July 8, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

July 8, 2026 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

Good evening. It's July, Wednesday, July the 8th, 7.01 p.m. This is a meeting of the Wayland Planning Board. I'm going to call the meeting to order and take attendance via roll call. Jesse Newberry. Here. Bill Sterling. Can you unmute yourself, Bill? Robin Borgestedt. Here. Ira Montague. Here. Annette Lewis here. And when Bill Sterling unmutes himself, unless somebody can do it for him. Do you know how to do that for him? It should be. There you go, Bill. You got it. Okay. Bill Sterling. Here. Thank you.
For this evening's agenda, we have public comment. Hi. How are you? How bad? How about you? Is this the planning board? It is. Oh. Everything's online except for the people that couldn't get online. Yeah, I thought we had that. Okay. Can I continue with the meeting? Okay.
So, we have review and approve draft minutes of 527, 26, 610, 26. Then we have PB2601, continued public hearing, 1 Homs Road, formerly 67A Loker Street, management, supportive living residents, site plan approval. Then updates from the town planner and chair, fee schedule, planning department goals, small clean energy facilities, siting and permitting, status of previously approved projects, and anything else that the town planner has that's come up. Then board comments and concerns, I'm not aware of anything that we would be deliberating on that's new this evening. And then we would adjourn.
Who is, who can we hear talking? Is there somebody with you, Ira?
No, I hear it too. Can you mute yourself?
I don't know why it would be.
He's probably too close to Rari. It's echoing back. That's why. No, I had another meeting going on. I had to hand out for conservation. Sorry about that. Oh, got it. Okay, so let's look at the minutes of 5-27-26. Has everybody had an opportunity to review them?
Yes. Yep. Yeah. Any comments?
No.
Anybody else? No edits. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 5-27-26 as presented? I move that we approve the minutes of 5-27-26 as presented. Second. All in favor, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Ira Montague.
He's on mute. I know, but he has to get on mute because it has to go on the record. Annette Lewis, yes. And we're waiting for Ira Montague, unless he doesn't want to vote.
There you go. There you go. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Then the minutes of 6-10-26.
And I have a question. Robert, in the documents that we used during the meeting, I thought I wasn't online. It looks like they're dated the 10th. We didn't have them at the time. Were they? I thought that what we were looking at was dated on the 9th. Do you know what it was? I would have to go back to look at it. But if you say it was the day of the 9th, then I'll leave it to that. Well, I think we need to make sure because if we can't find any in the record that says the 9th, then we'll have a problem later on. So are there any other comments on these minutes? No. Robert, I'm going to suggest that we approve these minutes subject to you checking on the date of the plans. And again, I don't think that we looked at all of those plans. I think we only looked at one or two sheets. So I think we need to list which sheets we looked at.
So what is documents? So if you look at the site plan, you use this. Well, it doesn't even say what project it's for the site plan for. I mean, yeah, we can clarify that if you want. I can write out the sheets if you want. I mean, I think it would be helpful because I think we only we saw one or two. That's all that they put up. So if you could go back and look at that and and put in the name of the project, that would be helpful. OK. OK. Are there any other comments? Is this the document that Robert just sent us about one Hobbs Road you're referring to? Not just. He sent this a few days ago, I think. What he sent us today was the peer review.
Yeah. These are the minutes. Yeah. The minutes from that meeting, though. OK. I had one comment that I think is significant enough to bring up. When they talked about this, the trees that may be required to be removed, we had specifically said that they should consider the alternative of limbing up mature trees instead of removing them. And that was not mentioned in the meeting, and that was not mentioned in the meeting notes. I didn't remember it, but if you could show us where to put it and give us the language. It's the, I think it's the fifth paragraph after the Hobbs Street article countdown from there.
Right in there. Right in there. Well, you had the, you had the cursor in the middle of the applicant acknowledged that the, I can barely read it in such small print, but. The applicant acknowledged that the comment. That's the next one down. Oh, the one down. The second line says trees. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on sight distance. It says vegetation and trees. Right. Explain that existing vegetation trees may obstruct visibility. Yeah, I think that that will help when they confront people who want to save the trees to be able to say, we don't have to cut them all down. Right. What do you want to say, though? Why don't you give us the sentence that you want to say, and would it come after standards? Would it come after standards?
I'll have to look again at the fine print. Um, yeah, that's good enough place, I guess, that the applicant, um, should consider limbing up trees wherever possible in lieu of cutting them down, particularly, uh, mature native species. Say that again. The applicant should consider, but I would put it in the, in the sentence after that. Okay. Because you're talking about trees first. Yeah, yeah, right. Right, it should go after them. Right. Yeah.
Should consider. Limbing up? That's what it is, limbing up? L-I-M-B-I-N-G. Yeah, L-I-M-B-I-N-G.
L-I-M-B.
Yeah, that's it.
Limbing up to what? Limbing up branches, you could say, if you want, rather than removal of the trees. And you could even add, limbing up branches to four to five feet above finish grade. That's probably what would be required to have reasonable view of the side of the road.
Don't add all that. That's my explanation. I think if you want that other language, you need to tell them where you want to put it.
Yeah, I think, I think that's going to be up to their judgment when they decide. Oh, okay. If this is fine, that's fine. When we walk the site, they'll say. It's fine. History has to be cut down. Okay, great. Are there any other comments? No. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as revised and with Robert checking on the document, one document title? So moved. Is there a second? I second. Second. Okay, I think Bill got it first. All in favor. Got to move fast. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Bill Sterling? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Jesse Newberry, you're, yes. Yeah, I'll abstain because I wasn't there. Okay, thank you. So that's four, zero, and one abstention.
Okay. So can you, I can even look to see who's in the audience. Wait, we have about three, one minutes left. Just give it a second. So is Andy Rickard, is that? Yeah. Yeah, I am. Okay.
Are you going to elevate him? I like this room better. You do? Well, you do go there all the time. It's cozy.
Hi, Andy. Can you, can you say your name and who you're representing? Well, it's not 1015 yet. Okay, sorry. Yeah, we're sorry. It's way too much. I don't even know where Matt is. I only see. Well, they have a couple. Matt and Brandon, yeah. They're right for that.
So, Robert, we've gotten the update from the peer reviewer. Yes. That's what came in today? Yes. Okay.
One moment. Okay. I'm looking at the time. I'm looking at the, my cold white watch. I'll finish 15 seconds according to my clock. Watch. And you get something.
Yeah, it's 715. Great. Thank you. It's 715. And this is PB number 2601, Continued Public Hearing, 1 Hobbs Road, formerly 67A Loker Street, Oak Street Management Supportive Living Residence Site Plan Approval. This evening so far, we have Andy Rickert here. And Andy, can you state your name and who you're representing? So, yes, I'm Andy Rickert, and I'm part of Minuteman Arc, who is the nonprofit partner on this project.
Andy, we received the letter of intent, and I find it troubling. It's non-binding. You don't have a contract with them. And therefore, jurisdictionally, it doesn't meet the criteria for the Dover Amendment at this point. Okay. And that's making me particularly very nervous in the way that we view it. And I'm wondering how quickly you're going to have something.
So, I will go back to the CEO. So, first, I want to apologize that Matt and Brandon are here, as you mentioned, they are at a Conservation Commission meeting. Right. And so, Matt was hoping to jump off that at 715, that that would be complete by 715, so he could jump. So, I apologize that he's not here yet. That's fine. We've been trying to coordinate with the Conservation Commission, and they haven't responded.
