um, and then, uh, subject to, uh, creating a separate report just for the, um, ground mounted solar if we need to. Does that sound okay? Yeah. Do you think you can talk to them quickly? Yeah. After this meeting, I'll type an email up. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And get it out to them and just gather their thoughts. And then maybe tomorrow we can figure out what we should do.
Well, okay. Let's, um, vote on the report. Um, and then the board should talk about what we should do. Cause we can't, we have to make a decision now or, or, uh, authorize one of us to do the thing to pull the article. Cause we have to vote to pull it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, um, can I have a motion to approve the planning board report on five articles? Um, and, uh, with the proviso that if we pull, uh, the article on ground mounted solar, that that be put into a separate report, so moved, is there a second, second, all in favor, Robin Borgstead. Yes. Jesse. Jesse. Jesse. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Okay. So now let's have the discussion on what everybody's criteria are for pulling the article. So, because we'd have to have a vote and then we'd have to submit something to the select board withdrawing it. So to me, if we can't get the energy committee to come over to our side and agree that either the whole thing can go forward and we might amend it next year, or just certain provisions will go forward. And we might then add to it next year. If they're going to be opposed to either of those options, then I think it has to get pulled. If we can get them behind one of those two options, then maybe alter it. Yeah. I would go, I would go for the second of the options because, um, we've done it by size and the state statute apparently is doing it by megawatts. Yeah. And that would get confusing. I think that they can be meshed, but we'd have to do that separately. Mm-hmm. Sure. But the thing about, um, screening and, um, decommissioning, I can't remember what, what were some of the other provisions? We have this thing here.
Size, screening.
Um, we had, um, some factory fire code things for the, for the battery storage systems. Um, yeah, I mean, there was a, there was a lot in there protecting that is outside of the, maybe what the state would put in theirs. Right. You know?
So I, I mean, sounds good to me. Yeah. I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll pitch, I'll pitch them.
But then, um, so should we vote to authorize Jesse to make the changes? Yeah. If you can. I think so. And, and, um, and just let me know when I, I can, I think it has to come from the chair. So we can vote now on those things. Um, and then Robert can call me and I'll run over and sign the thing and then get it to the, um, when, wait one second. Um, uh, um, just want to see, uh, the report report. Does that have to be signed? March the 16th is when we have to have the final planning board articles to the select board. So we've got a little bit of time, but you need to, but we need to know what to do with the right. Right. You can also just submit it as a different appendix for now. Pardon me? No, it's just a, I submitted a different appendix now because it's going to be hard to get the answer from the energy committee when you're, when they haven't, haven't met. I'm just thinking of time. Oh, do we know when they're going to meet? I don't know, but if you may, if you make it into the appendix and explain the reason why we made two appendix, you know, a different appendix, two reports is just because just in case we need to pull it and we just want to, don't want to put the, uh, the same report.
Why don't you ask them how they would prefer that we submit it? Okay. Jalen or Kelsey, what works best for them so that we don't screw them up because they can always just exit out, you know, because that's the last one and they can just drop it. If you're not going to go ahead. Or just drop the text, drop the appendix or drop the text? Drop the text. Okay. Right. So I think we should, if we have to, I think we should submit what we've got. Yeah. And then we can just drop the other one. Um, and when you submit it, Robert, if you could on the, wherever it's got LLMM, if you could highlight that in yellow so that they know where to put new things, if they have to, the new numbers. You come at the top? It's all over. I had, I had put it in yellow, um, but you didn't print it out that way. It's at the headers. It's a, it's a, it's at the, in the box, it's in the headers and it's, you want it, you want it anywhere that where the letters are, right? Yeah. I can go back into that.
So if we wind up dropping it, then we would have to, in the header, get rid of that one to, in the box, get rid of that last one. Yeah. I don't, sorry. Okay. Okay. So, um, can I have a motion to authorize Jesse to, uh, speak with the energy committee to see if we can get agreement on those overarching provisions, uh, for the, uh, solar photovoltaic installation bylaw. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. So let me know what you need from me. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm potentially submitting one report on, by Friday. Yes. After talking to Jalen and Kelsey. Yeah. Tell her, tell them what you're, what the deal is and that you're submitting it, but that if we don't go ahead with it, we're going to just, we'll, we'll mark it up for them and just drop that last paragraph. And did that be signed? I don't recall it being signed, but. No, we haven't signed the reports. All right. Sorry, sure.
Um, who made, I'm sorry. Who made the motion in the second? I apologize. I made the motion and Ira seconded. Ira did. All right. I did. Perfect.
