April 15, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript
April 15, 2026 - Planning Board
Today is April the 15th, 2026, and this is a meeting of the Wayland Planning Board.
I call the meeting to order at 7.02 p.m.
The agenda, the meeting is being held via Zoom.
The agenda is call to order, then review and approve draft minutes of 3.25.26, then vote on the selectman's request for leave to withdraw. There's 3.226 version of a proposed zoning bylaw amendment to allow appeals of the planning board site plan decisions. Then updates from the town planner and chair. One will be the schedule for meetings for next year. The other will be a report on meetings with the finance committee and with the economic development committee. And then continued public hearing. At 7.30 for 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan approval will be going over the decision. Then board comments and concerns. Matters not anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting and adjourn. So I'd like to call roll call. Jesse Newberry.
Here. Robin Borgestedt. Here. Larry Kiernan. Here. Here. Sarah Montague. Here. Annette Lewis here.
Can we, can you put the minutes up, Robert? Has everybody had an opportunity to look at the minutes? Yes. Excuse me for one moment.
Hello.
Okay.
Does anyone have any comments on the minutes?
No. Any correction? No. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 3.25.26? I'll make the motion to approve them. Go ahead, Jesse. I'll make the motion to approve the minutes from, um, 3.25, 5, 26 seconds. Which one grabbed the second? Was that Ira? Robin. Robin. Robin.
Um, roll call vote. Uh, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. I reminded you. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Um, you'll recall that the select board, um, filed a version of a zoning bylaw amendment, uh, dealing to allow appeals of planning board site plan decisions. They filed it on 3.2.26. Then they subsequently filed another one, but because of the way the statute works, once something is filed, you're required to have a hearing within X number of days. They don't tell you what you do to withdraw. So they have now requested for leave to withdraw the first version and that they, we would move forward with having a hearing on the second version. So I would like a motion in less than anybody wants to talk more about it. I'd like a motion to allow, uh, withdraw by the selectment of the 3.2.26 version of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment to allow appeals of planning board site plan decisions. So moved. Second. Uh, all in favor, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. I don't know what's going on with my voice, but I don't have one. That's not good.
Okay. Uh, report on meetings from, with, uh, the finance committee. Uh, I'll do that first. I went to a meeting on April the 6th, explained to them what we were doing, why we were doing it. Um, and, uh, asked if they had any questions. I was, I went into a great deal of detail explaining it. Um, they didn't have any questions and I thought they were going to vote that evening, but they didn't. They, um, said that they were, uh, going to save it to their next meeting. Well, for the next meeting, it was just supposed to be a vote, but then at 3.30, I said, okay, I'm going to vote. Um, I'm going to vote. And then at 3.30 in the afternoon, they changed their agenda and Becky Stenese, uh, was in attendance and gave, uh, some kind of presentation. I wasn't there. I was out of town. Uh, I asked Robin if she could go and Robin did. So Robin, you can report to us. Uh, well, it was a very frustrating meeting. Um, I was told that I could only speak as a town resident and not as a member of the planning board. And that I could only speak before Becky addressed the finance committee and that I would not be allowed to speak after she did, even though she was going to present a whole new version of what they were proposing. Uh, and I didn't get to see that until she spoke. Um, so that was very interesting. And their, their vote prior to that meeting had been to, um, to defer any vote on the article. And then after Becky spoke. The chair asked if anybody wanted to vote on it again, and they all just sat there and said nothing. So then Carl called the vote, which was interesting. Um, and, uh, one member voted to recommend the article as it was written. Two or three voted against it and two abstained. I think they had wanted to hear a little more from the planning board, um, from the nodding that I saw there. But I couldn't tell. So it was a very frustrating meeting. It was, you know, it was crazy. I don't know. From my perspective, anyway, I had expected since they only changed the agenda to include the EDC at like three 30 in the afternoon that day, it seemed a little one-sided then not to allow the planning board to come and talk also. But he said, well, you're not on the agenda. I can't let you talk. So.
And the decision to include the EDC just that afternoon. Is that what you said? Yes. At three 30 in the afternoon before seven o'clock meeting. They can't change it like that. Can they?
I, I, well, from what I've ever seen, no, but because look at all the people that may be hanging on that group speaking and they have no clue that you're going to show up. Not a good look to change it that late. I don't think it's legal. It's it also sounds like it was a colossal waste of everyone's time. So that's, that's where we are and we have gotten another revised suggested amendments to that bylaw from the EDC when we did. I can't even remember. We reported to you. I guess we just sent you minutes of the meeting that Robin and I had with the EDC. Yes. So we didn't. Report, report. The minutes I think are very accurate and hopefully you've read them. We went over with them. Why. At this point in time, you can't change a zoning bylaw because they were changing the scope. And since that meeting, they're still changing the scope. They wanted different setbacks. And as you may recall, when we went through the modeling. Exercise, the setbacks are one of the primary things that you really can't change, because that affects how the site is used. And what we were proposing is just moving up, staying in the same footprint, same setbacks. So it changes the modeling and we don't have money to do remodeling and we certainly couldn't do it before town meeting in any event. And in addition, Because of the changes, I believe that it's beyond the scope of what our bylaw article is. Becky wanted us to check with town council in the state on both of these things. And I just listened. I've asked for permission from the town manager to speak with town council. And he said he didn't have time right now. And he didn't have a good background, so it would have to wait. Well, he also said that he didn't think Becky had the authority to request the town council review it anyway. Well, that too.
Well, she doesn't have the authority to ask you to do it, right?
She can ask anything she wants. Any citizen can ask anything they want. It just doesn't mean that it can happen. Well, I mean. I can't just call town council. I need permission. Right.
Oh, well. So at this point. I'm wondering what the sentiments of the board are. I'm assuming we still want to go forward with the article. It's a majority vote. And if town meeting doesn't want it, that's town meeting doesn't want it. Yeah, I think we go forward. Absolutely. And I think, you know, if EDC wants to work with us to update the regulations to to make sure that there's stepped massing or whatever. There's something that's easy. For us to do, and it's flexible and that is a more reasonable approach to take than to scrap the whole article at this point when we have the ability to make limitations, if that's what people want. Right. And we did tell them that we would be willing to bring back to the board a proposal to amend our regulations. Our regulations already do talk about setback step backs breaking up. It talks about facades. It talks about all of that kind of stuff. But we never went into. My note detail because you really aren't allowed to under the MBTA act. This is a totally different ball of wax than regular zoning. But even in regular zoning going into that kind of minutiae isn't really appropriate. And I think one of the issues with EDCs proposal, which is to leave the height low and make a builder a device. Right. And I think one of the issues with EDC's proposal. a builder, a developer go and get a variance is that that would make funding very difficult to get because if they want to purchase the site and develop it, you can't bank on a variance and no lender is going to jump on board with that purchase if they aren't assured of being able to build something that is profitable. And if they don't know exactly what they can build, then they can't make that decision. Plus, it's not clear that you could ever get a variance for that area of town. The variance that was gotten for River's Edge, I believe, was questionable to begin with. I don't think they should have been able to get it. But if we allow this extra height, but then put limitations on it using regulations, they and their lenders will know exactly what they can and cannot build. Right. So we anticipate this coming to a town meeting floor and maybe them making a case against? I guess. I mean, I don't know. It seems unfortunate that a committee that's supposed to be an advisory committee to the planning board and the select board is moving ahead on its own.
For me, it's just we want to encourage development. Well, that's what we were told. Right. Isn't that what they've been talking about for the last however months? And they said, well, getting multifamily housing would be a good way to encourage the development and the economic growth. So, I mean, you just you can't have it both ways.
Also, too, like if anything gets proposed, that site plan is going to come before us anyway. We'll have a chance to lean on it. Right. Yeah. I don't know. Just reasoning it out. Well, good. I'm glad. I'm glad that somebody is out loud reasoning it out. That's good.
Is there anything else on that? Oh, the town clerk, because Robin and I considered ourselves a subcommittee of the planning board, we posted and took minutes because that's what the open meeting was, as you're supposed to do. The town clerk said, well, you really should have a vote to create that subcommittee. So, posthumously, I would like a vote to that authorized Robin and me, per your instructions, to go and speak with the Economic Development Committee.
So moved. So moved. Second. All in favor, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you. So, is there anything else, Robert? Do you have anything else aside from the meeting schedule? No. I mean, once again, trying to send something to the Carroll School. Okay. They'll add a question about the Warren article about site plan appeals. So, I'd like to send him now. Okay. Because he has a few minutes. What is the public hearing? Yeah. I don't think it would apply because it would be post. Yeah. I mean, but... Okay. I'm sorry. So, we drafted... I drafted with town manager's office a schedule of meeting dates. And the reason why I went ahead of that is because they are going up going really fast. And the schedule is usually the second and fourth Tuesday of the, Wednesday, Wednesday of the month. And this is what we're going to do. Okay. So, we're not going to go that fast. is what meeting rooms are right now booked as currently right now okay unless there's some conflict we can we can discuss that and i hopefully went through all the holidays the jewish holidays school vacation and any other holiday there they are and so some someone moved up someone moved back it didn't look to me like anything would interfere with our schedule none of the holidays seemed to not this year no i went through all them i mean it's just like the traditional holidays thanksgiving right so there's some sometimes when you've got a three week jump like between july 22 and august the 12th why wasn't it august the 5th because that's second because the second and fourth second and fourth correct something look july so it's not simply every other wednesday it's the second and the fourth wednesday so it'll be 12th and 26th i mean we can we can move it up if you like it's up to you no it's fine i was just curious it's not every it's not every two weeks okay okay um so let's see moved moved up in potentially move up in november twice which i think evens out then yeah you will jump after between november and december and then the 14th is the only one that's not booked for some reason april 14th is already booked for next year um and i just i have a meeting room and i also have it we'll also have zoom i'll actually have zoom on it already so this is great um so for okay i'm glad it's great i just have a question for the week uh when we go from november 18th december 9th december the 23rd um would it be better if people can do it to do december the 16th instead of the 23rd well we could even do the second and the 16th so we're still every other week yeah i think that's a good change can people do that sure and do you think we'll be okay robert which one december going after november the 18th going to december the 2nd then december the 9th excuse me then december the 16th so it would be and not doing the 9th of the 23rd so the second and the 16th and the 16th and the 30th are just second and then 16th second and 16th um i can i will put it down i can assume i might get zoom only at those meetings for now i don't know if they probably probably the whole meeting room is probably open but so i will i will request december the 2nd and the 16th only if that's okay with everyone else on the board yeah i think it's a good call to swap that from december yeah and then get rid of the 9th and 23rd yes yeah right i will request that and see what i can update that and there's always the senior center if we really get desperate yes i think this is this is only bugging what we had to control because the senior center is is unfortunately the different president book through so this is just the town hall so and then going to the next one if we're at the 16th um i was wondering if january would be a diff going from december 16th to january 13th is a really long haul
change the 13th to the 6th well i'm wondering yeah or do we just wait and see if we need to add a meeting then or change one as we get closer and see what's on the agenda that's true we could do it that way too let me let me i'll i'll go ahead and book the six just in case okay and then we can just get rid of the means if you have to yeah okay okay um and you checked with bill sturt to make sure that he's i did i met well i checked it wednesdays in general and he's he's good okay yeah this helps me i'll uh i'll plan around it okay that's the point is that we have a long plan and i also use this vacation too so i'm looking around vacation i know ahead of time you know the average you're on thank you so april the 7th and then um april the 7th 14th can i do april the 21st um i can ask that one yep oh i thought that was a good idea like they could yeah i'll ask that i just did i don't want to be too complicated for now until i talk to you guys the 21st is probably going to be that school vacation week that's probably why i don't if i have the list for the school vacation week hold on oh it is sorry it is yeah yeah through it's 19th through the 23rd it's also passover oh that's probably that's okay pass over in the list
so um meeting 36 and is there anything else that you move right no after april the 7th you said that they it that the 14th is already booked correct so what are we going to do between the 7th and the 28th i can look for different day different day of the week i asked you or check about the senior center i don't know i can i can see the center center is available for the 14th yeah it's actually i mean it's the 14th of april the seventh is and we do it on the first in the whatever meeting oh that was because of the vacation you went to that i'm sorry okay i mean we could also if we need to add a meeting between the 7th and the 28th we can also so just go for the 7th and then go to the 28th yeah well we can try and book the 14th in case we need it at the senior center and if we don't need it we won't meet i don't know if don't know if we have zoom that's see we she said the day is ready for it booked honestly we don't there would be we have to in person most likely if we have the scene center so let me look at let me look into 14 just um in person only because i don't think we i don't think we have zoom for that for that day because we would we would have booked only zoom in case you want to book it as an extra yeah i'll book it as this see if we can book in the scene center for now you're going to try and book the 14th for the for this just in person only scene center yeah okay see away any else that pops and then there's the 28th and then the 12th 26th 9th 23rd okay if that works for everybody i guess it's okay with me all right this is not in their vote so i will i will send the next packet i will have an updated list so you guys can go ahead okay excellent you who could only five minutes left um is there any other boards and comments or concerns oh i can also give an update of the next schedule and what's going on so the next meeting is the 29th and right now we have the um the site plan for the dunga donuts jimmy john outdoor dining and i provided them the guidance for the outdoor dining so they should be able to answer questions if they have not if they don't um present any documents or narrative before the meeting and then at 7 45 we have the zoning public hearing for the planning board appeal um and that this meeting will be in the ceo way and be hybrid so we'll be meeting in the ceo way council on aging in the community center and then it will also be um done also through zoom and when when robert says the hearing for the appeals it's the zoning public hearing for the by law change that the selectmen have proposed for town meeting to vote on so are they gonna officially resubmit they did already did okay that's the one we have with that it just has one extra long sentence it has a bunch of stuff okay I was I was late because I was reworking the draft of okay the other thing so and then we on the 13th of May we have the one Hobbs Road 67 a local Street site plan for assisted living assisting share living sorry share living and that is to to determine what time of e because I'm hoping that the town center owners are gonna come at that May 13 me in and give an update and have a discussion of what they're looking to do and figure out a game plan of how to accomplish working together I'm waiting to hear back from them exactly how much time they're looking for so I know how a time to put the public hearing for so I will give them a few more days if not I need to even if they even if they don't want to tell us exactly what they've got in mind because I don't think they know yet if they can tell us the kinds of things that they're looking at so that we can figure out if there are bylaw changes needed changes to the site plans changes to the parking lot they've got the master special permit all that and we've had discussions with them offline so I have idea what well they probably was presenting won't be won't be new to me I have idea okay so my guess is about 45 minutes so I'm probably gonna post the hearing public hearing for the local street at 745 and then we move on better luck to you just to hear from them if possible if not by Friday I'm gonna change it and sing and post it next week okay and if it's not available by then I'll have to comment later and we'll see that all right thank you all again and I'll see you on our next meeting if that's okay thank you all again and I'll see you on our next meeting if that's And is that one in-person, hybrid, or Zoom? That is, right now, I have it as Zoom right now. Okay. Because I, what would the board like to do, Zoom? Because I need, because you need to post that too. I don't, I'm trying to remember what we're going to book for that. I believe we have a lot of me here for the night.