So, yes, I will go back to the CEO about that. I think the challenge that we have there is that it is a new CEO who's been in the position since April. And so, there's some hesitation from her standpoint, from her perspective, to, you know, she was, she had reviewed the initial letter of engagement and then requested some changes, and this is the result of those changes. So, it sounds like I need to push back and add something that's more binding. Right. Because under the Dover Amendment, to get the educational and relief that you need, you have to either own, a nonprofit has to either own the land or have a lease for the land. And we don't have either of those conditions. Okay. And I know that Matt has said, oh, yeah, well, you know, that can be a condition. But I think it's more jurisdictional than a condition. I mean, if we could get away with it, maybe. But it's a little uncomfortable. Okay. Yeah, I think we were trying to draft that letter so that it would allow Matt the opportunity to work with another nonprofit, should Minuteman Arc not be able to fulfill that? The problem is he's not entitled to do that. Okay. To do the statute. He can operate and get a review, not as a Dover Amendment thing, but for Dover, he either has to be the nonprofit who owns the property or have a lease with a nonprofit. Okay. So, really, just to clarify, the letter of intent was never going to be sufficient. No. A lease or ownership are the two. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. That's, I apologize that we didn't know that before. Okay. Well, it's in the statute. I didn't mean to waste time. Yeah. It's in the statute, and that's what the language says. Okay. Because, yeah.
A lease or ownership. Okay. Yeah. Again, I'm sorry. And I'm sorry that you only went here to explain that.
Robert, what else did we have? There were some open issues still, right? You're muted. You're muted. You're muted. You're muted. I had a sidewalk a few weeks ago with Joe Desette, a town surveyor and a town engineer, to go through the trees. First of all, the trees along Locust Street, I believe, the ones with the driveway would be coming out. There's a few trees that Joe potentially said that could be proposed to be removed so that for viewing when you pull out to the right. Even though Locust Street is kind of a den and there's not much traffic that goes down there. And then we also discussed the fence and then the driveway on Alden Road to the south where the dump trucks or the trash trucks would be coming in and out. And since then, I've not gotten a – it's kind of no resolution. But we did have a sidewalk and from there, it's in Matt's hands. How did he want to decide? Let me give him some suggestions. There are – I'm telling you this, Andy, and you can get it to your people or they can watch this. There are standard traffic criteria under the AASHTO standards. And my recollection is that you have to be able to see X distance in either direction coming out of the driveway based on the speed limit and the rate of traffic going by at the 85th percentile. I think that's how it's worded. So if you guys can come up with what the traffic speed limit is and what's generally going by there and make sure that when one stands in the driveway, you can see that full distance clearly, that would satisfy the site plan or the site distance. And hopefully the DPW will be telling us. But I'm telling you, too, because technically that's something you need to think about. Okay. Under Dover, you don't, technically. Under other things, you do. And you want to be careful that it's not dangerous either. Right. Yeah, absolutely. Matt O'Connor is in the list of participants now. Okay. Great. Can you bring him up? I cannot. No, but Robert can. Sorry. Robert, can you promote him? Yeah, I understand.
So that was the first issue that I was saying is the trees. The second outstanding issue is this whole issue of the gross, the building height and been going back and forth with the architect on that and making sure that if the heights, if you have measured the mean height and I provided the architect, the definition from the zoning barrier, we kind of walk through it. What the definition of the zoning barrier is and how you measure it, anything under 35 meets zoning, anything over 35, we do have to require a waiver for the zoning by law. And they have to justify why they need to meet above 35 feet. So that's standard two. And then the third one is the one which I think got pretty clear now, which was a peer review letter. We needed some letter from the peer review consultant to say, give us thumbs up, everything is, you know, resolved. And I think we're almost there for that one evidence to the letter that was produced today by by Greg Roy of Dels and Roy.
For the second item. Yes. Do you think that if one measured it the way you're supposed to measure per the bylaw, that it would not exceed the height? I don't think it would. I don't think it would either when I looked at it the first time. I think that they should be good. But the plan has to show that it doesn't exceed it. Correct. I believe, Robert, sorry, folks, I had a hard time jumping from conservation. That's okay. And we understand. We tried to have them coordinate with us, but they didn't respond. So Brandon is still in that meeting. My understanding with regard to the height, Robert, I thought that the architect did do an additional sheet to show that the calculation does meet the standard, meaning he recalculated showing the new factors, I guess, that he now used. And we were under, and I think there's a page that he had emailed showing that. And he had emailed me saying that he had submitted that before the first, as well as the other site plan with regard to the site distance issues. We did resubmit a plan, and we pulled back the plantings to increase the site view from kind of looking up the hill from that back maintenance exit. So those two prints had been submitted on July 1st. Robert, you had looked at those, I think.
Yeah, I think, I'll put it on the screen. This is where I think, and I'm not an architect, but my understanding when you're looking at this is here's the bottom point, and here's the top point here. And it's measured from the mean. Let me get that right. Yeah, so that number there, 36.6, is the. So that would be above, and that would be above, that would be above the maximum height. Correct. So that's the one area that's above, but then when you calculate. I think for the mean, I think with the roof, this is all, it's all different with the roof. So if you have a flat roof, you measure the flat piece of the roof, but I don't know if you can see my cursor, but it's the piece of the middle where I think that's where you would end. And so if you're ending, if you're starting here and measuring all the way to, you know, somewhere in the middle where this would end, you're going to be under 30, 35 feet. Correct. And I think that when he. So I think he would want to move that down. I think he would want to move that down. I think he would want to move that down. I think he would want to, Bob would want to move that down. Meaning this measurement here, Robert, is not the one that is dictating the new calculation. This was an original measurement that remains on the plans, on the architectural plans. I think that there was a, a new page showing the calculation that we were under the requirement. Yeah. But it's not, it's not, it's respectfully, it's not all the different points averaged together. It's each point you have to look at. So like this one is perfect. You have to, you have to the bottom and then you measure it to the top 25.7, 25 feet and seven, seven inches. This one would be above. And so I think you would bring it down just a little more. I think Bob just needs to bring it down just a little more here. And then that would be under 36. Explain how come you, you bring the roof down. Am I supposed to be from the top, the peak? That's right. I agree with Annette. And then you measure from the average elevation to the highest point on the building. That's all. Then that one, that one would not make it. Then respectfully, that one, that one would be over above. That is correct. I have not done it correctly here. So Matt, then in that case, you had to ask for a waiver for, for being above 35 feet by one foot, six inches, by one foot, six inches. So my understanding is that you can have an elevation that does exceed if the rest of them are under. No, I think you're mixing two things up. You find out, well, there's one elevation that is the average grade point. Average. Well, nothing can be above that average grade point. I think it's a mean. More than 35 feet. That's it. That's how it rolls. It's just a simple map. Correct. So that 36 shows the entire length. I don't think so. Well, here's, go back and look at it. Where does it go to? It goes to the back portion of the building. It doesn't go to that solid line that's there above the aluminum gutters? That's the very back. Yeah, that's the back. All right. So the point is, though, that they should be measuring to this theoretical average grade elevation. They need to show that on this, and then they will determine. It's shown on a separate print. Well, why don't we figure out which separate print that is and get all the things together? Yeah, it was submitted on July 1st, yes. Is that the one from July 1st, Robert? Yeah, please. It's a different print. Doesn't. It's not. They did it wrong. This is the one from July 1st. It's updated architecture plans, July 1st, 2026. This is the correct plans. They just, the architect did not, did not revise the date on here. Okay. And I just saw, when I saw the nine, I think that what we had before, I was looking at this. And so when you check the date, you're probably right with your date, with the 10th. Yeah, if they checked it, I don't doubt that they got a correct number. It's just that we don't see it on this drawing, that's all. Is there a way to flip the page, Robert, to show the other drawings that were submitted as well on the 1st? This is what you, oh, you mean the other piece? Yes. I believe it's a separate and completely separate drawing demonstrating the elevation. Let me see. I can pull up on the website. Yeah, because this was demonstrating some other aspects, like the gas meters, for example, and the electric meters on the elevation drawing. Oh, that's fine. But all the documents need to match. I agree. You need to upgrade the other elevations so that they reflect what you have concluded is correct. We shouldn't have to grope through a set and find only one sheet that is telling you what the story is.