Okay. So I always meant that. Um, and for town meeting, each of us will deal with those things that we have to deal with, um, I did go back and, uh, on the, I don't know if I said this before, if I did stop me on the, uh, MBTA communities zoning change. Um, we did have an email, uh, or memo actually, um, from, um, Nina who had talked to, uh, the people at the fire department and had said that there was not a concern about, um, height. Uh, then I called to find out what the deal was. And, um, I don't think that they truly understand what zoning is versus anything else. He, uh, what I was told was I called the chief, but he wasn't in. And so he sent me over to one of his other people. Um, and they, he, the fellow, uh, said, well, you know, just stick with what you have and, you know, in your regular zoning for, you know, the, the 35 feet and, um, you know, and then if they need, if they want to go higher, then you can deal with it. I said, no, it doesn't work that way. We have a number and, you know, we asked all the questions. Um, and, uh, I know that there was a, um, uh, conversation with, uh, a property owner and, um, the people at the fire department to talk through, uh, what the issues were. They like to approve projects. They like to talk about projects. They don't like to do zoning, but you can't do the project if the zoning doesn't allow you to. Yeah. I believe that according to the fire, you did stop at an office and said they had to have a quick meeting about with the potentially proponent. It wasn't who is potentially willing to do something. And for now they're, they're fine. I guess I don't think they're super happy, but they're for now, they just wanted more information, which I'm like, yeah, well, they spotted, they see more information. I've seen, I've not seen any plans, so I can't. Right. And again, we don't zone for projects. My understanding was from having talked to, uh, that property owner and others that the issue becomes in order to get the financing, you have to show that you can put in X number of units to show such a, such revenue. And, um, the way it was explained was the big costs are on the ground and on the roof. And in between, if you can squeeze more stuff in, then it becomes economical and you can get financing. So that's the issue. And as I said to the, uh, police department or the fire department, you know, if you're never going to be okay with things like this, these Heights, then we're never going to have multi-family housing because nobody's going to put up the money to have it. Yeah. I think the, I think the fire chief explained that there's a, there's a path forward. They just got to like work together to figure out what that looks like. So. Okay. Well, hopefully he can give us something in writing that says he's fine. That'd be helpful. It would be helpful. Well, what did he offer any explanation for how he gave planning board an email that said it was fine and select board an email that said it wasn't no, but I could guess. Okay. Okay. Um, let's see what else is new. Um, I guess the minutes are next. And they magically appear. Oh, I hate this format. It takes up so much space.
Robert, was this one of the ones that you used the AI tool for? No. No. Yeah. I didn't. Yeah. I didn't think so. It was pretty tough. I have to say reading through it. It's, it's, it's not, uh, precise enough, but it's okay. Yeah.
What's, what's the AI tool you're considering using? Oh, well, I have one, but I think it should, I think it shuts off after two hours. Um, also this zoom meeting is being recorded. When it's recorded, there's a, I guess there's a zoom transcript that we can use, which I didn't know that, that we had. So like you're using like Otter, uh, Otter is, is we're using the free version is, is, is pointless because there's not enough, um, you've run out of time. Okay. So I think, I think we're going to try to use the zoom transcript that's coming from the recording after this meeting's over and try that. When it does a transcript, it's not word by word, is it? I don't know. I haven't seen it yet. Oh my God. If it is, you'd just be dead. I'm also taking down motions and votes right now. So I can just fill in the summaries later. I'm just, I'm trying to do all different things. Um, but it might be better in the future just to buy a false subscription to one of these, uh, AI software, once we figure out which one is the best and just pay for that instead of a potentially a minute taker. AIRA was using something. How do you like it, AIRA? I was using Otter and I, the first couple of times I used it, it was great. Um, and it did give me the full transcript, but I tried it the other day with, uh, with the, um, the, you know, the, um, the, what is it? The route 20 advisory board, whatever it is. And it only gave me the first part of it and it said, go to your settings to share this and it wouldn't let me in. So I think it's run out. So, um, I liked it when it was working. Do you not like it at all? Um, Robert? No, I, I, I haven't tried Otter because it's, it isn't, there's not, I looked at how much time I can get. It's like, it's not enough time. It would run out. Each month would run out of time. But if you bought a subscription, would that give us more time? Well, I would, I probably would have to try it out before I buy it. Um, but it's, that's a, that's a bigger discussion. I think, I think this is, might be the way we go, but we also want to think, um, holistically in the food of town. And if we're gonna do that, then the town should be buying one license together and then just be cheaper that way. Yeah. It's like the sort of thing that the IT department should research a little and figure out. And then it probably has to go out to procurement, you know? I don't know. Yeah. I mean, it probably under procurement. Well, you'd want test groups as well to make sure that it fit in with what they wanted. So would that be one license and then, and then so much per user, like, you know, a fraction of that? Depends on each, each, uh, each program. So I'm just trying different programs out. My take on it is if we're already using Zoom for the meeting facilitation, turning it on shouldn't necessitate a new procurement, but. Yeah, that's true. That's a good point. Yeah. You don't want a verbatim transcript. Yeah. You want it. You want an actual summary of what, what's going on. Not, not the, not the actual transcript itself. Although sometimes it's helpful to go back and look at it, but. Oh my God. Reliable. For when I was a road commissioner, um, I didn't do it. It was before my time. And I had to go back and look at minutes. They were like pages and pages. Well, I guess he's right. You can, you can knock a lot of that back pretty easily.