Okay. Do you, would the board like to use, do I mean Zoom by Zoom?
What do you think, fellows?
I have no preference. Yeah. I'm sorry, who was this for? Yeah, the local street shared living, and we have the town center. It's an over-amendment matter, but small-er. Yeah. I mean, I wonder if we're having more of a sort of a discussion with the town center owners, if maybe that's better in person? I would sort of think maybe it would be. I always look for discussion with the town centers in person. It's the first time we're meeting them. Yeah. If we can do that one in person, Robert. Yeah, I think it would be the large meeting room, but I can, if not, I can also try to move the seat away too. Okay. The select meeting room isn't so awful, Robert, necessarily, as long as everything's working. Sure. I'll book one of those two rooms. I have one booked, and I'll look into it somewhere if possible. Before we get. You want it in person and hybrid if possible? Yeah. Okay. No, no. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I know one of the three-year-old on the team isn't from Chicago, and he lives in Chicago. Oh, okay. And I don't know if he wants to attend or not. No, it's fine if he wants to be on Zoom. I just. Yeah. I mean, if any of them want to come in person, it seems better to have a discussion in person. Yeah. I mean, both, the other two are outside of Boston and Weston, so I would expect them both probably to be in person if possible. I think they would like to make a good impression. Okay. That's fine. And do you have any more questions about the general化? Probably their ah. Their individual involvement. Yeah. Yeah. Robert has checked, and the way that we do it, you can see he arranged it so that you can see all of the board meeting, all of the board, and you will be able to see, hopefully, all of the panel from the Carroll School. You will not be able to see everyone who is in attendance because the town doesn't let us set it up that way. They don't do that because they don't want people, what they call Zoom bombing, and they have better control over the meeting by not putting up everyone's picture. So that's where we stand, and hopefully you'll be able to hear and know who the people are. Thank you. Mr. Perea, would you? Robbie, can you promote Chris, Raina, Carrie? Prey is not on there. He's not on there yet. But Carrie DeLeo is there. Yes, and Chris, and Renee. Honestly, if you're part of the team, please put your hand up. I'm not sure who Rainy Bourne is. Does that ring a bell? We can ask Carrie.
Ask away. What was the question? I was rejoining. Is that part of your team? No. Okay.
We're just waiting. I'm Bill. Okay. And Carrie, will you list everybody starting off who's on the panel and what their affiliation is? Because people have asked for that. Sure. So I'm Carrie DeLeo, School Art Consulting. We're the owner's project manager for the Carroll School. Also on is Renee Greenfield. She is the head of Carroll School. And Chris Rainy is the CEO. He's the CFO of Carroll School. And hopefully joining us very soon is Bill Proya, who's counsel for Carroll School.
Is there anything that you wanted to tell us before we got started? There is not, to my knowledge. I did hear from Bill earlier today that ECT did submit their final report demonstrating that all of the peer review items have been reconciled. And I think that was the only thing open from our perspective. Okay. And I agree. I read the letter and double checked to make sure that all of the documents are in a final package. So it was probably about 47 page document has all of the updated form with the index, with all the updated plan sheets. And did you put that up on the web page, Robert? Say that again? Is that up on the web page? I didn't. I did not put it on the web page yet because I just updated it today. Okay. I verified that. And then also Jason from ECT also went through and also verified it. Okay. And currently we have to render or file a decision by Friday. This is our only scheduled meeting this week. So I hope we can go through this and everybody can get a good sense of what we've got. I just want to see what we have for participants, not for panelists. I don't see Bill yet.
He appears to be texting me back. I just pinged him. Okay. Oh, all right. Randy Bourne is Bill. Oh.
Having an identity crisis. Yeah. He said he couldn't get his Zoom to work. So he's in as an alien. Robbie, can you promote Randy Bourne? Yeah, he's coming out right now. When his face comes up, will you say who he is as well? I sure will.
Okay. Bill, can you, is it possible to show your face or not? I'm trying right now. Okay. There it is. Sorry for the delay. It's fine. That's him. All right. That's him. Yeah. So, and then finally, Bill Proya, counsel for Carroll School. And unfortunately. Unfortunately, it says Randy Bourne, but it's Bill Proya. Correct. Okay. Robbie, can you just change the bill? Just his name? It's not his computer, though. You can, I think. I can change it. You can change it if you're the host. Oh, I see. Great. Thank you.
So, Robert put together findings of fact and decision with conditions, taking the information. That was agreed to by the neighbors and the school, and putting it into our format. And so, I'm hoping that everybody has had a chance to go through it. I'd like to just do the preliminaries first before we get into the conditions. In the procedural history, did anybody see anything that needs to be fixed? Do you, Matt and Chad, do you want to put them on the screen? Sure. It's not anything crazy. I guess. I don't think this decision is that outside the box. I think it's pretty straightforward.
And anything highlighted, just things, if it's. Things that might have to change based on what happens this evening. Correct. Just in case. I have a change on the second page, Robert. Sure. This is just the first page. History. Nothing crazy. Second page here. Yeah. And 1.8. 1.8. Yep. Yep. I think it should begin going down to the second line with revised material was submitted.
Yep. Begin the sentence with revised material. And then we're going to move some of the stuff before that later.
Say that again. The sentence. I'll read the sentence and then we can all hear it. Revised material was submitted. On March the 25th, 2026, by the applicant. Good. Sorry. Revised material was submitted by the applicant to the town between September 9th, 2025, and March 18th, 2026.
It's the syntax and I have, I've written myself notes and now I'm getting myself confused. Okay. Revised material was submitted. Submitted by the applicant to the town between that and that. So the paragraph before is we've talked about how they had an initial application that was submitted. Then it needs to say that we got additional material over a period of time. And then, Robert, is it you who compiled the plan sheets? Yes. And the applicant submitted an index? Correct. Yeah. Okay. That's what's confusing. So revised materials were submitted by the applicant to the town between September 9th, 2025 and March 18th, 2026. I can change it. It doesn't have to say my name. It could say. I mean, maybe I read it back to you. Revised material was submitted by the admin to the town between September 9th, 2025, and March 18th, 2026. The, the, the, the complete set of plans was submitted. Okay. was completed on March. Like it doesn't have to be, it doesn't have to be I compiled it. I think it would be more clear if that sentence, the new sentence, just becomes the first sentence and the first sentence becomes the second sentence because then we're going in chronological order.
So this one? Yep, that's gonna be your first sentence. All right, so now it's in chronological order. On March 25th, the applicant submitted the index of the compiled set sheet. They didn't submit a set of the index. They either submitted a set of compiled plans with an index or they just submitted an index and I couldn't figure it out. Index, just an index. I put them all together. On March 25th, the applicant submitted a- An index. An index. Of all plan sheets? Of updated plan sheets. Okay. Hey, that should be better now.
It's better? Okay. Is there anything after that that anyone has noticed on the next, on page two? Nope. Okay. On page three? I have a question, Robert. Sure. Are there, at one point you had something about a 12-19-25 illustrative plan that they submitted to the DRB and we got a copy of. Is that in here or did you take that out? I think I took it out or I modified it. Whatever you provided me, I fixed it. It wasn't that outstanding anymore. I'm sorry, I'm not following. Is that something that was submitted for our record or not? It's still in there. Where is it? It's above, right there. That's where it is. Whatever it was, I put it back in order. I see, thank you. Okay. It's not in order. It's not in order, though. December 2025 is not after January the 9th.
Yeah, and above that is December 22nd. So doesn't that have to go someplace? Above the stormwater one. Nope, above that one. I can sort it out later, if there's anything else out of the sink. Okay, then in the final plan materials. Well, hold on. Wait, one more. There's one more thing, too. We have a student arrival, student dismissal parking protocol, but there was never any date on it. Oh, yes. What date do you fellows want for that? Because I don't think it was ever finalized. Here's the final document. I think the last version we sent was final last time. We thought the date of the decision would be on there. Okay, then we can do that. Just writing myself a note. In the final plan sheets, Yeah. You refer to C203, the ladder truck movement figure. And that is the title of what is used in the report that came from the peer review consultant. But the peer review consultant referred to C205. Was his just a typo? The letter today that we got. I believe there was a typo. I noted that when I did the index that it was referred to. So now we are referring to two different So it should be whatever the name of, whatever it is in the titled luck of that drawing, which we can confirm right now. All right. So one of these should be removed. Is that what I'm hearing? The 205, your second 205 is in the... I see why it's there. I think that you really only have a C203, but you need to confirm and make sure that there isn't a C205 as well, I think the one that was referred to, they have two different dates. I see. I don't know. Just highlight it and check on it, Robert. Yeah, I'll go check and see. I'm assuming that there's just two copies and one was updated. There is no such thing as a C205, so that one is a typo. So we had one for November and one for December? I showed just the one from November. I thought we only had the one as well. Yeah, I think that there was something that was reissued in December that that might have been in the set, but nothing has been updated on that since the initial, so that November 18th should be correct. And again, 205 I think was a typo. I don't think that ever existed. It was always 203. So can you check that, Robert? Yeah, I'll go check here. Does anybody else have anything on that page? Or the next? No? No. Okay. And nothing on page four. Then on page five. Oh, good. You added the new one that we got today on page five, Robert? Okay. Great.
Does anyone have any other comments on page five?
Page six. Go slow, Robert. These are the relevant findings. And I'm sorry that we couldn't get anything to anyone. I'm sorry that we couldn't get anything to anyone in advance, but we've been working on this and didn't have it for the board until right before the weekend, and they had to see it first. Would you like us to read through these as we go through? I'm going to ask Mr. Hill and Mr. Perea. I don't think you have to read through them. I mean... Robert, did you... I'm looking at Mr. Perea and he seems to be reading. Did you send them copies or something before? No, I did not. Okay. I will leave it on the screen for just a second so that I can read it. Got it. I paid a page so people can just quickly scan through. But these are mostly just findings. There's nothing... Right. They're findings, but some of the findings are voluntary things that they said they would do.
I'll leave it on the screen for a time each page so people can just quickly look it over. And for the board, have you... you have read all of the... all of these and you're comfortable? Yeah, I have some changes further down. Okay, great. Yes.
I didn't know if we want to do it in this section or in the section with conditions. If we had talked at some point about acknowledging that there is an agreement between the neighbors and abutters and the applicant. And I don't know if we want to do it here because it's not one of our conditions. It wouldn't be in the conditions. It would have to be in the findings. Right. And we can do that if that's what they would like. Let me just find... I have it right here. I can move it. Actually, it is in the... I'm sorry. It is in the findings. It's in the findings section. Yeah. So I'm sorry. I put it at the very end because it's... Can you point that out? Because I don't know if that's... I mean, what we agreed to should be in here. There's no other document.
Well, but there were some conditions that we can't really incorporate into our conditions. They're not in any other document at this point. So I don't want to make that representation in this decision.
So what we did and what Robert did was he looked at what the agreements were and picked out those things that could be findings of fact and those things that we could... conditions. He did.
No, I understand that. It's this... No, I'm listening to you, Mr. Prairie. I'm actually talking to my board right now. So, you know, I think that it's fair not to say that, you know, because we're picking up the documents that they agreed to about starting times, use of the property, all that stuff. We're picking that up and we're putting it, attaching it to the decision. Yeah. We can talk about that later. Will you write yourself a note, Robin, and remind us so that we can... Yeah, I have it as a comment on mine. Okay. Okay. So, Robert, make sure that people can see going through 9 to 11.
At 313, I think that was a fine change.
17. I don't know if we need to have that statement in there, the last sentence, because isn't that what it says in those documents?
Well, does the document... the document addresses student drop-off and things like that, but does the... Does the document address the event parking? I thought it did. Okay. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't looked at it today. Right. I wasn't sure, and I wasn't sure whether we were actually attaching their document to ours. And if we don't, then this statement that all parking will be on-site isn't correct because some parking might need to be off-site, and they'll bus people in, but it's not going to be on the street. Got it. And not on public streets, roads, or ways. Right. Okay. In accordance with... Okay. So, I guess that makes sense. Then the applicant will use... I think that is what is in your documents, that you would use other... your other properties to supplement parking for events if it was necessary? Yes. That's part of the protocol. Okay. I think that's a good change, Robin. Okay. I'm not trying to be... I'd like to know what everybody else thinks, too, in... Oh, it's been a while. In 318, that's fine. Robert, when I saw a previous draft that you had put together, there was something about student arrival and dismissal, but it doesn't appear to be there anymore? No. What happened to it? Why did you take it out? I don't know. I don't remember taking it out, 318. Well, we can come back to that, but I'll look at the previous drafts. Does anyone else have anything else on that page? On number 324, is that something that we have to have? Is there a reason why you... I know, Robin, that you were proposing it. I'm just wondering if there's any reason why it has to be there. It doesn't have to be any place in particular. And it can even be just a footnote. But I thought that what we had talked about at a prior meeting was because the parties were agreeing to something that... some of the things that we couldn't incorporate, that we were going to mention it by reference and just say that there are other conditions that the neighbors and abutters and the applicant have agreed to. If that is not something they want to do, if they don't want to reference it in the decision, I suppose we should elevate Dan Hill and maybe allow him to voice an opinion if we're letting... Sure. But only for that. Yeah. Or we can go on and then elevate him later. Yeah. Why don't we do that? Yeah. Okay. So we have two things to check so far. And in the waivers, there was just one waiver request. Right. So, Robert, in the second line, where it says to fully comply with all applicable, with one applicable requirement, development is not able to fully comply with one applicable requirement of the zoning bylaw. And then in the last, before the colon, it should say provision, the following provision without the S. In the next paragraph under decision, on the last full line, it should be waiver, single. Singular. So far, does anybody have anything else to add in what we've gone through before we move on to page nine? No. Okay. So I'm going to... These are the general conditions and I am going to read them because I want everyone to be able to hear them. 4.3.1. The project shall be constructed and operated in compliance with the approved site plans and related ancillary materials, duly submitted to the planning board on behalf of the applicant. Any change in the project or the use of the property shall require the filing of a new site plan application. If such a filing is triggered by the applicable thresholds and criteria set forth in article six of the zoning bylaw, as it may be amended from time to time, subject to applicable local state and federal statutes, laws and regulations. Then in 4.3. Prior to the commencement of on-site work, this decision, the planning board endorsed final site plans, landscape plan, and the stormwater operation and maintenance plan shall be recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in the chain of title with notations linking each of the documents to the approved ANR plan and property deeds. The applicant shall send recording information to the planning department within 14 days after the documents are recorded. 4.3.3. Prior to the issuance, and Robert, you stop me when you get to a place where you've got a red thing. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit $10,000 for deposit into Massachusetts General Law Chapter 53G Peer Review Consultant Fund. These funds shall be used for construction observation and verification by the town's outside peer review consultant for stormwater installation, as according to the construction activities sequencing plan that will be submitted 30 days prior to commencing project activity. If the funds get lower than $2,500, the planning board's agent will alert the applicant to submit no greater than $5,000 at one time, to replenish the peer review consultant fund balance. We are up to 4.3.4. And I had questions there, Robert. The syntax, it's the same kind of thing as we had in the last one where Robin was helping us fix it. But it needs to start off with, I'm not sure, that they agree that prior to the issuance of the first building permit, whatever fund, they would make a one-time payment to the town not to exceed $5,000 to be used for additional study and or for the implementation of mitigation measures within the public ways. And if the funds are not expended by the town, within two years after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, and I think it needs to say the applicant will, at a certain point in time, the applicant will request return of the funds after that two-year period, and the town will relinquish any remaining funds. And I can help you draft that, but it needs to be a little clearer, I think. Okay. It's a little like the other one where you're out of sequence. Yeah. And so if the first one, if the first sentence is the applicant will submit a construction activity sequencing plan 30 days prior to commencement of the project activity, and then, you know, then that these funds will be used for construction observation verification, you just, the thing that comes first is the construction activity sequencing plan. So if you put that first, then I think it'll flow better, but we can work on it later. Yeah. I can just send some language out. In 4.3.3, but it's the same kind of thing in 4.3.4. Yeah. Not as bad. Okay. And then 4.3.4, you have implementation of traffic mitigation. Okay. Then we're down at 4.3.5. Exterior storage slash shed shall be located adjacent to the westerly facade of the new academic building, substantially within that area depicted on the approved site plan as, quote, utility service area, end quote, provided that no road salt shall be stored therein. 4.3.6. With the exception of the architectural plans for building interiors, no deviations from the approved final plan shall be allowed or commenced without prior written approval from the planning board. All such deviations shall be requested in writing, clearly citing justifications for said deviations.