It's all in CAD anyway, so they can make that change in a half an hour. Right. I think that was for us for construction purposes so that we had that measurement. While they're looking at this, Matt, I just want to mention what I had talked about before you came. And currently, you've given us a letter of intent that is a non-binding letter of intent. Under the Dover Amendment, to be eligible for Dover Review, you would either need to be a not-for-profit corporation, or you would have to have a lease with a not-for-profit corporation in order to be eligible jurisdictionally for Dover to start applying. And we don't have that. And I asked Andy if there was a way that you could get us something more permanent that we could rely on. Because otherwise, and we could, with the height, if the board was willing, we could waive that requirement under the Dover Review. But currently, you're not under Dover, and you would need to get, you'd need to go to the zoning board for a change. So we've been talking about this since the first time you came in. We want to work with you, and we want to do what you need, but we cannot, I don't think, this is my own opinion, I don't think we can jurisdictionally approve this if you're not falling into the Dover criteria.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you want me to say it again? So, yes, I would like to clarify. I think that we initially had looked at what direction to carry this, and we were instructed to go to planning, and that we would not be going to zoning, to ZBA. That is correct. If you can qualify as a Dover Amendment use, the statute for Dover Amendment says that you are eligible for Dover Review if you are a non-profit educational corporation, or you have a lease with a non-profit educational corporation. That's Massachusetts General Law Section, Chapter 40A, Section 3, and I think it's probably paragraph 3. So that's where we are, and we do know that under paragraph 4 of that same statute that we can't impose certain kinds of requirements on you if you are a congregate living facility and all of that stuff, but we don't have anything that shows us that you are. That I am a non-profit because I've filed under Oaktree Management. Well, however you file.
There's Oaktree Management. When I looked at the non-profit list, I couldn't find it. That's correct. So Oaktree Management does not operate as a non-profit. Right. Minuteman does. So as a co-applicant, we thought that that was... Right. But they either would need to own the land or have a lease with you for the land, for the facility and the land.
And then I have a question. Is there a term on that lease? I mean, if you had a lease for one year, would that be... Oh, exactly. No. I mean, and we would need... We would have to... If they meant all of that, then we would have to condition it. And in the letter of intent, which is non-binding letter of intent, it says that they intend to have it for a minimum of 15 years. Oh, good. Right. Oh, good. But it's non-binding. And so we don't have anything real. Oh, good.
And so it doesn't satisfy you're saying the law because Minuteman would have to own the land. No. Or lease it. Or lease it. Or you'd have to have a lease with them. You don't have a lease with them. Right. Our intent is to sign a lease, but that doesn't help at this point. No, because what you've signed so far is non-binding, and it specifically says it's non-binding. So just thinking outside the box here, if there is a... Because many times there are separate organizations and corporations that are assembled for a specific purpose. So if the ownership is transformed into a third-party non-profit, would that then satisfy that rule? No. It has to be an educational non-profit. An educational non-profit. Right. So meaning, could the third-party educational non-profit assign it then to Minuteman? I don't understand. It's like a sublease.
I'm sorry. I still don't know. I don't know why you would want to do that. Why make it that more complicated? I think for Minuteman right now, I believe, Andy, it's a financial commitment. It's like the cart before the horse. So I'm telling them I have a building, and they're saying, well, no, you don't, because you don't have approval for the building. You don't have a building permit. So if I can get somebody else to take the risk, would it be assignable, I guess I would say. I'm not following the, I hear what you're, I hear the words. It's, I'm having trouble following. Meaning there's a, yeah, so the intent is a trip on that lease, so that I would maintain ownership of property. Right. Then the use in, you know, we could say in perpetuity, but, you know, we're not being asked that. We're being, we're saying, okay, 15 years is what we're saying. That if somebody else puts up the money, if we get, you know, funding from an educational Dover Amendment qualified entity out of state, for example, and then they would assign the use to Minuteman. And it is somewhat convoluted, because then there's another, there's a third party. There's myself, Minuteman, and then the assignee, the assignor, sorry. So the other, but the other, you'd need a contract. Correct. With the other. Correct. That's correct. That's correct. That's actually very similar to what happens on office buildings. That you have someone build it, and then they, they transfer it to someone who is going to just manage the property. And that becomes, I guess, in your case, Minuteman. Correct. They've become the manager of the property without owning it. That's very common in real estate. That's correct. Yeah. But that's why I'm asking the question, because, you know, I myself as owner, developer, contractor, and not a, you know, nonprofit educational entity. So that's what, that's why I'm asking that. So the, the downfall to that plan is that the, the nonprofit you're going to create is not, it's a, a management nonprofit, not an educational nonprofit. They need somebody else who's the educational entity to provide that function. So, yeah. So the, the middleman is really a management nonprofit, but I, it looks like John Sunith wants to talk. You're muted. You're muted, sorry. Thank you. So the, the, the main crux, what I hear from Ms. Lewis is that the, the LOI is non-binding. So what's the security that the town has that this project once built will be used as the way it is intended because Minuteman could walk away and will that. So pretty much we are used, we are changing the use or what is that zoned use of that space, but it can all be covered under a condition that the certificate of occupancy will be given for this only if this is this. No, no, no, the issue, the issue is, it's a jurisdictional question. We're not talking about conditions. In order to qualify as a Dover amendment use for an educational use, you have to have either the, the organization that is running the educational use has to own the property or have a lease with the owner. You don't have either. You don't have either. So for example, the Wayland housing authority would not, cause the Wayland would not qualify because they are not educational. Right. And is there another, what about the, uh, Wayland housing part? It has to be specifically educational. So, so they wouldn't qualify. There's not another town agency that would specifically qualify. Right.