I don't want to be the one who has to knock it back. But you can knock it back. I'm going to knock it back. Okay. Okay.
Okay. So, um, for the minutes.
Pretty comprehensive. This was the meeting we had with, uh, with, uh, Walton road. And then we went after that meeting, went to the finance committee and discuss, and then went back after the finance committee, went back to the, uh, the existing OCOA room and then kept meeting about the brothers and neighbors. So this is about three, three meetings ago.
This is not it. You tight. You picked all this stuff up for a video. I didn't write this one. This was the, the minute taker. It's like the last, the last gift from the minute taker, right? One of the last ones. Yeah. Yeah. I wonder if she left, uh, she does, she does ZBA meetings too. She does both plan board and zoning board appeals. This is an awful lot. I had sent Robert some comments, which I assume are in here. Did anybody else send any comments in? No, no. I, you know, it was a bit of an odd one, but I thought it was okay. Yeah. I thought it was really odd, but I didn't have the energy to do any more to it. No. And it, it, it's funny cause it was the same note taker, but it read really differently. It was just, everything about it was sort of different. Like she's just on, she's on her way out. She's not thinking about it or whatever, but, um, it was, it was okay.
Yeah. I didn't spot anything that jumped out at me. That's wrong. I move, I move that we approve the minutes from one 28, 20, 26 as amended. Second. All in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. I reminded you. Yes. You met Lewis. Yes. So, Robert, for our next meeting, which is the 25th. No, that's today. Honest to God. Sorry. It will be 11th. Um, 11th. It's the 11th. Um, can we have the minutes of two, nine to 11 and hopefully two 25. Um, I wrote the two, nine, um, the two 11 are done. I believe that I need, is going to be saying that to Jesse tomorrow. I asked, I said tomorrow, the two nine and the two 11. Um, yeah, I, I, I did the, I did the two nine two days ago. Um, it's a quick summary. And I didn't write too much detail. You sent them, you sent it to Jesse or you haven't sent it. No, I, I, I, I asked, I need to send tomorrow so that, so that, so that Jesse has it the day after this meeting. So I have two nine and two 11. And then at two 25, I'm going to ask Anita to write when I'm on vacation next week. Um, hopefully early on next week, which I think we should be fine. Cause I wrote down all the, um, I have all the motions and seconds. So all she really needs to do is take the screen transcript and just fill in the summaries and then all the votes. I'll check them out. Um, what'd you say? I said, I'll check them out. Yeah. I asked, I sent them all just so you don't get confused. So we should, we should have two, uh, three, I'm hoping two out of three, um, be voting at the next meeting. Okay. Three, but we'll see.
Jesse, if you're running late on those, just let me know and I'll do them. Okay. I'd rather not do them, but it's just too much to go through at a meeting to try and make them make sense. I know. I know. Yeah.