What you took out, the landscape screening shall be implemented. We have it twice. We did? We also have it on at 4.4.3. Not the landscaping. Yeah. Look at 4.4.3. It's right there. Oh, 4.4. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. Doesn't that, though, really belong here? It's not really a construction item, is it? Isn't it part of? It could be. It doesn't matter where it goes. We can put it back in and delete the other one. I just noticed it was twice. Okay. Yeah, I think it belongs in here because I was asking why it was where it was. Right. Another place. So did I read that one or not? Nope. 4.3. I'm going to get it now. Okay. Landscape screening shall be implemented along the north boundary of the property along Waltham Road with varying heights of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation to mitigate views of the school campus, enhance privacy, and reduce noise as depicted on and in accordance with the approved site plan. 4.3.8. No deliveries, trash removal under landscaping maintenance shall be scheduled to start prior to 7 a.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. on Saturdays, nor may those activities be scheduled on Sundays or on holidays recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In addition, to avoid additional traffic impacts and safety hazards, the applicant shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that deliveries do not occur during the pickup and drop-off times at the campus. I had a question here. Yeah. So we have start times, but we don't have start times. But we don't have end times? Should there be something that says deliveries can't be made after a certain time? I don't know. I looked back at our other two Dover amendment decisions, and we didn't say that. So that's why I'm happy to do whatever anybody wants. I would think we should have some sort of a just for the sake of peace and quiet, you know, 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock, whatever. Right. But something. I don't know what the applicant Somebody's hand is raised, and we'll get to you in one minute. In the agreement with the neighbors, that wasn't there. So, you know, whoever wants to, between the two of those parties, suggest something, that would be great. Can we recognize whoever's hand is up? It's Carrie. It's me. I just wanted to ask if that 9 a.m. Saturday start is a town standard. I don't typically see 9. It's usually 8 on Saturdays and no work on Sundays. So just curious. You don't have it. I just picked that up from, I thought, your materials. I can't recall. I know we went back and forth. I think that's what was in your document. I don't think we created it. Is there opportunity to change that to 8? I think you have to talk with your neighbors, who are the ones that you were working this stuff out with, I thought. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess it is what it is. 9 start on Saturdays is kind of useless. These guys like to start at 6. Why don't you? I would say 8. I hate to make Mr. Perea do all this stuff, but isn't that what you had in your agreement, Mr. Perea, 9 o'clock for deliveries? And I might have missed it. I might have missed it before. Yes, I think that was in there. And this is just for deliveries. Deliveries. Not construction. No. This is delivery. Okay. Construction is in another place. Okay. Sorry. I was thinking all noisy activities. Okay. This is deliveries, trash removal, landscaping, maintenance. Yeah. Okay. That's three things. My mistake. Okay. So we did read 438. Okay. 439. All property lighting shall be dark sky compliant with no light spillover onto abutting properties, including the public ways. 4310. There shall be no placement. I'm looking to see if Robert has added it. There shall be no placement of structures, storage of materials, construction activity or cutting of any live mature trees or shrubs beyond what is approved in the final plans. The only thing that occurred to me is what about if in the future you have a dead tree that needs to come down? I'm asking that of the school. Because, again, this is language that you agreed to with the neighbors. Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. I think you could say, you know, unless the health of the tree deems it unsafe, you know. Or public safety requires. Yeah. It says no cutting of live mature trees. So if it's dead. Yeah. Okay. I would, if it's dead, I would not. Maybe you could, maybe instead of live, it should just say healthy, right? Because a lot of times what happens is they start to get diseased and then they're still alive. But, yeah. They start to become a health risk. Yeah. Okay. That's weird. Live and mature trees. Yeah. Again, we'll be happy, I think, to make that change. But I think we need to know. Open meeting. Excuse me. Let's recognize Dan Hill for a minute. Because I don't think he's, I can't read his e-mail. And he just sent one. Dan, you're permitted to talk. Are you asking me a question? You had just sent some kind of an e-mail that we couldn't see. Sure. I just, I'm finding it very frustrating to try to review these conditions on the screen for the first time. As well as the draft findings. And this is really not the way this should happen on a remote participation. I just wanted to make the board aware that there's actually a regulation. I don't know if you guys have read the regulations governing. Remote participation in meetings under the open meeting law. Yeah, we have. Well, under that regulation, any document that you foresee using in a meeting is supposed to be circulated in advance to the applicant and to the public. You guys have had this for a couple days at least. And I don't understand why this wasn't circulated to the applicant or to me. I asked Robert at 5 o'clock. Or 4 o'clock, whatever it was. Robert goes home at 4 o'clock. And I asked him. I didn't get a response. But more importantly, this really should have been circulated so we would have a chance to review it and provide some comments. We could have helped. This is very difficult for us to react to this in real time. Since the board hadn't met as a board to go over it, we couldn't do that. We will ask later on in the meeting if people want to handle something differently. But right now, we're working as hard as we can to get the materials done, looking at all of your comments that we've received so far. And we have a timeline that we have to meet. So we're doing the best that we can do. And at 5 o'clock, Robert would not have been there. He goes home at 4. While you're on, Dan. Okay. So with regard to the last thing that we were talking about with the trees, do you have an issue or your clients have an issue with talking about no cutting of any healthy mature trees as compared to live mature trees? I think that change is fine. Okay. Is it live or healthy? Or just healthy? Can we just say healthy? Okay. It doesn't matter. Well, it does matter to the people who are going to follow it. Yeah, no, I think it needs to be live. It's not who's going to make the judgment of whether or not a tree is healthy. Who's going to make a judgment of whether or not a tree is dead? I think that's an easier judgment. We deal with it all the time on scenic road trees where we're told that they are essentially dead, even if there are a few leaves on them. Can we require that any tree that's removed from the border with Waltham Road be replaced if it's removed? They'll have an issue with the size of it, though. Again, we took your languages from both of you that you negotiated and tried to put them into a document and tried to make it make sense. And I don't know that we necessarily care. It's up to you what your thoughts are. Is there a tree warden in the town? Yes, there is. But they only do shade trees and scenic road trees. They won't get into this. Even if it's adjacent to the right-of-way, they don't get into it? They only get into it if it's in the right-of-way. Okay. I don't remember this condition in the documents that Bill and I have talked about. I mean, maybe Bill did. Oh, it is. I'm sure Robert didn't create it. I can pull up. I have so many pieces of paper here. I can pull them up. I'm just looking for it right now. And I have mine in a hard copy. So I can't do a word check looking for that. And my bed's been a generic condition. Yeah. You don't think that they created that? No, this wasn't ours. This was a condition because the intent of the condition we had was to maintain that landscape buffer. So that's the condition that we had talked about with Dan and the neighbors. And it's not going to help. I mean, I can tell you where it was exactly. It was in our what was called 12. No, it was 13. The condition was 13. And it just basically was saying that the landscape buffer that we're showing, we're going to maintain it in good health. It wasn't specific about there was no language like this in that. Okay. So, yeah, this one seems a little difficult to manage. It doesn't really get to the intent of the condition that we were proposing. Okay. I'm just looking back at what you've got. Yeah. That was. Varying heights of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. In the March 18th. To mitigate. Yes. That's what I'm looking at. Yeah. It should be number 13. School campus. Yeah. I see it. Enhance privacy and reduce noise as depicted in accordance. So where did you get this other one, Robert? This is a generic conditioning, I believe, that we put in site plans. But this one is a little more of a I think just pulling this out and putting that 13 inmate. Is it 13 in here already? It already is here. It's already in here. Oh, it is. All right. Yeah. I mean, what else he's saying is no placement of structure, storage of materials, construction activities. Other than what is in the approved final plans that we could do. Couldn't we? I think that makes sense when you read that together with 4, 3, 7. Structure search ideas can. On 4, 3, 7, you could change it. So it said landscape screening shall be implemented and maintained along the north boundary. Sure. Okay. Do you have that? Okay. Then, then in 4, 3, 10. Is it okay? If it says there shall be no placement of structures, storage of materials or construction activity. Okay. Beyond what is approved in the final plans. We would just take out the thing about the trees. Yeah. I think it should say or construction activity, not and. Okay. Yes. Or construction activity. Okay. Are the final plans defined? Yes. Yes. They are. They're the most recent material that we received. From the applicant with the date. Okay. Where at 311 at 311. After the section number Robert. After 8. It needs a period. Then construction conditions. Prior to commencement of any construction. All applicable approval. So then obtained from other town boards departments. Then. 4.4. .2. 30 days. Prior to commencing, project activity. .0. .2. .5. .6. .8. .9. .9. .1. .8. .9. .8. .3. .3. .4. activity, the applicant shall submit a construction activity sequencing plan and timeline for the entire project, together with a, quote, NFPA 241 plan dash standard for safeguarding construction, alteration, and demolition operations, end quote, for review and approval of the building commissioner, the planning board, the police department, and the fire department, demonstrating how emergency access, general on-site access, and parking will be provided during all phases of the project construction, as well as the storage construction materials and snow storage, as well as the storage of construction materials and snow storage. This next paragraph, 443, I think we already have, Robert, in the findings.
We can take it out. I think it's in the, it's in the, or not in the findings. It's in the conditions, but not in the construction conditions. It was in the general conditions, I believe. And it was, it's worded a little differently.
Where do you see it? 437, 437, and we want it there in 437. But I don't think you necessarily need it in 43, or 443.
I don't, where do you see it in 437? 437, landscaping. Landscape screening shall be implemented. Oh, I, it's gone, that one. You already took it out. I took it out, I'm so sorry. I thought we were talking about snow. Next one is snow storage. That's why I was pulling them, please. I'm sorry, you took it out already. It's already gone, sorry. Okay. Next one is snow storage. Okay.
Isn't this more a condition for everything, not just construction? Snow that cannot be stored within the excess 22 parking spaces for excess snow, storage. I think that's more a general condition. It's not just for construction period. Okay.
And it needs to just go in a sequence somewhere. Maybe after, unless there's anything else about snow storage, maybe after 437. I'm just writing notes so that when, before it's done, we can check it against them. Okay. What was 445 and is now 443. The applicant shall submit ongoing inspection and maintenance logs of the stormwater system to the planning board. The next. Pardon me? It says planning department, not the board. I'm sorry, department. Correct. Sorry.
Is that in perpetuity or is that just, is this just during construction? Well, this is just for construction. So these are, okay. Normally it is in perpetuity. Somebody gets it. Okay. Well, that, and that was going to be my question because typically we submit those or we have those on site for conservation that just, just for us to know it's also. Right. So when you do it for conservation, are you just doing it for the construction period or for a long time? Well, that's why I asked. I'm only doing construction, but I don't know what's typical for, for maintenance and operation on. Going if that gets submitted or if it just gets maintained. It it's going to be in the stormwater operation maintenance plan, right? Yeah. It'll already be in there. Yeah.
So that's fine. As long as it's yeah, that's fine. Okay. Uh, then the next section, uh, at least one week prior to construction activity, the planning board department of public works and its water division conservation commission board of health. Fire. Fire department, police department, building department, and the town's engineering outside consultant shall be notified in writing of the construction commencement date and schedule so that pre-construction conferences between the applicant, its engineers and contractors and all involved town agencies can be scheduled to discuss construction sequencing standards, proposed fencing, and compliance with town rules, regulations, and requirements. The outside. Consultant must be contacted for the required inspections throughout the development of the project based on the schedule discussed at the pre-construction meeting throughout next paragraph, throughout construction, the applicant shall maintain the perimeter erosion control depicted on the final approved plans. Next paragraph, the hours of construction shall be Monday through Friday from 7 AM to 4 PM and Saturdays from 8 AM to 3 PM. No work or construction related activity shall take place on Sundays or on holidays, recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the next paragraph, all construction vehicles shall be parked on site. I think that the next three lines, Robert, um, are dealt with elsewhere, uh, in 4, 4, 11.
So I think that that can come out. So. It would read, and then I, we can go down and look at what we're, what 4, 4, 11 is all construction vehicles shall be parked on site, uh, on site period. All trucks transporting earth materials of any type to, and, or from the site shall be covered in compliance with state law. Any debris or material that falls from such trucks onto the public way shall be removed and cleaned up promptly. Um, the, uh, I'm skipping 1 paragraph and we'll go back the paragraph. The lines that we would have taken out are in the last paragraph of this section during construction, all local state and federal laws and regulations shall be followed regarding noise, vibration, concussion, dusk and blocking of public waves at all times. The applicant shall use diligent efforts to minimize inconvenience to the residents in the area. And then the 1 of the 3 sentences. These two brother, trucks, transportation, earth material, all types of, on the site should be covered. You want that removed? Correct. I'm sorry? You're talking about the one that used to be 4 4 9 and isn't 4 4 9 anymore. The 1, all construction, okay, you're, it's your 447, all construction vehicles, should be parked on site. And then pick up with all trucks transporting earth material. Did you want that in or out? I'll. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. All trucks transporting earth material should be in. What we're taking out are, there are two sentences that you're taking out. During construction, all local, state, and federal laws and regulations shall be followed regarding noise, vibration, concussion, dust, blocking of townways. And the next sentence is, at all times, applicants shall use diligent efforts to minimize inconvenience to the residents in the area, because that is in the very last paragraph. Yeah, all set. Okay, and then the paragraph that we skipped over just now. Any fill that's imported to the site shall be clean, and any debris found within the fill, such as, but not limited to, asphalt, metal, and wood, shall be removed. Then the next thing we have is constituting majority of the planning board. They voted to approve whatever. I know that you haven't had a chance to look at this, but we didn't have a chance to among ourselves. Does the board have any concerns with anything we have here, except for the two paragraphs that we're going to go back and recraft?