Okay. So that's what I'm saying. If we have a, the, a Dover amendment qualified corporation sub essentially sublet it to minute man, because if, if, if the other entity gives us the, the master lease, they take the master lease, then they could sublet to minute man. Right. And then we would have something tangible. We'd say, okay, we have it. We can bring that. We can say, yes, we have building permit. We have, we have approval planning board approval. We have, we can go to go so far as to get building permit and say, you know, this is real. And then minute man could essentially, uh, sub would be a sublease is what it would be. But, um, when that, that we would have to, or the planning board would have to allow us to, uh, to, to do that. I don't think that we can stop you. But just as long as it qualifies, I guess, it qualifies, qualifies. It doesn't, right. Okay. So that's, so it doesn't matter how it is transferred or how it is sublet. Or taken over. Yeah. Just as long as you have a primary Dover amendment qualified entity. Correct. So, um, I see that your counsel is on the law and, um, it's in the audience. I don't know if, if you want to discuss anything with him or. Yeah. Mark, are you hearing the, uh, the concern from Annette, um, with the qualifying as, uh, qualifying for the Dover, uh, amendment? I don't know if he can hear me, if he's got his, uh, clicker off or his, uh, oh, there he is. Okay. Can I, am I audible? Yeah, we can hear you now, Mark. Thank you. Will you? And, and see if I can be visible. You're visible. I joined a little bit late because I was having technical difficulties, but I figured it out. Okay. This is Mark Lanza. He's representing Oak Tree. Yes. And I agree with everything, uh, Chair Lewis said. I mean, it has to be, um, you know, owned or leased, uh, by the nonprofit and used for the educational purposes. So you have to have both, you know, ownership and lease and use. And there's more than one way that it can be done. Uh, but, um, you know, when all is said and done, um, that has to be a condition. Uh, I understand it's jurisdictional, um, at this stage. But, um, in the final analysis, no building permit can issue unless, um, those requirements are met. So, um, I agree. So that, that is something that can't be a condition from the planning board. Well, it can be, it almost has to be a condition, um, but in order for the planning board to, uh, issue the, the site plan approval under, uh, the Dover amendment provisions of the zoning bylaws, um, it has to be owned or leased by the nonprofit. Educational entity, um, and the educational use has to be what is being allowed in that facility and entity. So what Mark is saying, I think is it's jurisdictional. It's not a condition. There are other conditions that we can do that aren't a problem, but this one goes to the crux of whether we can issue a decision. So, um, okay. And we've talked about this since day one, so it's not as wise. Correct. And, uh, and so is there, so there's not a, uh, an alternative way to approve it, um, other than Dover. Other than having ambassador leads. You can, you can ignore Dover and then for the height, you would need to, if you would be treating it just like a residence and you would have for the height difference, you'd have to go to the zoning board. So in other words, uh, I can refer to him as Matt, since that's where I refer to him. Um, all other provisions of the zoning bylaws will apply. Um, there would be no exemption or limited, uh, limitations on the ability of the town to regulate the use, um, as any other single family res or any type of residential use in the town. So that's what it comes down to. Um, so is there something we could concede to, you know, allow the, the town to not exercise Dover? You don't have to, you're the one who asked for Dover. Right. So we, right. And I, and I think that that was, you know, the most applicable, um, you know, path. I think that we may qualify under different categories. Um, I mean, unless, you know, and again, Andy, we could talk. Offline unless we're, we're, um, you know, very close. I don't think the issue is height though. I think they said they solved that. The issue is the use, right. In the residential neighborhood. Six units. Yeah. Right. The use by a nonprofit. Right. That, that's what you have to do. No, no, it's six separate units in a building. Right. No, it had nothing to do with a nonprofit. Oh, right. It'd be a multifamily. Yep. Yeah. Development. And I think that would be hard to get from the zoning bylaws the way they're written today. Right. Of course. No, I, I don't, I think they'd be hard pressed if you wouldn't ask them. So here's a question. Sorry. So, so ZBA hat doesn't have to use Dover with the, could the ZBA then, uh, grant, you know, acceptance or building permit with the condition of, uh, the occupancy induced without, without using Dover. They, yeah, but they have some guidelines for, uh, uh, zoning variance and, and you do have topography of the ground, for example, and you do have that on this site to justify what you're asking for. But I think the six units is the part that will be hard for them to swallow. Right. But it's within their jurisdiction. They can decide that they like it. And, uh, they may have neighbors who would object to it and they may end up in court if they do approve it. And they won't be applying Dover. They'll just be applying. Right. Whatever. Just for a variance. Yeah. But that's legal. You can do that. Ask for it. So, Matt, I guess we need to go back and determine if, uh, if we could do that, you know, satisfy the Dover or do we adjust the, the plan so that these are not six units, but it's one six bedroom residence. Let me ask a net a question. Um, where would legally, if, if they decided to form a trust, let's say, that's going to be a real estate trust that will own this property and includes. Uh, uh, educational facility, let's say, a minute man and two other owners. What is the percentage of the trust ownership would you need in order for them to qualify as owners that need your standard? Although that's lovely. Actually, the statute talks about educational corporation. It doesn't talk about any other kind of an entity. Okay. But it could be an educational trust that they form for the purpose of this one piece of property. The statute talks about an educational corporation. Yeah. So they can talk about a trust. I just, I just looked at it, um, as exactly what the statute says and probably ought to be amended, but that's what it says for now. Well, the tall statute should be amended, but. So they can form a corporation. Same thing is true though. I mean, it's something, it's just a matter of legal document that you sign. So they could form a, maybe I used the wrong word, but supposing they form an educational corporation and they say this, for this purpose of this property, this corporation is going to form. How much percent ownership has got to be the, uh, minute man aspect? Or is that not even coming to play? I don't think that comes into play. The whole, the whole entity would be an educational. Yes. The whole entity would be an educational corporation. I think so.
I didn't write the statute. Unfortunately, it would have been easier to read if I had.
So, um, Robert, um, go through again so that Matt hears what's still open. And then we'll talk about where to go from here. So we have the trees and the fence and the public shade tree hearing that needs to be done for any trees removed in the town right away. That's the DPW, correct? Correct. And, yeah. And planning board together. Is that, it's not a scenic road though? It's not a scenic road. So it wouldn't be us. It would just be DPW. I thought the planning board has a big approval too. Only on the scenic road. Then it would, then it would just be DPW then. W. That's one. The other one is making sure that we're straight out with the, uh, height, making sure that says clear if it's not cleared yet. And then the peer review, making sure that we're okay with the peer review, which I know we didn't get much time to look at. I know I sent it over midday or late afternoon. Um, but when I quickly read over, it didn't seem like there was many outstanding issues. There was one question about IRF movement. I know we discussed this on different, uh, site plan approval that, that the planning board cannot approve, cannot, uh, under Dover, just under Dover piece. It cannot, uh, you know, requiring a special permit for IRF movement. Um, so I'm not sure that's what he, what, what Greg Royal is getting at, but I know that's, this is for a different project. We know we couldn't, we could not, um, require that. If this is a Dover project. Yes. If it is Dover. And if it's not a Dover project, we're in the wrong forum. Yes. So. Right. And that, and that statute is 2000 cubic yards, isn't it?
The requirement. Yeah. I thought, so you, the town requires, there's a certain, uh, yardage or, or I think it's spelled out as yardage, not tonnage, uh, that you, if you exceed, you need that special, uh, permit, earth, earth moving permit. Yeah. I believe it's 500 cubic yards, but again, it's unclear, but the way I read it is that there's an exception. If, if, if the fill is required for foundation, septic systems, parking areas, which in this case it is, however, they still require that we do the calculation, which we did and we provided. So I, in my opinion, I don't think we need that variance. Well, you wouldn't, you wouldn't need a variance anyways. If it were Dover. If it was Dover. I'm talking in terms of Dover right now. But regardless whether it's Dover or not. I think we need to talk in terms of both right now. But if, but if, if not on a Dover, then, then, then you have to look at that and you may, you may need to require this perspective. Right. And, and they think that, that they fall within the right, um, calculations. Correct. Because it's the foundation in other things and they probably do. I didn't say, I lived, I lived, I went for, I didn't see anything else that stuck out to me, um, as things that were concerns. I think most concerns that we have are height, the trees, and then the status of, is, is it non-profit? Is it non-non-profit? Do you need to Dover or do you have to do something else? So, um, for the height, are we comfortable that it doesn't exceed or are we still looking for the right plans that make it all clear?
Well, if they said they, they said they, I know what they said, but we don't, I would trust, I wouldn't see it on the plan. They have to show it. Right. So we haven't, we, we don't think we have it on a plan. Is that Robert? On the firm's unit. The plans I got, I got on, on July 1st were two pages and I actually put them together to make it easier to, to, to read a line. And that's the, the, the pages I showed you for those, the ones that received on July 1st. Right. The plan before that would, would, would came in on June 12th.