Okay. So, um, for March the 11th, we'll have the minutes. I don't know if we will have, we may or may not have some materials. Well, we won't do it anyway from the Carroll school. We'll hopefully have the materials, but we'll have to look at them ourselves. Um, March 16th. Um, also on March 11th, we'll probably have a vote potentially for a, to offer a peer review for, um, a, a site plan that's coming, that's coming in or is in the process of being, um, certified as complete. I mean, right now I'm in the process of trying to, um, resolve with the applicant to make sure that his application is complete right now. It's not complete. And I've already sent him a notification and I think he's going to call me tomorrow to try to straighten it all out. Is this a Dover amendment one? It is. Yes. When I went out of the Dover uses, so four for four, uh, two, I have two, there's two in the oven. One is one, one is about to cook and one is, is going to be prepared in the next six months. Oh, Jesus. I'm trying to think. I mean, since I've been on the board, have we done anything other than Dover? Yeah, we've done a few A&Rs and we did. Um, we did the subdivision. Yeah, Cherena. Oh, and also, but we've done a lot of Dover amendment. Yeah. Only, it feels like only Dover. So, so goes our tax base, right? Yeah. Um, I'll also try to work with the, uh, the Department of, um, uh, facilities and I'm working on them because they, they gave me an update that they're, they're trying to work on the fencing for the COA. Um, and I let Julia know that to make sure she knows that Michael knows that we really need to hit that deadline in May. Really? You really, we can't. No, I told, I told the town manager that as well. Um, so I'm trying to put heat on someone else too, so that it's not just Michael that is known about it or is aware, but that Julia, Julia also is, is, uh, is aware. Who, Julie who? Uh, Gagnon. She's the, uh, assistant director. Oh, okay. Sorry. She's the one that was, that brought my attention at the energy committee was not crazy about the bylaw. Uh, and it was a little disappointed that she, that she was not aware of it, which I provided all the emails and all the information from the past with Abby and, and, and Olivia. And, and I said, I'm sorry, but we, we, we reached out to the department and they all knew about it. So yeah, I don't know what, I don't want to say. Okay. So, um, okay. You'll let me know you're going on vacation. So, um, Nina will let me know what she thinks we're going to be dealing with on the 11th aside from the minutes. Yeah, I would, I would reach out to her, um, if she doesn't read out to you on, on like Monday and Tuesday. I will. Um, and then our final, um, planning board articles are due to the select board by March the 16th. Um, I don't know at what point they're going to show them to town council, but I would think it would be a good idea for town council to see them. Yeah, that'd be helpful. So Robert, can you ask if, if they can. You can send them sooner rather than later. I'll ask, um, Kelsey. Yeah. You don't want to send the, um, the one Jesse's working on yet. No, I'll, I'll ask a vague, I want to, I'm not going to, I'll send the articles if she wants them again, but she hasn't, but I'll ask her in general when they, when town council is, is going to weigh in. Right. But I mean, for these, they should really look at them when we submit them. Yeah. And that's what they used to do. Yeah, I agree. Okay. Um, okay. Make sure we get the note about the Carroll schools extension of time. Yep.
And what else?
You guys can have fun. You guys can have fun with the cold weather. I'm going somewhere warm. Pardon me? I said, you guys can have fun with the cold weather and maybe more snow next week. I'm going to go somewhere. It's 80 degrees. Yeah. Getting out of this weather. If we can figure out how to bother you, we will.
Just call the, uh, just call the magic kingdom. You can find me there. In your spare time, um, look at the route 20 stuff. Yeah. Um, at, at the sections on zoning. And, um, I, I have a bunch of stuff that I've been saving that we've been talking about. Um, but if there's specific things that you want to have captured in zoning bylaw, just so we can start thinking about it, uh, if you could just put it in a list and send it to me or to me or to me or to the boy or together. Um, I, I guess send it to Robert and, and Nina, and then they can get it to all of us so that we can have something to start to work with. Okay. Is there anything else? Does anybody else have any comments and concerns? Not at this time. No. Okay. Everything's great. Jesse, have you been able to go to any of the meetings, um, for the committee that you're on? No, but I'm keeping track of all of the, um, outputs and minutes and things. And I do interact with them from time to time. Okay. It's been tough because they're, they're almost always at times where I have a conflict or. Well, we, we're winding up with that with Larry has it, you have it. And Nick apparently has it because I haven't seen Nick's name in any of the trust minutes. Yeah. Um, um, might reach out to him to see what's what. And Ira, have you been going to all of your meetings? I have. I, the only one that I have, which it's meeting was just the other day was that route 20 visionary committee meeting. And we have come up with a final report on that. So I think we're done. Oh, well, good. I listened to the, the, um, presentation. I was disappointed that there were so few people listening. Um, but I thought you did a nice job. I don't think there was anybody's people. Yeah. There were 14 people according to, in the audience, according to, um, the chair. Cause I asked.
Not many comments, but anyway, that's the only one that I'm assigned to. But if you, you know, if you want me to pick up CPC again, because Larry, um, seems to come up, it seems to be in conflict with the schedule. Maybe the two of us could share it or whatever. I think that the meetings wound up being at the same night and time as our meetings. I think that's the issue. Oh.
Also, I'm not sure how active they are now because I think that their work is done for Huntertown meetings. So it might be, might be a question for the summer.
Okay. Um, can I have a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you, everyone. Good night, everybody. Bye, everybody. Bye.