No? No. Okay. For the applicant, I'm asking you first, Mr. Pariah. Yeah.
To see the decision, and just make sure that basically everything that we have discussed is what you understand, that's fine. We need to finalize this by Friday, or if the changes would be significant, then we have to come back to the board, and we would need an extension of time.
Yeah, no, I hear you.
Can we take maybe a five-minute recess? Sure.
Annette, can I ask you a request? Is it possible for somebody to email this document to us?
Yes. I can do it right now. Yeah, I would love that too, Robert.
And I did have one question at some point, Annette, whenever you want to take public comment. Okay.
I'm happy to take it, but I don't want to interrupt their thought process. If they're recessing, so let's wait for the five minutes, Dan. Sure.
All right, so I'm sending to Carrie, Bill, and then CC Dan on it.
And now you should have it. I just sent it. And that's the copy we just looked at right now, the changes. Except for those two paragraphs that we need to just read better.
Robert, the paragraph that used to be 319, are you here? Yeah, I'm right here. Okay. I can't see because I've got my thing up. It used to say applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with the student arrival slash student dismissal slash parking protocol dated whatever date, 26, and site circulation plan dated March 18th, 2026. Is that somewhere else in here?
I'm just trying to find it.
Which one was it? It is. In A version, it was a 319, and it was in between off-street parking facilities. It was in between the number of bicycle parking places and then the thing about running along the eastern boundary of Appletree Lane.
Is this one 317 that you're looking for? I don't know. I'm just looking. I'm just looking at what I have. I'm going to close what I was looking at.
All parking should be on site and not public streets, roads in accordance with. That's different than the dismissal. What I was just asking you about was the dismissal of the, oh, God.
In this voluntary committee, all parking should be on site in accordance with that.
Maybe that's it. Sorry. Yeah, I can't say it because I'm looking at a different decision. No, it's not. It's 319. It's not that one. There was that one, and then you had the thing about the town code requiring the number of bicycle parking spaces. And then after that, there was a paragraph that said that applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with the student order. So, I'm just going to go back to that. Student arrival, student dismissal, parking protocol, dated, and the site circulation plan. Those are different thoughts.
Yeah, I'm not seeing that on any of the designs. No, I didn't see it either. That's why I asked what happened to it. That needs to be in there.
Did we take it out? Let me see.
I don't think it was in any of the plans. I don't think it was in any of the decisions. Because I'm looking at the one I emailed myself. This was afternoon. Yeah, it was in one.
Of course, I can't find the date on this. this one, but it was in one. So we can get that back in because they did agree to that. And that was part of the basis of the neighbors' agreement.
I think the other thing was that language that Robin was talking about. Robin, can we figure out how to say it a little differently so that they can deal with it? The one about they had agreements with the neighbors outside or whatever. Oh, that one that we tacked on? Yeah, I don't think that they have different agreements with the neighbors. I think that they entered into agreements with the neighbors. And I think we can acknowledge that, can't we? I think so. I just don't know how to phrase it because it's not you know, we don't have like a, I think it ended up in there as like a signed agreement, but they don't have like a signed agreement. Right.
I know. It would be conducted in accordance with almost. It's applicant has, we had changed it so that it would be applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal. So in front of 18, right in the beginning.
I'm just pointing. That's fine. I'm pointing. 18 is applicant has voluntarily committed. That student arrival. And student dismissal, those aren't capitalized. No I just pulled this from the agreement. I know, but they won't be capitalized. They're student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with the and then there it's capitalized quote, student arrival slash student dismissal slash parking protocol end quote end quote after protocol what do you want there i want to end the quote the student we don't have a's and b's here what we have is applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with take the colon out the quote student arrival student dismissal parking protocol and quote dated april 15th 2026 and the site circulation plan and that's also in quotes and caps tight circulation plan dated march 18th 2026 both of which are on file okay if that's uh wait a minute no you don't need it there that it's on file because it already says it's on file
okay so um robin do you want to see if we can wordsmith that um thing that you want to put in yeah well if robert wants to scroll down to what he's put in there temporarily which one was it the one that we added it there right there 3.25 one could oh this was an info we could put something is this this is not is this findings of fact still yes yeah um one could say throughout the process i'm just trying this don't type it uh the applicant and the neighbors of butters uh uh met and negotiated or met and agreed to uh many terms uh that have uh found their way into this decision or something like that well except that they're not what we're referencing are the ones that really aren't in here like just something simple like the email address they're going to maintain so that the neighbors isn't that in the plan it's in the plan that we're attaching isn't it there are two documents that we're attaching which i don't have right in front of me yeah isn't that in the plan mr priya yeah that everything that we had discussed and we had shown the board and the neighbors had also you know weighed in on and provided revisions to comments on are all in here so i'm just trying to see if there's anything that is in here now there's no other document so this 3.2.5 is not a fact okay that one isn't but we could say that you did negotiate or worked the two sides worked it wouldn't say it that way but worked together throughout this process and you know and and many of the can your i don't know if everything in here was agreed to but uh many of the conditions uh as a result or as a result of agreements arrived at i guess if you want to i don't i don't see the point in doing that but okay there's again i mean the board made it very clear some things couldn't be conditions but they'd be findings so right you see them in this document and the things that can be conditions we see them in this document okay so i i mean i can't tell you what to say i just think the way you structured is the way we understood it would happen so that's all i have to really say about that one i just had a sense that they were things that are not really reflected in the conditions or the findings like the fact that you know the email and you know being responsive to complaints about traffic and things like that which were in the letters that we saw um but it's fine to not have it in there if we don't need it in there i just thought if there were things that are not reflected in here that because we can't reflect them that we we had talked about making reference to the fact that there had been discussions but it's fine to not reference them at all i don't know and that um you know i haven't done very many of these so i i bow to you you just but i think um the one of the documents mr priya i i can't remember which one talks about when you're going to have a big uh event that you will uh notify the neighbors and and all that stuff so that's in there isn't it it is that's part of this those documents to this yeah yeah i mean if something's attached here i think it you know it speaks for itself sort of if you want to refer to things like that are attached to this but i don't i'm just trying to make the point that that aren't included in this decision isn't really what's happening right okay okay um do you want to say anything else before i go to dan i was waiting for him yeah one other thing so can we go back to 4.3.6 4.3.6 yes the one that says with the exception of architectural plans yeah for interiors so i mean there will be changes to the exterior i mean we haven't come up with a final exterior design but you haven't submitted that kind of detail to us in the plans have you anyway no okay so but i don't want this to be interpreted you know in a couple years or whenever we get to that point that there's some sort of final architectural plan somewhere it sounds like that in this okay condition i'm just worried about that and i don't want to create that imp that you know impression that we have gotten to that point robert in looking at the plans um i haven't looked at the final final i looked at the hold on it's not that one i looked at the other ones and i don't think they've changed substantially is there i mean there really are no architectural plans that were submitted as part of the site plan right well that's what i'm wondering but but this says with the exception of architectural plans no deviations this just says for the interior it doesn't say for the exterior and there will be um floor plans floor plans floor plans overall elevation plans not alternative plans more like elevation um so if it either it's correct and we can or you might want to clarify to make sure that it's very clear in five years or four years whatever whenever that you know they're submitted that you know that the plans were not actually there's no we actually didn't get any real final plans for architectural plans robert but if you're looking at the list of drawings i don't have the current one in front of me i just have the last one from before when they submitted them there's a whole series called architectural a0 a1 a2 a3 and a4 mostly floor plans right three floor plans a roof plan and elevation yeah so um i would call it out if the applicant's saying that that they they might modify the plans and they want the wiggle room to modify it slightly so not stuck on the plans that they have that's fine well what if it says no significant deviations or it can just refer to those plans with uh with you do we even yeah we hit the interior so it could say something like with the exception of the architectural plans for building interiors um no deviations from the uh approved architectural plans because you don't really have anything and you're the ones who set them up as architectural uh would be allowed or commenced because you're dealing with height floor plan and roof plan i mean the elevations are you know submitted just to sort of show the massing that we were compliant with the you know the height limitations but they're not you know they're not design plans right the materials aren't called out the kind of fenestration things like that so i just don't i think if dahi's on or well perhaps you can help us but we we can't can't give you carte blanche yeah you have i mean you have to have you can't be higher in height and you know yeah i mean i think we have no problem restricting you know the building footprint and the the height and the massing i think you know to to bill's point you know you also can't build what we have drawn because there's not enough detail right and so i think that's what we want to make sure that you know as we develop those plans that we don't have to ask for written permission you know each time we add a detail because it is different but what but as long as we're staying within the massing and the um heights and all of that per this original um these original elevations i mean i think of these as sort of envelope plans right it's going to sit here on the property with these setbacks and it's going to have this general massing it's going to be within this building envelope i think we can live with that i just don't want this again to be construed as you know where we show the windows for example might change and you know color will definitely change in material the cladding things i so i just don't so if we don't and if we don't call it architectural plans what basically our bottom line is we don't want any any big deviations and we can't list every single thing that we don't want you to deviate from well what if it says no structural deviations
well that doesn't take into account where the placement of the buildings would be where the placement of the parking lot would be right yeah i the parking lot i suppose no i mean yeah i mean that that wouldn't if we said and this i think is too broad for you no deviations from the approved final plan shall be allowed or commenced all we would have approved is essentially your skeleton yeah whatever i said whatever i said without prior written approval and it's in since they plan but for playing board agent and so we're not the other thing i don't think they want to come back to us for anything like that though robert i know i'm just trying to find out somewhere where there's some oversight at some point but not too much if i i'm assuming that the board doesn't have a problem with what they're saying and i want i'm polling you so you let me know please we just need to come up with language you're shaking your head ira that's right yes and robin yeah the question is how to word it i guess right and i just want to deviations i wanted to ask larry and um jesse jesse i can't see you guys so you'll have to speak
what's our question the question is what we've just been talking about with paragraph 436 um that they would have no deviations from the approved plans um and they're saying basically no deviations from the uh exterior footprint height all of that kind of stuff um and they don't want to talk about architectural because they're concerned that that would bring in um like siding and that sort of thing i don't think it does but i understand what they're saying so if yeah this doesn't give them flexibility they need so could it be significant deviations or well i just first i was just trying to find out if we're okay if everyone is okay with that concept and if they are then we can work out some language and or maybe the applicant and or mr hill together can suggest something i think adding the word significant in there helps i don't know that it helps if they um are concerned about the footprint or the height or the character um what's our concern that's what i was asking i don't think i don't have a concern all right i was asking if you were all on the page and if we were then we would try and figure out how to craft something robert is this from the um the standard conditions that we have i believe so yeah i mean i think the concept of sort of a building envelope is what i hear the board wanting to preserve right yeah you want to know that it's going to be generally where it's depicted in space on the land yes and i'm just looking back at other yeah i mean dover dover's reasonable regulations are regarding bulk and height right and so maybe those are the words you want to use since that's where you know bulk height setback no it's important to be safe depending on the ground size it does not have to be leveled yourself right and you don't even need that you don't even need to like push you know i mean they've gotten like new champion and new non- Cynthia they're right but because there was a primary� no yeah it's all basic zoning stuff yeah exactly yard size lot area i mean we could do that but in the case of the of the building it's really bulk and height and coverage which is you know floor um footprint right those are those are really the the building pieces that pull out of dover as to what planning board has has yeah i'm just looking back at other decisions uh that language is in the uh decision for the um veritas christian academy and i do believe it's probably in and i'm looking for it in the decision of saint uh the coptic church i believe so yeah i mean you can't just take it out that that doesn't fly it can't come out it needs to have something around it yeah we're not we're not saying take it out i just want to kind of refine it a little bit if we can well if you can come up with one language that would be helpful i mean i think the concept is the design of the building right the the exterior elevations no it's everything it's it's that it be placed on the property in the right place have the proper have the proper setback no i know but what i'm saying is the exception just has to be broadened a little i see so it just accepts the design of the building nothing else not the placement not the height not the setbacks i guess i'm not following with the exception of the architectural plans for the building interiors and we want to just carve out an exterior design exception and the rest of it can stay that's all we're trying to get at
we just want to be able to finish the design of the building meaning i understand except that basically the first part with architectural plans is just to carve out the bottom line it is no deviations from the approved final plans shall be allowed
and for the things that we are approving they are i mean it's it's on the plans we're approving those plans and those types of things that are on those plans we have uh i don't know oh no deviations from approve plans except as to exterior finishes and now they're talking about more than that i think there's um i don't know who da haki blair is this is that on any of your teams yes he's the architect okay can you uh elevate him please he's coming right now look you guys hear me yes and can you identify yourself and what organization you're working i am dahi blair the project architect for this project with Flansburg architects. And I just wanted to give my insight on this specific note, the 4.3.6. So I think what Bill, what everyone is getting to, it seems like there's a general consensus to what the challenge is. I think that when I read the first portion of the sentence that says, with the exception of architectural plans for building interiors, the way that I read that as an architect, is that architectural plans isn't necessarily referring to floor plans, it's referring to the drawing set. And the drawing set has all sorts of different kinds of drawings in it, right? It's got elevations, it's got floor plans, it's got reflected ceiling plans, it's got details, it's got wall sections, it's got, you know, fenestration plans and glazing and drawings, right, to develop an entire set of construction documents. And so the exception here is for architectural plan, with the exception of architectural plans for building interiors. Right. So it's not just about the exterior of the building. It's also about just like roof penetrations and all the nuts and bolts of what makes a drawing set. So the exception to me basically seems like it implies that the only thing that we can change are things that are inside the building, when as we develop the set, there's ultimately going to be things that move around. So that was the kind of first thing that kind of flagged it to us. You know, the set of drawings that were provided with the site plan application, application were elevations of the building, then there were floor plans of the building that did show some of the interiors and how it was set up. And those were included in the site plan application because they're required for the site plan application. But generally, the approach was that that was showing, as you alluded to before, zoning requirements, that this new building on this parcel is not exceeding the setback requirements or the height requirements or the floor area ratio or any of that. We did have meetings with the Zion Review Advisory Board where we did show elevations. I think those are enumerated earlier on in this agreement. But those meetings, while we did take in some of the input that was received in those meetings, are also non-binding. And there's also common ground. So, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. The comments that we received from those meetings that aren't necessarily addressed in the elevations as they are now. So, it's just to say that the elevations of the building, while the bulk of the building in general, the layout of the building, is set, there are things that are still going to move around that are both with, say, the possible location of the exact sizing of windows with the exact composition of the different materials on the building facade. But then also, like nuts and bolts stuff about, you know, where a vent pipe comes up on the roof, or like how the roof membrane folds and integrates with the wall cladding. So, that's kind of the main part that we would like to try to get clarified in this language. You're going to have to figure out how to state it, because I'm looking now at the Coptic Church decision. And that one says, there shall be no placement of structure, excuse me, no deviations from the endorsed final plan shall be allowed or commenced without prior written approval from the planning board. Okay. Approval for all such deviations shall be requested in writing, clearly citing justifications for said deviations. So, and I think that we have it in our subdivision plans, in all of them, in special permits and other site plan reviews. So, we can't not have a condition. And again, if you have a specific way that you think that you can live with it, that's fine. In our opinion, or our practice is that when you submit plans, those are the plans we really want to see. And if you've given us skeleton plans, that's fine, you've given us the skeleton plans. It's the outside of what you can do, you can't go beyond that.