Yeah, it was, it was July. My understanding is that, uh, the architect sent it on July 1st. Right. So I think what Robert is saying is on those plans from July 1st, you've got different measurements on two different plans. And we need to have the same stuff on all the plans. On all the elevations. Same elevation. We can't, we can't, we can't have different elevations on different plans. Yeah. And, and we're just, we're missing one number, which is the average grade. Yeah. And, and somebody has got to calculate that. And once we have that, this will be simple, but until we have that, we're kind of stuck without the number we need for height. Yeah. There's one other issue too. And Robert, I think the fire department, the fire chief had some concerns that might be difficult to resolve in terms of being able to turn fire apparatus around in either of these parking lots. So that might also take a little more work. And does Matt have everything that we've received? He has the stuff from the fire department too?
Yeah. So we received those comments and essentially we've revised the plans in accordance with his comment, which was we widened the curb radius at the intersection with the street. And we made sure that we had a drivable curb. A mountable berm. Yeah. That's the plan's been revised to meet that. And then those plans are dated, what date? June 30th. June 30th? Yes. Okay. Yeah. And we did add, incidentally, we did add, because there was a question about an additional hydrant. We did locate that on the revised plan and just label it if required. I think that, you know, Mark may have an interpretation of the necessity of installing that additional. There are two other hydrants with respect to the measurements from the FTC, the fire department hookup. So we, but we did address that fire department concern by locating it on the revised plan, as well as all of their other, you know, items. We did see what Mark wrote. So, and again, if this is Dover, we're not telling you, you have to do it. But the fire department could, so that when you go to apply for a building permit, they could say, nope, can't have it because you got to make sure that, or have the town put it in and you pay for it or something like that. Yeah, so it's on the plan with a note, you know, if required. Yeah. If that's, you know, okay. Yeah. So at this point, Robert, do you need the plans that you, the two sheets that you have? Yeah. Need to be coordinated, right? They need to get the same height numbers and the same average grade to measure from on both of those plans. Is that correct? Yes. Because they're a little bit different. Okay. So you have decisions to make on what you want to do. If you can push the arc to get some kind of a lease, that would be the best. Um, but, you know, we leave it to you right now. We had an extension of time until July the 16th, which we're not going to be able to meet. Um, we can do two things. Uh, we can deny this, uh, which I don't really want to do. Uh, or we can get a much longer extension of time to give you whatever time you need, but it has to be a date certain, uh, to get what you need to get in place.
Could we, um, I don't know if Annie is in a, Annie is in a position to comment on a specific date. I don't want to push Annie on that. Is there a, uh, would we have to give you a date right now? You have to have a date to continue until, and then we can continue it again if you wanted to do that. But I would suggest picking something, not like in two weeks, but picking something a little longer, getting in before that, if you can, the coordinated plans, because you're going to need them if you have to go to zoning board too. Um, and, you know, we can see where you are at that point in time.
Okay. Um, so, so next, after July, next July meeting, we have August 12th and August 26th. And September the 9th and September the 23rd. I think it appears that you're looking for a little bit of a long deadline to figure out. So. Where, where are you, Matt? Do you know, with, you know, with, um, conservation?
Um, I had to leave. Yeah, to leave. I can answer that, Matt. So, um, we're, we're pretty much, uh, on the two yard line, but the, the one thing they did say is they wanted, uh, planning board to approve it prior to them approving there.
Oh, gosh. Hey. Tell them, tell them soon as they approve it. We'll look into it.
So, Matt, do you want to, um, to the 12th? I mean, you're not going to be, no offense. You're not going to be ready by the 12th. And then when was the next date, uh, Robert? August the 26th and September the 9th. I mean, again, I don't know how quickly you can get stuff organized with. Yeah. It's basically the three items, right? It's the, it's the coordinate the plans to demonstrate clearly the height on all plans. Right. Right. Right. Um, uh, either a lease from the arc or a, uh, or, you know, or a, um, educational corporation to, you know, financially commit, you know, sign a lease. Um, and then what was the third thing? It's, you could buy it. Did we say that earth moving? We've, we, we're on a common understanding that we don't. We're probably okay with the earth moving for us. The screening of the road, the intersection. Yeah. The intersection. That's important. That, so that's on the print. That is on the print. We've pushed everything back. Right. And the sight lines we were waiting. Um, we talked about this, their AASHTO standards. Oh, DPW. Sorry. The third thing was DPW. Sorry. If, if they can't move as fast as we would like them to, their AASHTO standards. And you look at what the speed limit is on the property. And then you look at a little bit higher than that for what 85% of the traffic does on that street. And that's AASHTO? AASHTO. AASHTO.
AASHTO. I know that, Matt. Okay. It should be about 150 feet. So we can show a dimension. It should be 150. Okay. Um, and so you just need to know that particularly on the, um. Show that on the plan? Or is there a separate calculation to show that? Or, um, how would you like it? Great if you wanted to show it on a plan or put it in a document that that's what it is. But it's just, it's that one driveway that. Correct. On Alden. That is the issue. Yeah. And you have to be able to see 150 is what you think it is? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Uh, on both, in both directions.
Standing at the curb. Or, or, you know, what, yeah, or where curb would be, right? Yeah. Right. Yeah. It's five feet back from the gutter line, three and a half feet up. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, again, just to, sorry, guys. Um, the height specifically identified and remove any of those confusing other numbers. The DPW, uh, in the right of way to, to remove the trees in the right of way. And then the, uh, uh, the, uh, the educational corporation. Well, we added a clause that I want you to be aware of either remove the trees or limb them up. There's going to be some opposition to removing mature native species. So if you can just limb them up to a five foot or whatever the rule of thumb is for visibility, then you save the tree and you're saving the environment. Conservation is going to like that. And so I did mention that actually. You really need to mention that. Yeah. Yeah. Actually I did. I did mention that. Um, yeah. Cause we did show, uh, on their tree count, um, on the tree counts that we proposed to conservation, we showed the trees on our property and in the right of way. Great. And that question did just come up. So I was also describing actually what you folks said about limbing them up to maintain that site distance. Yeah. So, um, again, for the things that you need to do, I don't know how quickly. You can get the big piece together, but, um, do you think it would be better to go out a month or a month and a half or two months? I'd like to, I'd like to, if it's okay, you know, keep your attention and go out a month to mid August. If that's an available, uh, uh, date. Yep. And let us know in advance where you are so that when we plan the meeting, we allow, uh, you know, not too much time. Even if we're going to have to get an extension. Right. Um, Robert, could I ask that, uh, date again in August, August, the 12th, that was August 12th. Yeah. Cause I actually am going to be, uh, traveling, transporting, uh, kids back to school. I'm just, uh, but I think. Is that an okay time or does it need to be different than that for you? Oh, so, um, what's the next date after that August? August the 26th and then September the 9th. Yeah. So the 26th, uh, yes, works for me.
26th. So, uh, if I could focus on those, uh, I guess three things, right? Um, yeah, so we'll put you down for 715 on August the 26th, um, and we need an extension of time for writing the decision. Um, and I'm going to suggest rather than doing this piecemeal, um, that we go to September the 23rd, um, for an extension of time for a decision. And if we get everything together, um, by the 26th, you'll have a decision well before that.
Okay.
So are you willing to give us an extension of time for a decision until September the 23rd? Okay. And I'll follow up with, uh, DPW. I know that they. Actually not the 23rd, excuse me, make it the 25th. Is that Friday? No, not the 25th, the 20. Wait, that's Friday. Are we going to, we're going to be back in session on Friday, you guys? Yeah, it's only the summertime. Okay. So that would be September the 25th, an extension of time for rendering a decision until September the 25th. Um, okay. I'm sorry, Matt. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, no, no, not at all. Please.
The three, which is the, uh, the Dover corporation, the height clarity, uh, to co-mingle those two sheets, uh, and then the DPW really distance, which is, which, which speaks to site distance. Cause I'll, uh, I did, he, I don't think they had a date that they, um, but I can follow up again with, uh, with him tomorrow. So yeah, you'll have to tell them which trees and you want to get on their list because they're going to have, have tree hearings in the fall and in the spring. Yeah. So I think we've. I believe you emailed them, Matt. And yeah, they, they mentioned, uh, it was going to be late August for the tree hearing. Okay.
So if I, would I, I guess I could contact you guys again, prior to the 26th, seeing if we would be through with, uh, DPW's tree hearing at that time. Right. And they might tell you that they want our decision to, um, so, so far, I just want to get the sense of the board. Um, does anybody have any other issues with this application? No, really the same issues. Okay. Everybody feel the same? I have no other issues. I think we've mentioned the ones that are important. Yeah. Okay. So I think you have heard that we're favorable to do it. Appreciate your patience. Really? Yes. Do you want a motion in that? Yes, please. Okay. So I move that we continue the public hearing to August 26th, 2026 at seven 15 virtually. And, uh, the applicant will file an extension to September 25th, 2026 for the decision.
Second.
Um, all in favor. Is it the 26th or the 20th? Yeah. The 23rd would be the hearing night. That's a Wednesday. Yeah. The 25th is for the decision. That's the Friday. That's the Friday decision. September 26th, but the 25th. Okay. Okay. Um, uh, by roll call, uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Okay. I hope you can resolve this. Yeah. Me too. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you all very, very much. I appreciate your patience. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night. Um, Robert, will you check in with conservation? I mean, I've been sending them emails, but they haven't answered. I'll check in again with them. I talked to her today. Okay. Just asking what was, what was going on. And I provided the update. What I knew, all the information that I provided her already. So. Does that have to go to Linda or is that Sean? I talked to, um, Linda today. And I've been writing to both of them. Yeah. But they haven't responded at all.
Yeah. Not sure. Great. Okay. All right. Moving on. Updates.
Um, I refined the fee scheduling. Uh, I print that into an Excel file. And while I'm doing that, I've been also working on a lot of the rules and regulations for some of these, uh, ADUs. Um, one that doesn't affect us is, um, also the, um, the pickup window. Um, and I keep working on that and with Anita, um, also the, um, um, I'm the only thing. Oh, outdoor dining. I've been working on that one too in connection to some of these draft fee schedule. Um, also the, what's really important is, is getting the MBTA one finalized. I think I moved it down a little bit. Um, um, I proposed, I think I originally proposed 3000 plus $50 per dwelling unit. And I went back and thought about it for a while and looked at some more research and I actually brought it down to 1500, but, but still kept, I kept a, uh, a, um, amount per dwelling unit. And, and I have a feeling that we're going to need that one very soon, just as a, you know, just have a, I mean, I got a heads up that might, that might be coming down the line soon. So, so in looking at these, Robert, between a subdivision and a conservation cluster, they're different amounts of money. And I was wondering why.
Oh, maybe let me look at a subdivision and a subdivision and a conservation cluster. Because one is a such problem and one's not. Yeah. Let's see.
Clusters, 1500. 1500. And the subdivision was a few thousand. Yeah. Cause some of them are based on the road and stuff. What would you suggest? I don't know. I was just wondering what the thought process was. Well, these are. I raised, I raised some of the, some of the fabric phase, but I, it's not like, it's not like conservation clusters, something brand new that we just, that we just passed, you know, a year ago. Now we're creating, you know, a fee schedule.
If you check other towns or in comparison. We're very, this is very, very close to where AdBellis is charging. I mean, we've been charging on the smaller side for years. This hasn't been updated in 20 years. So since, according to one last one I could find that was actually approved by the planning board was 2004. After that, it was, it looks like it was approved, but just approved by the town planner himself. So, uh, 1500 for the filing fee conservation cluster and then you get sub-division.
I mean, you could, you could, I mean, oh, 15, well, so you have conservation cluster is 1500 and then also a defendant subdivision is also 1500 if with a prior permit plan. So it's nothing, nothing too crazy off. I mean, yeah, a conservation cluster could be a little bit smaller, but. So what, again, what town are you comparing these two, what towns around us? I've looked at a town around us, uh, Concord, Lincoln, Weston, and this is very up to par. This is nothing, nothing crazy.
And then the MBTA one, I looked at a town that have MBTA and actually using it today.
So I'm not, I'm not really concerned.
If it, in visual ones, you'd see that, that, that might be, they need to take a look at it. I can do that. But overall, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not super concerned.
Just looked like the cluster was a better deal than the, uh, multifamily housing district and then a subdivision. And I just, it just seemed low because the subdivision can just be two houses just for the road. Well, yes, but then also that could be a mechanism from the town to try and encourage more conservation clusters by making it a little bit, a little bit cheaper to encourage. Do you think the application fee of what you're talking about is going to make a difference? That's the way they go. $1,500?
Yes. You do? I don't understand what your question is. Explain, Ira, what? You're thinking, you're thinking just because it's cheaper, they're going to go that way instead. Oh, yeah. But I don't think so either. Yeah. I don't ask the reason, but. If they got their mind made up on what kind of project they want to do, they're just going to go that way. They're not looking. It's not that much money. Yeah. It's almost like $150,000 maybe. Yeah. I think to me, as long as it's in line with the other towns around us, I'm fine with it. It's good that we have conservation. The other towns around us have different, have a conservation cluster. Yeah. And it's less than their subdivision permit? I didn't, didn't double check that piece of it. I think you just double check that. Okay. Not that we have any giant tracts of land, but does it make sense to have a subdivision fee that's based on at least tiered for the size of the project? I mean, if it's a subdivision for, let's say, less than four, you know, properties that are going to end up, you know, the result versus if it's going to be, you know, 50 units or something like that. But what if we tier it so that it's not as expensive to just take your property and make it into two as it is to take a big piece of property and put, you know, 20 condos on it?
I have never seen that being done, but I can also go look at other towns. Well, don't we want to be cutting edge, Robert? Yeah, we want to be innovative. We could be leading the charge here. But I also want to make it simple so someone can pick it up and realize what the cost is. Yeah. But if you've got somebody who's going to build 20 condos, they're a professional, they've hired a lawyer, they've got, you know, all kinds of people working on it. Whereas someone who's just got a larger than usual, you know, instead of building an ADU, they're going to subdivide and make two pieces of property. You know, maybe we can encourage that sort of development. Yeah, I'll take a look at that. By having a reasonable fee. I'll take a look at that one in the cluster and see what else, what people are charging for clusters, just to make sure that we're in the right line. Yeah. You should find out what that huge project on 20 and Weston costs. 40B, it's a 40B. Oh. That's a 40B. That was not a suggestion. That's being developed by Mill Creek, who was going to develop in Wayland, but we withdrew because we got to save harbor. So is this rental? The one in Mill Creek? Weston. From Mill Creek. I, yeah, I think, I actually don't know. Okay. That sounds huge. It's huge. Maybe you probably, I'm pretty sure it's probably ownership. If they're building an economy, then it's probably ownership then.
But I don't know, I don't know much about it. I've not seen the plans. I just know everyone drove by and I'm like, oh, this is pretty big. In the Senior Housing Overlay District, which we're probably not going to have anything anymore because it's already, it's where Traditions, or not Traditions, whatever they call it now, where the Greenways is. Was that filing fee $3,000 always?