Well, I mean, I think that, you know, I heard, kind of as everyone with spitballing, have kind of come up with a way to kind of change the language in this to be more. accommodating one of the terms i heard was significant right but the issue with the word significant and it gets out to us like it's a it's a judgment right right that it's not it's not a black and white decision that's very clear right like you could say that you know the if the for example if the height of the roof deck doesn't change but the level of insulation on the roof goes from five inches to six inches because of a energy code requirement and the building is now one inch taller i think everyone would probably agree that's probably not significant i won't bind you to anything there but say if the steel moves an inch up like is that significant right so i don't i don't know how to deal with the word significant all i can say is that the way that the thing is designed is so it doesn't actually get to the point where it's actually encroaching on any of the zoning requirements so as not to require an appeal and that was the kind of level that we were thinking that we were working inside of so we can try to we can try to work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work something um in the next day to have for you to react to but that's that's kind of the the biggest issue here is that if we're set to a part where we can't make any changes and we continue to develop the design of the project we're stuck we can't yeah we're not true i don't think that we're trying to say that and i don't think that it can if you submitted plans and they're part of the application and that you're saying these are the plans and we're calling them final plans those are the the final plans. And I can't parse each of the individual little things, but that's how the whole decision is written. Everything's based on the final plans. Someone's hand is up. I don't know who it is. It's me. It's Bill. I was trying to listen carefully, Madam Chair, to the condition you were reading from another decision. I didn't hear it exactly like this one is written. One of them is exactly like this one. The other one doesn't say anything about architectural. Yeah. So can we just say no deviations from the approved final plans? Yeah. That's what it says now. Okay. With everyone. That's what it says now. Without the first phrase. Architectural piece. But the first piece is. It helps you. It helps you. It says except for the interiors. You can't. You can't regulate interiors anyway. Right. And that's what it says. You don't have to say that. Well, we're trying to be clear. And by saying that, we're being clear and giving that to you that we don't mean to make any incursions into your interiors. I know. It just it seems to imply that you can have a design veto on the building. No. And that's I don't want that to be. So no deviation from the approved final plan. No deviation from the approved final plan shall be allowed or commenced without prior written approval from the planning board. Sure. Yeah. And then once this is signed, then then the I assume the building commissioner upon receipt of a of a building permit application would say, oh, this is within what was approved or no, this is not. You have to go back to planning. Is that how that like kind of comes to be? Yes. But I think you would hit it before that because you're going to have. Yeah. Yeah. They'll all be talking to hopefully to each other at the different departments. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. I'm just trying to think about, like, who makes the determination, you know, if if we've made modifications. But I think that that seems that seems right this way, because then it's a little bit simpler.
OK, thank you. Dan, do you want to make some comments? Sure. Thank you. The the issue of the event management was. Included in the protocols for student arrival, right, student dismissal, and you have a finding of in three point one seven to that effect. I the way that finding in three point one seven is drafted, it doesn't reference at all the event management issue. And I sort of feel like you should have a maybe a separate finding that that calls that out, that that the applicant is voluntarily. Committed that the management of events shall be in accordance with that protocol. OK, isn't it? Is it OK? I hear what you're saying. And where would you suggest that go? Probably just under, you know, three eighteen or three seventeen. OK. I'm just writing notes and Robert and I, if we if it's OK with the board, we'll come up with the same language just to make sure it's in here. I'm just writing notes and Robert and I, if we if it's OK with the board, we'll come up with the same language just to make sure it's in here. sure it's in here it's fine i'm going to open it up to public comment now can i and then i have like a few more can i oh okay i'm sorry um condition four three one uh it says that the project shall be constructed in compliance with the approved site plans did you mean to say in conformity with four three one project shall be constructed and operated robert what did you want in there i don't think it matters conformance compliance but if it's a if it's a stronger word to say then that's fine the boys will hear that i just think that conformity is the more accurate word okay i think i'm saying okay board holler when you don't agree i i think that's fine fine um four three five it says the exterior shed shall be located do you want to say may i mean you don't want to dictate that there shall be a shed right it's on the plans isn't it yeah no uh we talked about this last last time that there's no shed shown but they want to they want to have the right to put a shed in that location maybe may be located yeah it's fine it's fine um we had a um build I had a condition that basically restated the condition from the 2016 approval with respect with respect to the athletic fields and that didn't seem to get carried over to this draft regard to what I'm sorry the athletic fields because we haven't done anything with athletic fields at all no I thought I saw that in here wasn't that one of the very first oh maybe I missed findings of fact it's enough yeah it's in the finding yeah yeah yeah 3.2 that's exactly what was in the 2016 agreement I know Robert tried to pick up the things from the agreement if he could well I mean that that says at that time the applicant voluntarily proposed that conditions would be incorporated including the athletic conditions I guess I'm not clear why isn't this a condition in the in this permit it was a condition in the last permit because we didn't talk about it you've got the last permit this isn't superseding the last permit the last permit was for what's there now and this is for what's being uh approved now so you're saying that the the conditions in 2016 are not superseded by this this not totally they can't I don't think they can't be well then then I think you should say that I think I think this decision should you can't the problem is because of the way you've repeated certain things that you wanted to have in this particular decision um some of them do supersede because you've changed the uh the two attachment documents uh on timing we've never talked about athletic field Stan but they're shown in the site plan it doesn't matter if you haven't talked about them they're shown in the site plan and I our expectation was that the same conditions that were imposed in 2016 would carry over if you don't carry them over we do think that they carry over but I'm concerned that that a future planning board or building inspector may not agree with you and well I don't know why you wouldn't just state it explicitly that that this condition carries over why don't you read the condition for us with respect to the athletic fields that there shall be no lighting of the same no permanent electronic scoreboard no permanent spectator seating and no outdoor sound amplification we have not talked about that at all I'm looking at the way that it was written here for relevant findings let me think for a minute we can say that those things that aren't superseded by this remain in effect we've just not talked about any of that Dan well Annette this was in the site plan but I don't think that that's the case I don't think that that's the case it's not in the record it's not something that the board has discussed how do you what do you guys want to do members I I wouldn't add it now um we haven't talked about it at all I thought the field was outside yeah we haven't seen them and and also you know the condition says the athletic fields now are here after located on the property well it's still the same condition it's still the same condition it's still the same condition it's still the same fields located on the property so I would think that the same rules are still applying I I I would just respectfully request that that you just say that that the the conditions in the 2016 I've never seen those conditions Dan yeah we did at one point once they're your conditions that's the planning board's conditions but they're not a part of this application are they they're in your record that this is part of this is a permanent actually the conditions were written by Sarkis who sent them to the building commissioner and said oh gosh these are the ones that you should apply and then he applied them he's not making any changes to them why can't we just keep it the way it is and say that we that we bless the the conditions that they're in now right because there are some changes to them so we could say that you know the things that didn't change are still just noting that the things that didn't change are still in effect yeah I think that's all we're asking is that except as addressed in this decision the conditions from 2016 remain in effect I'd agree with that it's fine I think that's going to be very very difficult for the building inspector to understand I'd rather just put the field condition as a condition then you're voluntarily agreeing to it it won't be a condition it can be a finding of fact why can't it be a condition in that I don't I don't understand we haven't discussed it ever you didn't tell us that we had to discuss issues in order for them to be conditions it the this language was in the drafts that Bill and I have worked on for the last three months and and for some reason it just came out that's they this was agreed to by the applicant and the neighbors and it was again never any discussion because I didn't think anyone had an objection to it the way that we handled most of these things was on those things that we had no control over we said that there is a voluntary agreement we can say that uh that was um if that's the only thing that you're talking about from the last decision that that uh in the last decision it said ABC and uh yeah it would still be in effect does anyone know what that really means does anyone know what that really means yeah what what really mean that that if it's not changed here it's still in effect I don't looking at that 2016 decision I I wouldn't necessarily know what that meant okay I was a building inspector so uh does it belong in what's referenced in three the new section 325
there is no 325. no we took it out oh um yeah oh yeah I mean to 26 I mean why why why can't we just add that that field restriction in as like just a note that says applicant has voluntarily agreed to continue this condition or whatever that that wording wants to be but just we agreed to it before we're happy to agree to it again and just leave it at that if I do think there's enough things that are changing that it would be really hard to go back and say well did this get superseded did it not get superseded but that one we just said that that we would be happy to put it in that voluntarily agreed and they just said they didn't want it that way I I was suggesting that it should be a condition just like it was in 2016 and I'd and the applicant has agreed to it so I don't know why this is controversial or does this work I mean I think you know because we don't have jurisdiction over it there's a lot of things in this decision that you don't have jurisdiction over but they're still in here I mean most of the conditions don't fall under the eight and the Dover amendment you had a condition in a Coptic church requiring 22 EV parking spaces what does that have to do with bulk and and parking and density nothing because it's required under the building code so we put it in can we maybe there's sort of a hybrid way could we just say that the condition in the 2016 decision regarding the athletic fields is confirmed or remains in effect that's easy to understand and it doesn't require the building inspector to go sort of look back and forth to see what conditions may survive and what conditions may not yeah so what if at the end of 3.2 at the very end after the word amplification we just put comma and these conditions voluntarily remain in effect
that works for me sure it's there in relevant findings okay say it again Robin just and these conditions voluntarily remain in effect remain in effect voluntarily remain in effect why do you have to put voluntarily because it's not something we're enforcing on the parties the parties are agreeing to it you can say these conditions remain in effect too and you need an and before that I think we can do it without the voluntarily I know what you're saying Robin okay that's fine is that good now that works is everybody happy speak now or forever hold your peace that works for us thank you um I have no other comments
do we want to look at 433 and 44434 again before we go to public comment yes so this is the change language Robert that I sent you you send me something yeah I emailed you some changes for this the first one looks like it's changed are you talking about tonight or before tonight tonight
let me refresh my email maybe I don't have an email from you about that sent you one I already closed it out since it at 9 26. I'm just going to refresh him maybe it's not updating okay right now there it wasn't didn't refresh okay yeah let me put it back in so in red is the proposal they were the proposed changes Robert did you define project in the front or project did you define project it's capitalized here I was asking if you had defined it up front probably not okay you need to do that so you can figure out where to do that Robert were you also going to put something in the 434 that um called on the applicant to uh request the project any return of project monies because you were concerned that if staff changed they would forget and it would just be sitting there
um it's easy enough to say the applicant may request that the funds be returned our request sure
all right though is that okay otherwise the new language it looks better thank you
in two years it should say after issuance and if we have of any place else it should say after so that you um it's a clear what you looking at four three four the one two three
so instead of within two years of the issuance within two years after the issuance but you want to make sure that you give it to them you don't want to just upon oh never mind what would happen is it would wind up sitting there if the applicant forgot about it and then at some point in time foreign scaling applications and then at some point in time they might want it back I think it needs to be a stop that within those two years that the money should be returned, but that the applicant should, I don't know if the word is remind, the applicant should request, I don't know about request. Still the same problem. If they don't, it's the same problem. I know, but it took Robert months to try and sort out what we have in old funds. Yeah, but maybe we just need a spreadsheet instead.
It needs a timeline for when the applicant has to request it to be returned.
How about applicant within two years after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy? In the event that applicant doesn't request return. No. Because I don't think we can give the town the right to just absorb the money if they don't request it. No, but what happens is that we have to get it off of the books. And then what the town has done is taken it for a gift, depending on how it was worded.
Do you and Robert just want to work on that language? I guess.
Or just put the burden on the action of the applicant or by the action of the plaintiff.
Okay. I mean, that the plaintiff aren't also. Okay. I mean, on his own returning. That's. I mean, we, we're better positioned now with all this stuff documented that we can tell us the plan. I don't know where the child trader could pick up the binder and see that can see where the, where money came in. And his memo, I can't remember explaining exactly why we're giving five hours before there was not anything. There's no receipts. It was bad. Just nothing. Okay. I go back many, many years. Just know there's no documentation of anything to explain where the money was coming from. When was it documented? Who, who brought it in? So the town trader right now, she's has done a lot bad job of helping us track all this stuff. So is there anything else? Board members first?
Nope.
Is there anything else? From anyone in the. Public comment section.
I don't see any hands raised. There's nobody left. Okay. Well, Dan is still there. Dan and Bill Sterling, but right. And there are no neighbors, no butters or neighbors. Mr. Pariah, are you okay?
Can we just make sure that that three, two, five or three, two, six, whatever it got numbered finally as is not there. Sure. Go back. Robert. It was the end of the last entry in three. So just go back to the last entry in number three. That three, two, six. Do you want to delete it out or. Yeah, I think the decision was to take it out. Yeah. Okay. Again, we'll offer you the opportunity if you want to review it before it's finalized. And there are not significant changes. I mean, just like wordsmithing. Okay. We can handle that. If there are going to be significant changes other than wordsmithing, then we would have to get an extension of time and have and, you know, continue the hearing. Yeah, I don't think so. Could we just make one last request that this version that the board finished tonight or so far? It's sent. I know Robert had sent an earlier version and we can do a quick look tomorrow, but an understood. We're not, we're not going to be proposing anything significant. I don't think we've had a chance to see it tonight. Is that okay with everyone? Yes. Yeah. And Robert will make the decision if the thing is significant or not. And I'll just do a final run through to make sure that it all hangs together. Yes. Seems good. So what do you want me to do? Send this to the applicant? Yeah. Dan, did you want a copy too? Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Understanding that we have to file it on Friday and Friday is a half day here. So any changes that you might be requesting, we would need probably by around 2 o'clock tomorrow. Understood. Okay. Is the board ready to vote? On this decision? Yes. Yep. Okay. I saw Mr. Quant. I saw that you just came back on. Is there anything you wanted to say? If there is, raise your hand. Okay. We need a, we need a vote to approve it. Oh, we, first we need to close the hearing too. Yep. And then we also need a vote to approve it. And then a vote for the chair to approve it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Here. Thank you. There is a vote for the chair to, for the chair to finalize the decision. And sign it. I will wake up. Okay. So I move that we close the public hearing on the application for 37. To 45. What the road in the Carol school. Pb. 25. Oh, three. Yes. So in that. But roll call. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. Ira, wake up. You have to unmute yourself. We're voting on closing the hearing. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Is there another motion that someone would like to make about finalizing the decision and voting on the decision? So do you want to move that we finalize and vote or do you want to move that we vote yes or no? I think that you both, all of that, and that you authorize me to work with Robert to file the thing on Friday. Okay. So then I move that we vote to whether we approve the decision and that we also authorize the chair to finalize any small changes to the decision. I'll second.