Let me see. I think I just increased it. Because I don't, I mean, it's already, at some point, maybe something will happen, but I can't imagine what. It's already built out.
Let me look.
It was not $3,004. I think I just increased it. $2,004. Yeah, I mean, $3,000, well, again, we're not, I don't think anything is going to be there. If it needs an amendment, I think it was a special permit. So if it needed an amendment, you would go to the general special permit. Then we can just, we can, we can all just leave it $2,000. It's not, I cannot, like, it doesn't matter to me. If he was like, oh, that's fine. We're just leave it at $2,000. We're not going to probably get anything. It's not, it's not that ideal. I can just keep it at $2,000. I'm not going to, I'm not going to lose sleep on that.
What did everybody else think?
Any thoughts?
I think you're right that it's an obsolete designation. Yes.
Okay.
I mean, this is basically fine. From my point of view, I'm just thinking about number of units versus the cost of the permitting. Because for the, and again, we're not going to probably have anything under the Senior Housing Overlay District, but there were X number of units in there. There were houses, there were little apartments, and then there were condominiums, and we don't have any kind of a breakout for that kind of thing. And I saw that you have it in some of them, in some of these categories, but not in all of them. And I was wondering if we needed to be more uniform. The only one, I think the only one breakdown was, was the MBTA, and that was something, because that was a brand new one. But I could also increase the, I think the MBTA one was because, just give it, that one was to give a tear in case someone comes in with, you know, four units. Yeah. You know, you're not getting charged $3,000 for four units, but you're getting charged a base fee plus X amount of units wherever you're building. Right. But the MBTA one was always brand new, so that's why you had it. But the ones in the past have not been tiered or been having any kind of, like, X per number of units. Except with, and it wasn't in the zoning, it was in the development agreement for the mixed-use overlay district. For each time they created another housing unit, they had to pay several thousand dollars. Yeah, you're right. That is in there. I have seen that before. All right. I'll take another look at this again.
Yeah. I want to make sure this is done right before we, before we, before we, and with the mixed-use overlay district, you might want to think about for, if there are residential units, because we have zoned it for residential under the MBTA. Well, maybe that's where it goes. Never mind. Forget it. And you are charging per unit. And you are charging per unit. Yeah, I think, I think what would be helpful is to approve the MBTA piece, so we can at least, like, publicize that piece, because that's going to come down. I think we can approve, I think, if you want, we can approve all of them subject to amendment. And then you'll have final stuff that you can put up on the web page. Does the select board or anybody else have to approve this? I don't think so. I did, I went to talk to the time manager, and I was like, no, Ashley, it's just the plan board, just the elected board, and it doesn't fall, it doesn't fall on them, unfortunately. Right. It's under a state statute that allows us to do it. I know that they like to know, and, you know, if you want to run it by them and see if he's happy, or run it by Brian Kemeny and see if they're happy, nifty. But what do the rest of you think? Would you like to? Yeah, I think it's, I think it's a great idea to approve it, subject to amendment by Robert. Oh, yes. Yeah. Sure.
Okay, and you would let us know what changes you're making, and then we could vote those two, and then you could put them up. Okay. Okay, so can I have a motion to approve the fee schedule dated July 1, 2026?
So moved, subject to, subject to amendment by Robert, right? Well, we can do that if you want, or we can have him come back and tell us what the amendments are. How would you like to do it? Whatever you want.
Second, what's your money? I think we want to see the final. Yeah, I'd rather come back. Yeah, you got to come back. Yeah. That's my decision. We want to talk to you to point out where he just changes things, and, you know, the changes are like, we didn't change that. True. Okay, so then I move that we approve the fee schedule dated July 1, 2026.
Okay. Second. All in favor, Jesse Newberry? Yes. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Bill Sterling? Yes. Annette Lewis, yes. Thank you for doing this, Robert. Yeah. No problem. On the spreadsheet that you have, is there a way that one could get it printed out and be able to read it? Yes, Annette. There are. There are ways. You can do it yourself. I try. There's a way to, like, be more creative. It might be really, really, really small. That's the problem. Yeah, it's really small. Yeah. But, yeah. I'll take a look. Because that was an easier way, sort of, to look at it for us. Okay. Update two, I provided the planning department goals, which are very similar to the ones in the past. I think I have an idea, too. Let me make sure I did. Yeah. It's in the packet. I posted that one, and I posted the planning board. Work with the land use department to streamline process of the land use permits, which is something we've had in the past. Now that NERI is not working on the town, I've taken more of a charge. They're trying to, especially the land use boards or land use meetings, department meetings that we had. If we've had, we're having one or two per month, and then having also an offset one hosted by the building inspector for OpenGov, which I'm not as involved in, the online permitting stuff. Reviewing any kind of application material for the planning board and design review board, or the review advisory board. Try to develop more practical methods to increase that under-owned tax base. I've been working with the EDC on that. Adding new housing units on the NBTA, NGL 48, section 3A, which potentially could happen next fiscal year. Start rezoning process on Route 20. We've been working on that and trying to keep, been vetting a, potentially some law firms to help us out with that. And complete an update to the existing housing protection plan. The request proposal is out right now. And we're waiting, we'll probably get some responses, final responses by Monday. And then we'll be working with someone from the housing partnership, Aniri, not Aniri, Anita, and then also Kelsey, the procurement officer on those. And we're picking, hopefully picking someone next month. And then the big one, adopting some kind of ground-mounted solar zoning by-law in compliance with the clean energy and infrastructure city and permitting requirements. So very similar to what in the past, but still have a lot to do overall. With the last one, Robert, has anything happened internally in town? Not internally in town. Michael was out for a week before the holidays. He just needed, unfortunately, he needed to take time off and he, he saved too much time off for the very end. So I've not got anything from him. But I do have a webinar tomorrow with the Measure West and the Southwest Advisory, the SWAP regional, sub-region group, and they're having a DER webinar tomorrow about that. So I'm going to hear more about that. And I did invite Olivia to, to also, if she, if she wanted to attend that webinar too, to, so that we can also be on the same page on that. But nothing, nothing has been, nothing, I've not had any meetings with Michael or nothing yet about the responsibilities yet. So it's still a little bit of lingo. Right. I'm trying to gather more information as I can. There's an entire process that has to get set up in town. I know. Where all the boards are coordinated and all the departments are coordinated, and there's got to be somebody in charge of coming up with a draft contract form of what the town expects to get out of such projects. And it's just, it's a lot of stuff to do. And we, we could be receiving applications now as of July 1st. But by October 1st, we have to be organized to be able to have consolidated permitting from multiple boards at the same time. So we, Robert and I did meet with the town manager and the facilities people and the energy, chairman of the energy committee, and tried to impress upon them how much work there needs to be done. But I guess we're not, but I guess we're not anywhere yet. But we will start on drafting bylaws because we can't wait for the state any longer because they still haven't gotten any out. And Annette, the chair, did ask me to put together all of the outstanding planning board decision conditions. Currently today, I have all in different decision highlighted, but I did provide the board a page detailed all of the different conditions that are outstanding. And those include from Carol School, which nothing has happened yet. 169 Rights Road, things did happen, and then it got stalled because of conservation got denied their permit. So nothing has, nothing has, has been done since the denial, which was a few months ago. Various Christian academy, which they didn't have started work. And I did list in all of these ones, the start, the date they need to start, the date they need to finish, so that it's very clear. And I also put that in my own calendar, personal work calendar, the deadlines, so I know when they're coming up. Sub-direction, Sharia Road, there's been some progress, but not as much. And then the master mixed-use overlay, which dealt with the COA, and there are countless of outstanding conditions. And most, and most of them that are outstanding are, they need to record this decision at the registry of D's, and they have not done so. They've been told to do so, so. And they need the S-built plans. They need the S-built plans, too. But those ones going back to the amended decision from two and three, they just have not recorded it. They, they were doing, they recorded the first one, and then the person who was, who was helping them out, left the company that was helping town, and they just have not been recorded since. They can actually, they could ask KP Law, you can just, and you can probably do it yourself, you just file them. I mean, you can do it electronically, you don't have to. Absolutely. Yeah. No, they absolutely can. But that would be something, when they do continue the S-built plan, that I would be like, you do need to go back and record these. So, I'm not going to, like, let them out the hook on that. Those need to be recorded. So, they won't. I have a question on a few other projects. Sure. For the Training Field Road Conservation Cluster, which is called Parment or Farm, is that, there are houses that are under construction, but is that done yet? Or are we still doing something? I'm not aware of anything. That was a form of time, and I don't, I'm not, I honestly have no clue. Can you look at their decision and see? Sure. I'm not, yeah. This is before my time, I have no clue. I know. These are all before your time. I never looked into this training field. It's called Training Field. It's Training Field, and it's called Parment or Farm. Okay. I'll look into that. Okay. There are three others. The Michael Road Extension, where we did considerable work and have not been able to close the damn thing out. Oh, are you still doing this? That was like five years ago. It's still, since I've been here, we still haven't been trying to close it out. We tried, we reached out to the lawyer of the council for the neighbors, and they were trying to get all the neighbors to sign off on, and they still haven't done anything. It's that rain garden. It's that damn rain garden. It is. It's a rain garden.
So that was Michael Road. And then also Plane Road, too, which I believe- 81 Plane. The one, but the Azle Plane. Yes. And also- We're never going to get the Azle Plane. I know. And Whittemore Place. I think we've probably given up, but I think we still have money, because the guy didn't do what he was supposed to. Whittemore Place? I don't think we have final plans either for Whittemore.
Another 40-year-old. No, I don't think so. Plane Road, we have no final plan, which I, we're never going to get that. Unless we just, unless we put up, yeah, we never get that. And then Whittemore Place, we never really closed, never actually closed up. Which one? Whittemore Place. Oh, yeah. Whittemore. Right. But at this point, it's been, it is what he said. It is. The last time I spoke with one of the homeowners who was pretty active, he said, I don't care anymore. Oh, does that affect anyone who wants to sell property there? Yeah, that's, well, they don't care then. Right, right. Well, I mean, with all of these, they're going to care at that point. I'm trying to think of anything else I can think of that in the past that wasn't closed up. I don't know. But we should keep track of the fact that they haven't been closed up so that at least we know they haven't been closed up. Sure. Somebody doesn't rack their brain trying to find where it was closed up. That's true. I think that'd be helpful.
Yeah. Yeah, we, honestly, at this point, we have a lot of big projects that are kind of like slow. They're just very, very, very slow. Especially the, especially the church and the, and care of school, which both of them are going to take some time to do. One's got stolen and one just needs a raise of funds to actually do it. So I think once they get the funds, they, they actually start doing the work, but they just can't. Carol school. Yes. Yeah. I think they want to do it as soon as possible. They just don't really have quite the funds to do it yet. So. Wow. Robert, the select board last night was considering who to hire for town council and they had interviewed a bunch of people. They did. Yep. And they did. They chose to keep KP law. Oh, good. That was, that was, I talked to Michael, Michael, I asked him today when I saw him. Okay. One of the, one of the firms was, um, the fellow, the lawyer who did, um, Shaw Drive. Shaw Drive. Yep. Remember 60 Shaw Drive? Yep. Tellerman was his name? Yes. Yes. You don't remember? I do remember. No, I remember too. I remember very clearly. I don't forget that. Yep. Um, I, I didn't watch the tape of, of, of, of speaking. Um, I did not put, I didn't, did not put anything right into the town manager at the time, but, um, I did voice that concern. And he, he, according to him, he did hear that from someone else too, that there was some concerns with that firm, but I didn't, I also didn't want to get too much involved. Cause it wasn't, wasn't, I wasn't, I wasn't, I know he asked me, nobody asked me for my opinion. So I didn't want to, I just didn't want to put my neck out too much. Okay. So is it time to adjourn this meeting? I think we're getting. In a minute. Is there any other concern? Is there any comments, concerns of the board? Uh, the next meeting will be the 24th of August. No, our next meeting is, is July 22nd. July 22nd? July 22nd.
Right? Uh, yeah. I think it's getting, that's too late in there. Can you make sure that you get, um, the extension letter from Matt? Yes, I will.
July 22nd. Yeah. Okay. Well, well, I'll discuss with the chair about what exactly we can discuss in that meeting. Okay. All right. Anything else from everybody? Any comments, concerns? Well, the only one I brought up before, um, Robert, with you, and I'm not sure, and that's the right procedure to go through. Um, when, when we walked the site on Hobbs Street, um, many of us were very concerned about the safety of that intersection. And I, I think it's, um, it's really in our best interest and the town's best interest that we compose a letter. Um, and maybe it goes to the DPW or goes to the select board, uh, to raise concern that, um, there's a tremendous potential for danger to children going into local school in the morning without crosswalks and other safety warnings, at least signs saying children crossing, school crossing, um, and speed limit. Controls. Because if someone gets killed there. I mean, if that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a, rather than, rather than talking about that, why don't we ask Robert if he can contact the DPW and ask them to look at the area. Yeah. I'll ask, I'll ask the police. The police. That's a, that's a, that's a, that's a DPW and a police issue. There's a potential death happening. It kind of happened to a friend of mine in Weston. And her child got out of the car, drove and walked across route 30 and she watched her child get killed by a car coming because she was dropping her child off illegally, not at a crosswalk, but it still caused a death. And I think we don't want that happening. It's a tough one because. You know, if they go over there now and they take a look at it, Robert, it's not during the school year. So they're not going to be able to picture what we saw that morning. That was crazy. That's right. And so, like, I, I almost, I think I agree with Bill, like, you know, in, in, in your, in what you send to the DPW, like, you got to explain that a little bit. I think you can, I think you can write these letters as a private citizen and not it's. I mean, Robert can speak to the people that need to be spoken to, but otherwise this is more as a private citizen. I observe this condition and I'm concerned and thank you very much kind of thing. Yeah, I get you. You have to be very careful. Yeah. As elected officials.
You don't think a board has more momentum behind it? I think that we should stay out of it personally. Are you kidding? So when someone. No, I'm not kidding. I think that Robert should offline have a conversation. I'll be happy to talk to you offline, Bill, and explain my thought process. Okay.
I'll talk, I'll talk to, to the police chief, the added police chief, and, and to, to Joe and. So. And see where, see where I can get at. Okay. Yeah. Are you saying enough this does not fall into our. No, I'm not. I'm going to send it to you offline, Bill. I do not want to talk about it online. I'll call you. If you give me your, if you send me your telephone number. Life safety. Right afterward. Life safety is not part of our responsibility. I'm going to, uh, is there an, a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn. Is there a second? Yeah. I'll second. I'll second. All in favor. Jesse Newberry. Yep. Robin Borg said. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Bill, if you send me your, uh, phone number, I'll be happy to talk to you right now. I'm not going to talk to you tonight and we'll talk some other day. Hey, good night, everyone. Okay. Good night. Robert. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.