All in favor, Larry Kiernan? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. Okay. Thank you, everyone. I hope that this works out fine for this one. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you all for your hard work. Robert and the board. Appreciate it. Much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for your time and attention to this. Good night. Thank you so much. Is there anything else that we need to do? Adjourn? In one minute. I just want to know. Yeah, I know. I'm just kidding. Yeah, you're a riot.
But you're a helpful riot, and that's good. Did you use two screens tonight, Annette? I was having trouble with my screen. I still need some work. I couldn't. I'll explain to you later. It was a problem.
Let's see. We have the Dunkin' Donuts thing. Robert, you're going to prepare for us. You're going to send everybody the guidelines when you put the packet together, and you're going to tell us where they have and haven't complied with those guidelines. Okay. And then for the hearing, we need some kind of a memo that tells us what is going on. I have one draft of that. Okay. I know what you wrote, Robin, about the regulations, but we can change those regulations. Right. Okay. So I was working on that tonight, which is how I lost track of time and didn't realize it was 37. Because it was so much fun. I know. So I'll work on that some more. I'm at an off-site tomorrow. So maybe. Maybe on Friday, and then I'll send it to Robert. Okay. Terrific. Okay. Just so that people have some kind of a something to look at. It's just a starting point, yeah. And I think I got it sorted out. I looked at the motion session that I go to and Robin went to in order to look at the motions that town council has written for us to effectuate each of our articles. The one that was written for EE, which is the House. APPEAL. The order made no sense. So I talked to Doug Levine and we talked it through, and now we have a new one which makes more sense. So they're not looking to amend just 603, which deals with Dover Amendment. They're looking to amend the entire site plan process to allow for appeals under certain conditions. our existing bylaw under Article 6, which has size limits on what is subject to site plan and what isn't, and make sure that what they're proposing, because they're talking about sizes, certain sizes could be appealed to one place, other sizes could be appealed someplace else, to just make sure that it all works. So is Doug going to revise it even more than the one revision we already got? No. I think that we're getting, I think that's what we're going to be having the zoning hearing on, and we have to because that's what we noticed, and I told him he's going to have to speak and explain what it is that he's doing. Yeah, because, I mean, when we went to that meeting,
the select board was saying that it's just supposed to be about Dover cases, that they wanted to do it. Right. Not this change made. Right. But that's not how it's written. I know, and evidently Carolyn told them they couldn't do that. Our town council told them that they couldn't just make it Dover. That makes sense. So, hmm, okay. But that helps to figure out what we're looking at. Right. Okay. Okay. So anything else that you people want to have on another agenda? Just put the lists together. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn?
Somebody else? Motion to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor. Larry Kiernan, you're muted. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you. Good night, everybody.
The agenda is call to order, then review and approve draft minutes of 3.25.26, then vote on the selectman's request for leave to withdraw. There's 3.226 version of a proposed zoning bylaw amendment to allow appeals of the planning board site plan decisions. Then updates from the town planner and chair. One will be the schedule for meetings for next year. The other will be a report on meetings with the finance committee and with the economic development committee. And then continued public hearing. At 7.30 for 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan approval will be going over the decision. Then board comments and concerns. Matters not anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting and adjourn. So I'd like to call roll call. Jesse Newberry.
Here. Robin Borgestedt. Here. Larry Kiernan. Here. Here. Sarah Montague. Here. Annette Lewis here.
Can we, can you put the minutes up, Robert? Has everybody had an opportunity to look at the minutes? Yes. Excuse me for one moment.
Hello.
Okay.
Does anyone have any comments on the minutes?
No. Any correction? No. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 3.25.26? I'll make the motion to approve them. Go ahead, Jesse. I'll make the motion to approve the minutes from, um, 3.25, 5, 26 seconds. Which one grabbed the second? Was that Ira? Robin. Robin. Robin.
Um, roll call vote. Uh, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. I reminded you. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Um, you'll recall that the select board, um, filed a version of a zoning bylaw amendment, uh, dealing to allow appeals of planning board site plan decisions. They filed it on 3.2.26. Then they subsequently filed another one, but because of the way the statute works, once something is filed, you're required to have a hearing within X number of days. They don't tell you what you do to withdraw. So they have now requested for leave to withdraw the first version and that they, we would move forward with having a hearing on the second version. So I would like a motion in less than anybody wants to talk more about it. I'd like a motion to allow, uh, withdraw by the selectment of the 3.2.26 version of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment to allow appeals of planning board site plan decisions. So moved. Second. Uh, all in favor, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. I don't know what's going on with my voice, but I don't have one. That's not good.
Okay. Uh, report on meetings from, with, uh, the finance committee. Uh, I'll do that first. I went to a meeting on April the 6th, explained to them what we were doing, why we were doing it. Um, and, uh, asked if they had any questions. I was, I went into a great deal of detail explaining it. Um, they didn't have any questions and I thought they were going to vote that evening, but they didn't. They, um, said that they were, uh, going to save it to their next meeting. Well, for the next meeting, it was just supposed to be a vote, but then at 3.30, I said, okay, I'm going to vote. Um, I'm going to vote. And then at 3.30 in the afternoon, they changed their agenda and Becky Stenese, uh, was in attendance and gave, uh, some kind of presentation. I wasn't there. I was out of town. Uh, I asked Robin if she could go and Robin did. So Robin, you can report to us. Uh, well, it was a very frustrating meeting. Um, I was told that I could only speak as a town resident and not as a member of the planning board. And that I could only speak before Becky addressed the finance committee and that I would not be allowed to speak after she did, even though she was going to present a whole new version of what they were proposing. Uh, and I didn't get to see that until she spoke. Um, so that was very interesting. And their, their vote prior to that meeting had been to, um, to defer any vote on the article. And then after Becky spoke. The chair asked if anybody wanted to vote on it again, and they all just sat there and said nothing. So then Carl called the vote, which was interesting. Um, and, uh, one member voted to recommend the article as it was written. Two or three voted against it and two abstained. I think they had wanted to hear a little more from the planning board, um, from the nodding that I saw there. But I couldn't tell. So it was a very frustrating meeting. It was, you know, it was crazy. I don't know. From my perspective, anyway, I had expected since they only changed the agenda to include the EDC at like three 30 in the afternoon that day, it seemed a little one-sided then not to allow the planning board to come and talk also. But he said, well, you're not on the agenda. I can't let you talk. So.
And the decision to include the EDC just that afternoon. Is that what you said? Yes. At three 30 in the afternoon before seven o'clock meeting. They can't change it like that. Can they?
I, I, well, from what I've ever seen, no, but because look at all the people that may be hanging on that group speaking and they have no clue that you're going to show up. Not a good look to change it that late. I don't think it's legal. It's it also sounds like it was a colossal waste of everyone's time. So that's, that's where we are and we have gotten another revised suggested amendments to that bylaw from the EDC when we did. I can't even remember. We reported to you. I guess we just sent you minutes of the meeting that Robin and I had with the EDC. Yes. So we didn't. Report, report. The minutes I think are very accurate and hopefully you've read them. We went over with them. Why. At this point in time, you can't change a zoning bylaw because they were changing the scope. And since that meeting, they're still changing the scope. They wanted different setbacks. And as you may recall, when we went through the modeling. Exercise, the setbacks are one of the primary things that you really can't change, because that affects how the site is used. And what we were proposing is just moving up, staying in the same footprint, same setbacks. So it changes the modeling and we don't have money to do remodeling and we certainly couldn't do it before town meeting in any event. And in addition, Because of the changes, I believe that it's beyond the scope of what our bylaw article is. Becky wanted us to check with town council in the state on both of these things. And I just listened. I've asked for permission from the town manager to speak with town council. And he said he didn't have time right now. And he didn't have a good background, so it would have to wait. Well, he also said that he didn't think Becky had the authority to request the town council review it anyway. Well, that too.
Well, she doesn't have the authority to ask you to do it, right?
She can ask anything she wants. Any citizen can ask anything they want. It just doesn't mean that it can happen. Well, I mean. I can't just call town council. I need permission. Right.
Oh, well. So at this point. I'm wondering what the sentiments of the board are. I'm assuming we still want to go forward with the article. It's a majority vote. And if town meeting doesn't want it, that's town meeting doesn't want it. Yeah, I think we go forward. Absolutely. And I think, you know, if EDC wants to work with us to update the regulations to to make sure that there's stepped massing or whatever. There's something that's easy. For us to do, and it's flexible and that is a more reasonable approach to take than to scrap the whole article at this point when we have the ability to make limitations, if that's what people want. Right. And we did tell them that we would be willing to bring back to the board a proposal to amend our regulations. Our regulations already do talk about setback step backs breaking up. It talks about facades. It talks about all of that kind of stuff. But we never went into. My note detail because you really aren't allowed to under the MBTA act. This is a totally different ball of wax than regular zoning. But even in regular zoning going into that kind of minutiae isn't really appropriate. And I think one of the issues with EDCs proposal, which is to leave the height low and make a builder a device. Right. And I think one of the issues with EDC's proposal. a builder, a developer go and get a variance is that that would make funding very difficult to get because if they want to purchase the site and develop it, you can't bank on a variance and no lender is going to jump on board with that purchase if they aren't assured of being able to build something that is profitable. And if they don't know exactly what they can build, then they can't make that decision. Plus, it's not clear that you could ever get a variance for that area of town. The variance that was gotten for River's Edge, I believe, was questionable to begin with. I don't think they should have been able to get it. But if we allow this extra height, but then put limitations on it using regulations, they and their lenders will know exactly what they can and cannot build. Right. So we anticipate this coming to a town meeting floor and maybe them making a case against? I guess. I mean, I don't know. It seems unfortunate that a committee that's supposed to be an advisory committee to the planning board and the select board is moving ahead on its own.
For me, it's just we want to encourage development. Well, that's what we were told. Right. Isn't that what they've been talking about for the last however months? And they said, well, getting multifamily housing would be a good way to encourage the development and the economic growth. So, I mean, you just you can't have it both ways.
Also, too, like if anything gets proposed, that site plan is going to come before us anyway. We'll have a chance to lean on it. Right. Yeah. I don't know. Just reasoning it out. Well, good. I'm glad. I'm glad that somebody is out loud reasoning it out. That's good.
Is there anything else on that? Oh, the town clerk, because Robin and I considered ourselves a subcommittee of the planning board, we posted and took minutes because that's what the open meeting was, as you're supposed to do. The town clerk said, well, you really should have a vote to create that subcommittee. So, posthumously, I would like a vote to that authorized Robin and me, per your instructions, to go and speak with the Economic Development Committee.
So moved. So moved. Second. All in favor, Larry Kiernan. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you. So, is there anything else, Robert? Do you have anything else aside from the meeting schedule? No. I mean, once again, trying to send something to the Carroll School. Okay. They'll add a question about the Warren article about site plan appeals. So, I'd like to send him now. Okay. Because he has a few minutes. What is the public hearing? Yeah. I don't think it would apply because it would be post. Yeah. I mean, but... Okay. I'm sorry. So, we drafted... I drafted with town manager's office a schedule of meeting dates. And the reason why I went ahead of that is because they are going up going really fast. And the schedule is usually the second and fourth Tuesday of the, Wednesday, Wednesday of the month. And this is what we're going to do. Okay. So, we're not going to go that fast. is what meeting rooms are right now booked as currently right now okay unless there's some conflict we can we can discuss that and i hopefully went through all the holidays the jewish holidays school vacation and any other holiday there they are and so some someone moved up someone moved back it didn't look to me like anything would interfere with our schedule none of the holidays seemed to not this year no i went through all them i mean it's just like the traditional holidays thanksgiving right so there's some sometimes when you've got a three week jump like between july 22 and august the 12th why wasn't it august the 5th because that's second because the second and fourth second and fourth correct something look july so it's not simply every other wednesday it's the second and the fourth wednesday so it'll be 12th and 26th i mean we can we can move it up if you like it's up to you no it's fine i was just curious it's not every it's not every two weeks okay okay um so let's see moved moved up in potentially move up in november twice which i think evens out then yeah you will jump after between november and december and then the 14th is the only one that's not booked for some reason april 14th is already booked for next year um and i just i have a meeting room and i also have it we'll also have zoom i'll actually have zoom on it already so this is great um so for okay i'm glad it's great i just have a question for the week uh when we go from november 18th december 9th december the 23rd um would it be better if people can do it to do december the 16th instead of the 23rd well we could even do the second and the 16th so we're still every other week yeah i think that's a good change can people do that sure and do you think we'll be okay robert which one december going after november the 18th going to december the 2nd then december the 9th excuse me then december the 16th so it would be and not doing the 9th of the 23rd so the second and the 16th and the 16th and the 30th are just second and then 16th second and 16th um i can i will put it down i can assume i might get zoom only at those meetings for now i don't know if they probably probably the whole meeting room is probably open but so i will i will request december the 2nd and the 16th only if that's okay with everyone else on the board yeah i think it's a good call to swap that from december yeah and then get rid of the 9th and 23rd yes yeah right i will request that and see what i can update that and there's always the senior center if we really get desperate yes i think this is this is only bugging what we had to control because the senior center is is unfortunately the different president book through so this is just the town hall so and then going to the next one if we're at the 16th um i was wondering if january would be a diff going from december 16th to january 13th is a really long haul
change the 13th to the 6th well i'm wondering yeah or do we just wait and see if we need to add a meeting then or change one as we get closer and see what's on the agenda that's true we could do it that way too let me let me i'll i'll go ahead and book the six just in case okay and then we can just get rid of the means if you have to yeah okay okay um and you checked with bill sturt to make sure that he's i did i met well i checked it wednesdays in general and he's he's good okay yeah this helps me i'll uh i'll plan around it okay that's the point is that we have a long plan and i also use this vacation too so i'm looking around vacation i know ahead of time you know the average you're on thank you so april the 7th and then um april the 7th 14th can i do april the 21st um i can ask that one yep oh i thought that was a good idea like they could yeah i'll ask that i just did i don't want to be too complicated for now until i talk to you guys the 21st is probably going to be that school vacation week that's probably why i don't if i have the list for the school vacation week hold on oh it is sorry it is yeah yeah through it's 19th through the 23rd it's also passover oh that's probably that's okay pass over in the list
so um meeting 36 and is there anything else that you move right no after april the 7th you said that they it that the 14th is already booked correct so what are we going to do between the 7th and the 28th i can look for different day different day of the week i asked you or check about the senior center i don't know i can i can see the center center is available for the 14th yeah it's actually i mean it's the 14th of april the seventh is and we do it on the first in the whatever meeting oh that was because of the vacation you went to that i'm sorry okay i mean we could also if we need to add a meeting between the 7th and the 28th we can also so just go for the 7th and then go to the 28th yeah well we can try and book the 14th in case we need it at the senior center and if we don't need it we won't meet i don't know if don't know if we have zoom that's see we she said the day is ready for it booked honestly we don't there would be we have to in person most likely if we have the scene center so let me look at let me look into 14 just um in person only because i don't think we i don't think we have zoom for that for that day because we would we would have booked only zoom in case you want to book it as an extra yeah i'll book it as this see if we can book in the scene center for now you're going to try and book the 14th for the for this just in person only scene center yeah okay see away any else that pops and then there's the 28th and then the 12th 26th 9th 23rd okay if that works for everybody i guess it's okay with me all right this is not in their vote so i will i will send the next packet i will have an updated list so you guys can go ahead okay excellent you who could only five minutes left um is there any other boards and comments or concerns oh i can also give an update of the next schedule and what's going on so the next meeting is the 29th and right now we have the um the site plan for the dunga donuts jimmy john outdoor dining and i provided them the guidance for the outdoor dining so they should be able to answer questions if they have not if they don't um present any documents or narrative before the meeting and then at 7 45 we have the zoning public hearing for the planning board appeal um and that this meeting will be in the ceo way and be hybrid so we'll be meeting in the ceo way council on aging in the community center and then it will also be um done also through zoom and when when robert says the hearing for the appeals it's the zoning public hearing for the by law change that the selectmen have proposed for town meeting to vote on so are they gonna officially resubmit they did already did okay that's the one we have with that it just has one extra long sentence it has a bunch of stuff okay I was I was late because I was reworking the draft of okay the other thing so and then we on the 13th of May we have the one Hobbs Road 67 a local Street site plan for assisted living assisting share living sorry share living and that is to to determine what time of e because I'm hoping that the town center owners are gonna come at that May 13 me in and give an update and have a discussion of what they're looking to do and figure out a game plan of how to accomplish working together I'm waiting to hear back from them exactly how much time they're looking for so I know how a time to put the public hearing for so I will give them a few more days if not I need to even if they even if they don't want to tell us exactly what they've got in mind because I don't think they know yet if they can tell us the kinds of things that they're looking at so that we can figure out if there are bylaw changes needed changes to the site plans changes to the parking lot they've got the master special permit all that and we've had discussions with them offline so I have idea what well they probably was presenting won't be won't be new to me I have idea okay so my guess is about 45 minutes so I'm probably gonna post the hearing public hearing for the local street at 745 and then we move on better luck to you just to hear from them if possible if not by Friday I'm gonna change it and sing and post it next week okay and if it's not available by then I'll have to comment later and we'll see that all right thank you all again and I'll see you on our next meeting if that's okay thank you all again and I'll see you on our next meeting if that's And is that one in-person, hybrid, or Zoom? That is, right now, I have it as Zoom right now. Okay. Because I, what would the board like to do, Zoom? Because I need, because you need to post that too. I don't, I'm trying to remember what we're going to book for that. I believe we have a lot of me here for the night.
Okay. Do you, would the board like to use, do I mean Zoom by Zoom?
What do you think, fellows?
I have no preference. Yeah. I'm sorry, who was this for? Yeah, the local street shared living, and we have the town center. It's an over-amendment matter, but small-er. Yeah. I mean, I wonder if we're having more of a sort of a discussion with the town center owners, if maybe that's better in person? I would sort of think maybe it would be. I always look for discussion with the town centers in person. It's the first time we're meeting them. Yeah. If we can do that one in person, Robert. Yeah, I think it would be the large meeting room, but I can, if not, I can also try to move the seat away too. Okay. The select meeting room isn't so awful, Robert, necessarily, as long as everything's working. Sure. I'll book one of those two rooms. I have one booked, and I'll look into it somewhere if possible. Before we get. You want it in person and hybrid if possible? Yeah. Okay. No, no. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I know one of the three-year-old on the team isn't from Chicago, and he lives in Chicago. Oh, okay. And I don't know if he wants to attend or not. No, it's fine if he wants to be on Zoom. I just. Yeah. I mean, if any of them want to come in person, it seems better to have a discussion in person. Yeah. I mean, both, the other two are outside of Boston and Weston, so I would expect them both probably to be in person if possible. I think they would like to make a good impression. Okay. That's fine. And do you have any more questions about the general化? Probably their ah. Their individual involvement. Yeah. Yeah. Robert has checked, and the way that we do it, you can see he arranged it so that you can see all of the board meeting, all of the board, and you will be able to see, hopefully, all of the panel from the Carroll School. You will not be able to see everyone who is in attendance because the town doesn't let us set it up that way. They don't do that because they don't want people, what they call Zoom bombing, and they have better control over the meeting by not putting up everyone's picture. So that's where we stand, and hopefully you'll be able to hear and know who the people are. Thank you. Mr. Perea, would you? Robbie, can you promote Chris, Raina, Carrie? Prey is not on there. He's not on there yet. But Carrie DeLeo is there. Yes, and Chris, and Renee. Honestly, if you're part of the team, please put your hand up. I'm not sure who Rainy Bourne is. Does that ring a bell? We can ask Carrie.
Ask away. What was the question? I was rejoining. Is that part of your team? No. Okay.
We're just waiting. I'm Bill. Okay. And Carrie, will you list everybody starting off who's on the panel and what their affiliation is? Because people have asked for that. Sure. So I'm Carrie DeLeo, School Art Consulting. We're the owner's project manager for the Carroll School. Also on is Renee Greenfield. She is the head of Carroll School. And Chris Rainy is the CEO. He's the CFO of Carroll School. And hopefully joining us very soon is Bill Proya, who's counsel for Carroll School.
Is there anything that you wanted to tell us before we got started? There is not, to my knowledge. I did hear from Bill earlier today that ECT did submit their final report demonstrating that all of the peer review items have been reconciled. And I think that was the only thing open from our perspective. Okay. And I agree. I read the letter and double checked to make sure that all of the documents are in a final package. So it was probably about 47 page document has all of the updated form with the index, with all the updated plan sheets. And did you put that up on the web page, Robert? Say that again? Is that up on the web page? I didn't. I did not put it on the web page yet because I just updated it today. Okay. I verified that. And then also Jason from ECT also went through and also verified it. Okay. And currently we have to render or file a decision by Friday. This is our only scheduled meeting this week. So I hope we can go through this and everybody can get a good sense of what we've got. I just want to see what we have for participants, not for panelists. I don't see Bill yet.
He appears to be texting me back. I just pinged him. Okay. Oh, all right. Randy Bourne is Bill. Oh.
Having an identity crisis. Yeah. He said he couldn't get his Zoom to work. So he's in as an alien. Robbie, can you promote Randy Bourne? Yeah, he's coming out right now. When his face comes up, will you say who he is as well? I sure will.
Okay. Bill, can you, is it possible to show your face or not? I'm trying right now. Okay. There it is. Sorry for the delay. It's fine. That's him. All right. That's him. Yeah. So, and then finally, Bill Proya, counsel for Carroll School. And unfortunately. Unfortunately, it says Randy Bourne, but it's Bill Proya. Correct. Okay. Robbie, can you just change the bill? Just his name? It's not his computer, though. You can, I think. I can change it. You can change it if you're the host. Oh, I see. Great. Thank you.
So, Robert put together findings of fact and decision with conditions, taking the information. That was agreed to by the neighbors and the school, and putting it into our format. And so, I'm hoping that everybody has had a chance to go through it. I'd like to just do the preliminaries first before we get into the conditions. In the procedural history, did anybody see anything that needs to be fixed? Do you, Matt and Chad, do you want to put them on the screen? Sure. It's not anything crazy. I guess. I don't think this decision is that outside the box. I think it's pretty straightforward.
And anything highlighted, just things, if it's. Things that might have to change based on what happens this evening. Correct. Just in case. I have a change on the second page, Robert. Sure. This is just the first page. History. Nothing crazy. Second page here. Yeah. And 1.8. 1.8. Yep. Yep. I think it should begin going down to the second line with revised material was submitted.
Yep. Begin the sentence with revised material. And then we're going to move some of the stuff before that later.
Say that again. The sentence. I'll read the sentence and then we can all hear it. Revised material was submitted. On March the 25th, 2026, by the applicant. Good. Sorry. Revised material was submitted by the applicant to the town between September 9th, 2025, and March 18th, 2026.
It's the syntax and I have, I've written myself notes and now I'm getting myself confused. Okay. Revised material was submitted. Submitted by the applicant to the town between that and that. So the paragraph before is we've talked about how they had an initial application that was submitted. Then it needs to say that we got additional material over a period of time. And then, Robert, is it you who compiled the plan sheets? Yes. And the applicant submitted an index? Correct. Yeah. Okay. That's what's confusing. So revised materials were submitted by the applicant to the town between September 9th, 2025 and March 18th, 2026. I can change it. It doesn't have to say my name. It could say. I mean, maybe I read it back to you. Revised material was submitted by the admin to the town between September 9th, 2025, and March 18th, 2026. The, the, the, the complete set of plans was submitted. Okay. was completed on March. Like it doesn't have to be, it doesn't have to be I compiled it. I think it would be more clear if that sentence, the new sentence, just becomes the first sentence and the first sentence becomes the second sentence because then we're going in chronological order.
So this one? Yep, that's gonna be your first sentence. All right, so now it's in chronological order. On March 25th, the applicant submitted the index of the compiled set sheet. They didn't submit a set of the index. They either submitted a set of compiled plans with an index or they just submitted an index and I couldn't figure it out. Index, just an index. I put them all together. On March 25th, the applicant submitted a- An index. An index. Of all plan sheets? Of updated plan sheets. Okay. Hey, that should be better now.
It's better? Okay. Is there anything after that that anyone has noticed on the next, on page two? Nope. Okay. On page three? I have a question, Robert. Sure. Are there, at one point you had something about a 12-19-25 illustrative plan that they submitted to the DRB and we got a copy of. Is that in here or did you take that out? I think I took it out or I modified it. Whatever you provided me, I fixed it. It wasn't that outstanding anymore. I'm sorry, I'm not following. Is that something that was submitted for our record or not? It's still in there. Where is it? It's above, right there. That's where it is. Whatever it was, I put it back in order. I see, thank you. Okay. It's not in order. It's not in order, though. December 2025 is not after January the 9th.
Yeah, and above that is December 22nd. So doesn't that have to go someplace? Above the stormwater one. Nope, above that one. I can sort it out later, if there's anything else out of the sink. Okay, then in the final plan materials. Well, hold on. Wait, one more. There's one more thing, too. We have a student arrival, student dismissal parking protocol, but there was never any date on it. Oh, yes. What date do you fellows want for that? Because I don't think it was ever finalized. Here's the final document. I think the last version we sent was final last time. We thought the date of the decision would be on there. Okay, then we can do that. Just writing myself a note. In the final plan sheets, Yeah. You refer to C203, the ladder truck movement figure. And that is the title of what is used in the report that came from the peer review consultant. But the peer review consultant referred to C205. Was his just a typo? The letter today that we got. I believe there was a typo. I noted that when I did the index that it was referred to. So now we are referring to two different So it should be whatever the name of, whatever it is in the titled luck of that drawing, which we can confirm right now. All right. So one of these should be removed. Is that what I'm hearing? The 205, your second 205 is in the... I see why it's there. I think that you really only have a C203, but you need to confirm and make sure that there isn't a C205 as well, I think the one that was referred to, they have two different dates. I see. I don't know. Just highlight it and check on it, Robert. Yeah, I'll go check and see. I'm assuming that there's just two copies and one was updated. There is no such thing as a C205, so that one is a typo. So we had one for November and one for December? I showed just the one from November. I thought we only had the one as well. Yeah, I think that there was something that was reissued in December that that might have been in the set, but nothing has been updated on that since the initial, so that November 18th should be correct. And again, 205 I think was a typo. I don't think that ever existed. It was always 203. So can you check that, Robert? Yeah, I'll go check here. Does anybody else have anything on that page? Or the next? No? No. Okay. And nothing on page four. Then on page five. Oh, good. You added the new one that we got today on page five, Robert? Okay. Great.
Does anyone have any other comments on page five?
Page six. Go slow, Robert. These are the relevant findings. And I'm sorry that we couldn't get anything to anyone. I'm sorry that we couldn't get anything to anyone in advance, but we've been working on this and didn't have it for the board until right before the weekend, and they had to see it first. Would you like us to read through these as we go through? I'm going to ask Mr. Hill and Mr. Perea. I don't think you have to read through them. I mean... Robert, did you... I'm looking at Mr. Perea and he seems to be reading. Did you send them copies or something before? No, I did not. Okay. I will leave it on the screen for just a second so that I can read it. Got it. I paid a page so people can just quickly scan through. But these are mostly just findings. There's nothing... Right. They're findings, but some of the findings are voluntary things that they said they would do.
I'll leave it on the screen for a time each page so people can just quickly look it over. And for the board, have you... you have read all of the... all of these and you're comfortable? Yeah, I have some changes further down. Okay, great. Yes.
I didn't know if we want to do it in this section or in the section with conditions. If we had talked at some point about acknowledging that there is an agreement between the neighbors and abutters and the applicant. And I don't know if we want to do it here because it's not one of our conditions. It wouldn't be in the conditions. It would have to be in the findings. Right. And we can do that if that's what they would like. Let me just find... I have it right here. I can move it. Actually, it is in the... I'm sorry. It is in the findings. It's in the findings section. Yeah. So I'm sorry. I put it at the very end because it's... Can you point that out? Because I don't know if that's... I mean, what we agreed to should be in here. There's no other document.
Well, but there were some conditions that we can't really incorporate into our conditions. They're not in any other document at this point. So I don't want to make that representation in this decision.
So what we did and what Robert did was he looked at what the agreements were and picked out those things that could be findings of fact and those things that we could... conditions. He did.
No, I understand that. It's this... No, I'm listening to you, Mr. Prairie. I'm actually talking to my board right now. So, you know, I think that it's fair not to say that, you know, because we're picking up the documents that they agreed to about starting times, use of the property, all that stuff. We're picking that up and we're putting it, attaching it to the decision. Yeah. We can talk about that later. Will you write yourself a note, Robin, and remind us so that we can... Yeah, I have it as a comment on mine. Okay. Okay. So, Robert, make sure that people can see going through 9 to 11.
At 313, I think that was a fine change.
17. I don't know if we need to have that statement in there, the last sentence, because isn't that what it says in those documents?
Well, does the document... the document addresses student drop-off and things like that, but does the... Does the document address the event parking? I thought it did. Okay. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't looked at it today. Right. I wasn't sure, and I wasn't sure whether we were actually attaching their document to ours. And if we don't, then this statement that all parking will be on-site isn't correct because some parking might need to be off-site, and they'll bus people in, but it's not going to be on the street. Got it. And not on public streets, roads, or ways. Right. Okay. In accordance with... Okay. So, I guess that makes sense. Then the applicant will use... I think that is what is in your documents, that you would use other... your other properties to supplement parking for events if it was necessary? Yes. That's part of the protocol. Okay. I think that's a good change, Robin. Okay. I'm not trying to be... I'd like to know what everybody else thinks, too, in... Oh, it's been a while. In 318, that's fine. Robert, when I saw a previous draft that you had put together, there was something about student arrival and dismissal, but it doesn't appear to be there anymore? No. What happened to it? Why did you take it out? I don't know. I don't remember taking it out, 318. Well, we can come back to that, but I'll look at the previous drafts. Does anyone else have anything else on that page? On number 324, is that something that we have to have? Is there a reason why you... I know, Robin, that you were proposing it. I'm just wondering if there's any reason why it has to be there. It doesn't have to be any place in particular. And it can even be just a footnote. But I thought that what we had talked about at a prior meeting was because the parties were agreeing to something that... some of the things that we couldn't incorporate, that we were going to mention it by reference and just say that there are other conditions that the neighbors and abutters and the applicant have agreed to. If that is not something they want to do, if they don't want to reference it in the decision, I suppose we should elevate Dan Hill and maybe allow him to voice an opinion if we're letting... Sure. But only for that. Yeah. Or we can go on and then elevate him later. Yeah. Why don't we do that? Yeah. Okay. So we have two things to check so far. And in the waivers, there was just one waiver request. Right. So, Robert, in the second line, where it says to fully comply with all applicable, with one applicable requirement, development is not able to fully comply with one applicable requirement of the zoning bylaw. And then in the last, before the colon, it should say provision, the following provision without the S. In the next paragraph under decision, on the last full line, it should be waiver, single. Singular. So far, does anybody have anything else to add in what we've gone through before we move on to page nine? No. Okay. So I'm going to... These are the general conditions and I am going to read them because I want everyone to be able to hear them. 4.3.1. The project shall be constructed and operated in compliance with the approved site plans and related ancillary materials, duly submitted to the planning board on behalf of the applicant. Any change in the project or the use of the property shall require the filing of a new site plan application. If such a filing is triggered by the applicable thresholds and criteria set forth in article six of the zoning bylaw, as it may be amended from time to time, subject to applicable local state and federal statutes, laws and regulations. Then in 4.3. Prior to the commencement of on-site work, this decision, the planning board endorsed final site plans, landscape plan, and the stormwater operation and maintenance plan shall be recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in the chain of title with notations linking each of the documents to the approved ANR plan and property deeds. The applicant shall send recording information to the planning department within 14 days after the documents are recorded. 4.3.3. Prior to the issuance, and Robert, you stop me when you get to a place where you've got a red thing. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit $10,000 for deposit into Massachusetts General Law Chapter 53G Peer Review Consultant Fund. These funds shall be used for construction observation and verification by the town's outside peer review consultant for stormwater installation, as according to the construction activities sequencing plan that will be submitted 30 days prior to commencing project activity. If the funds get lower than $2,500, the planning board's agent will alert the applicant to submit no greater than $5,000 at one time, to replenish the peer review consultant fund balance. We are up to 4.3.4. And I had questions there, Robert. The syntax, it's the same kind of thing as we had in the last one where Robin was helping us fix it. But it needs to start off with, I'm not sure, that they agree that prior to the issuance of the first building permit, whatever fund, they would make a one-time payment to the town not to exceed $5,000 to be used for additional study and or for the implementation of mitigation measures within the public ways. And if the funds are not expended by the town, within two years after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, and I think it needs to say the applicant will, at a certain point in time, the applicant will request return of the funds after that two-year period, and the town will relinquish any remaining funds. And I can help you draft that, but it needs to be a little clearer, I think. Okay. It's a little like the other one where you're out of sequence. Yeah. And so if the first one, if the first sentence is the applicant will submit a construction activity sequencing plan 30 days prior to commencement of the project activity, and then, you know, then that these funds will be used for construction observation verification, you just, the thing that comes first is the construction activity sequencing plan. So if you put that first, then I think it'll flow better, but we can work on it later. Yeah. I can just send some language out. In 4.3.3, but it's the same kind of thing in 4.3.4. Yeah. Not as bad. Okay. And then 4.3.4, you have implementation of traffic mitigation. Okay. Then we're down at 4.3.5. Exterior storage slash shed shall be located adjacent to the westerly facade of the new academic building, substantially within that area depicted on the approved site plan as, quote, utility service area, end quote, provided that no road salt shall be stored therein. 4.3.6. With the exception of the architectural plans for building interiors, no deviations from the approved final plan shall be allowed or commenced without prior written approval from the planning board. All such deviations shall be requested in writing, clearly citing justifications for said deviations.
What you took out, the landscape screening shall be implemented. We have it twice. We did? We also have it on at 4.4.3. Not the landscaping. Yeah. Look at 4.4.3. It's right there. Oh, 4.4. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. Doesn't that, though, really belong here? It's not really a construction item, is it? Isn't it part of? It could be. It doesn't matter where it goes. We can put it back in and delete the other one. I just noticed it was twice. Okay. Yeah, I think it belongs in here because I was asking why it was where it was. Right. Another place. So did I read that one or not? Nope. 4.3. I'm going to get it now. Okay. Landscape screening shall be implemented along the north boundary of the property along Waltham Road with varying heights of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation to mitigate views of the school campus, enhance privacy, and reduce noise as depicted on and in accordance with the approved site plan. 4.3.8. No deliveries, trash removal under landscaping maintenance shall be scheduled to start prior to 7 a.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. on Saturdays, nor may those activities be scheduled on Sundays or on holidays recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In addition, to avoid additional traffic impacts and safety hazards, the applicant shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that deliveries do not occur during the pickup and drop-off times at the campus. I had a question here. Yeah. So we have start times, but we don't have start times. But we don't have end times? Should there be something that says deliveries can't be made after a certain time? I don't know. I looked back at our other two Dover amendment decisions, and we didn't say that. So that's why I'm happy to do whatever anybody wants. I would think we should have some sort of a just for the sake of peace and quiet, you know, 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock, whatever. Right. But something. I don't know what the applicant Somebody's hand is raised, and we'll get to you in one minute. In the agreement with the neighbors, that wasn't there. So, you know, whoever wants to, between the two of those parties, suggest something, that would be great. Can we recognize whoever's hand is up? It's Carrie. It's me. I just wanted to ask if that 9 a.m. Saturday start is a town standard. I don't typically see 9. It's usually 8 on Saturdays and no work on Sundays. So just curious. You don't have it. I just picked that up from, I thought, your materials. I can't recall. I know we went back and forth. I think that's what was in your document. I don't think we created it. Is there opportunity to change that to 8? I think you have to talk with your neighbors, who are the ones that you were working this stuff out with, I thought. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess it is what it is. 9 start on Saturdays is kind of useless. These guys like to start at 6. Why don't you? I would say 8. I hate to make Mr. Perea do all this stuff, but isn't that what you had in your agreement, Mr. Perea, 9 o'clock for deliveries? And I might have missed it. I might have missed it before. Yes, I think that was in there. And this is just for deliveries. Deliveries. Not construction. No. This is delivery. Okay. Construction is in another place. Okay. Sorry. I was thinking all noisy activities. Okay. This is deliveries, trash removal, landscaping, maintenance. Yeah. Okay. That's three things. My mistake. Okay. So we did read 438. Okay. 439. All property lighting shall be dark sky compliant with no light spillover onto abutting properties, including the public ways. 4310. There shall be no placement. I'm looking to see if Robert has added it. There shall be no placement of structures, storage of materials, construction activity or cutting of any live mature trees or shrubs beyond what is approved in the final plans. The only thing that occurred to me is what about if in the future you have a dead tree that needs to come down? I'm asking that of the school. Because, again, this is language that you agreed to with the neighbors. Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. I think you could say, you know, unless the health of the tree deems it unsafe, you know. Or public safety requires. Yeah. It says no cutting of live mature trees. So if it's dead. Yeah. Okay. I would, if it's dead, I would not. Maybe you could, maybe instead of live, it should just say healthy, right? Because a lot of times what happens is they start to get diseased and then they're still alive. But, yeah. They start to become a health risk. Yeah. Okay. That's weird. Live and mature trees. Yeah. Again, we'll be happy, I think, to make that change. But I think we need to know. Open meeting. Excuse me. Let's recognize Dan Hill for a minute. Because I don't think he's, I can't read his e-mail. And he just sent one. Dan, you're permitted to talk. Are you asking me a question? You had just sent some kind of an e-mail that we couldn't see. Sure. I just, I'm finding it very frustrating to try to review these conditions on the screen for the first time. As well as the draft findings. And this is really not the way this should happen on a remote participation. I just wanted to make the board aware that there's actually a regulation. I don't know if you guys have read the regulations governing. Remote participation in meetings under the open meeting law. Yeah, we have. Well, under that regulation, any document that you foresee using in a meeting is supposed to be circulated in advance to the applicant and to the public. You guys have had this for a couple days at least. And I don't understand why this wasn't circulated to the applicant or to me. I asked Robert at 5 o'clock. Or 4 o'clock, whatever it was. Robert goes home at 4 o'clock. And I asked him. I didn't get a response. But more importantly, this really should have been circulated so we would have a chance to review it and provide some comments. We could have helped. This is very difficult for us to react to this in real time. Since the board hadn't met as a board to go over it, we couldn't do that. We will ask later on in the meeting if people want to handle something differently. But right now, we're working as hard as we can to get the materials done, looking at all of your comments that we've received so far. And we have a timeline that we have to meet. So we're doing the best that we can do. And at 5 o'clock, Robert would not have been there. He goes home at 4. While you're on, Dan. Okay. So with regard to the last thing that we were talking about with the trees, do you have an issue or your clients have an issue with talking about no cutting of any healthy mature trees as compared to live mature trees? I think that change is fine. Okay. Is it live or healthy? Or just healthy? Can we just say healthy? Okay. It doesn't matter. Well, it does matter to the people who are going to follow it. Yeah, no, I think it needs to be live. It's not who's going to make the judgment of whether or not a tree is healthy. Who's going to make a judgment of whether or not a tree is dead? I think that's an easier judgment. We deal with it all the time on scenic road trees where we're told that they are essentially dead, even if there are a few leaves on them. Can we require that any tree that's removed from the border with Waltham Road be replaced if it's removed? They'll have an issue with the size of it, though. Again, we took your languages from both of you that you negotiated and tried to put them into a document and tried to make it make sense. And I don't know that we necessarily care. It's up to you what your thoughts are. Is there a tree warden in the town? Yes, there is. But they only do shade trees and scenic road trees. They won't get into this. Even if it's adjacent to the right-of-way, they don't get into it? They only get into it if it's in the right-of-way. Okay. I don't remember this condition in the documents that Bill and I have talked about. I mean, maybe Bill did. Oh, it is. I'm sure Robert didn't create it. I can pull up. I have so many pieces of paper here. I can pull them up. I'm just looking for it right now. And I have mine in a hard copy. So I can't do a word check looking for that. And my bed's been a generic condition. Yeah. You don't think that they created that? No, this wasn't ours. This was a condition because the intent of the condition we had was to maintain that landscape buffer. So that's the condition that we had talked about with Dan and the neighbors. And it's not going to help. I mean, I can tell you where it was exactly. It was in our what was called 12. No, it was 13. The condition was 13. And it just basically was saying that the landscape buffer that we're showing, we're going to maintain it in good health. It wasn't specific about there was no language like this in that. Okay. So, yeah, this one seems a little difficult to manage. It doesn't really get to the intent of the condition that we were proposing. Okay. I'm just looking back at what you've got. Yeah. That was. Varying heights of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. In the March 18th. To mitigate. Yes. That's what I'm looking at. Yeah. It should be number 13. School campus. Yeah. I see it. Enhance privacy and reduce noise as depicted in accordance. So where did you get this other one, Robert? This is a generic conditioning, I believe, that we put in site plans. But this one is a little more of a I think just pulling this out and putting that 13 inmate. Is it 13 in here already? It already is here. It's already in here. Oh, it is. All right. Yeah. I mean, what else he's saying is no placement of structure, storage of materials, construction activities. Other than what is in the approved final plans that we could do. Couldn't we? I think that makes sense when you read that together with 4, 3, 7. Structure search ideas can. On 4, 3, 7, you could change it. So it said landscape screening shall be implemented and maintained along the north boundary. Sure. Okay. Do you have that? Okay. Then, then in 4, 3, 10. Is it okay? If it says there shall be no placement of structures, storage of materials or construction activity. Okay. Beyond what is approved in the final plans. We would just take out the thing about the trees. Yeah. I think it should say or construction activity, not and. Okay. Yes. Or construction activity. Okay. Are the final plans defined? Yes. Yes. They are. They're the most recent material that we received. From the applicant with the date. Okay. Where at 311 at 311. After the section number Robert. After 8. It needs a period. Then construction conditions. Prior to commencement of any construction. All applicable approval. So then obtained from other town boards departments. Then. 4.4. .2. 30 days. Prior to commencing, project activity. .0. .2. .5. .6. .8. .9. .9. .1. .8. .9. .8. .3. .3. .4. activity, the applicant shall submit a construction activity sequencing plan and timeline for the entire project, together with a, quote, NFPA 241 plan dash standard for safeguarding construction, alteration, and demolition operations, end quote, for review and approval of the building commissioner, the planning board, the police department, and the fire department, demonstrating how emergency access, general on-site access, and parking will be provided during all phases of the project construction, as well as the storage construction materials and snow storage, as well as the storage of construction materials and snow storage. This next paragraph, 443, I think we already have, Robert, in the findings.
We can take it out. I think it's in the, it's in the, or not in the findings. It's in the conditions, but not in the construction conditions. It was in the general conditions, I believe. And it was, it's worded a little differently.
Where do you see it? 437, 437, and we want it there in 437. But I don't think you necessarily need it in 43, or 443.
I don't, where do you see it in 437? 437, landscaping. Landscape screening shall be implemented. Oh, I, it's gone, that one. You already took it out. I took it out, I'm so sorry. I thought we were talking about snow. Next one is snow storage. That's why I was pulling them, please. I'm sorry, you took it out already. It's already gone, sorry. Okay. Next one is snow storage. Okay.
Isn't this more a condition for everything, not just construction? Snow that cannot be stored within the excess 22 parking spaces for excess snow, storage. I think that's more a general condition. It's not just for construction period. Okay.
And it needs to just go in a sequence somewhere. Maybe after, unless there's anything else about snow storage, maybe after 437. I'm just writing notes so that when, before it's done, we can check it against them. Okay. What was 445 and is now 443. The applicant shall submit ongoing inspection and maintenance logs of the stormwater system to the planning board. The next. Pardon me? It says planning department, not the board. I'm sorry, department. Correct. Sorry.
Is that in perpetuity or is that just, is this just during construction? Well, this is just for construction. So these are, okay. Normally it is in perpetuity. Somebody gets it. Okay. Well, that, and that was going to be my question because typically we submit those or we have those on site for conservation that just, just for us to know it's also. Right. So when you do it for conservation, are you just doing it for the construction period or for a long time? Well, that's why I asked. I'm only doing construction, but I don't know what's typical for, for maintenance and operation on. Going if that gets submitted or if it just gets maintained. It it's going to be in the stormwater operation maintenance plan, right? Yeah. It'll already be in there. Yeah.
So that's fine. As long as it's yeah, that's fine. Okay. Uh, then the next section, uh, at least one week prior to construction activity, the planning board department of public works and its water division conservation commission board of health. Fire. Fire department, police department, building department, and the town's engineering outside consultant shall be notified in writing of the construction commencement date and schedule so that pre-construction conferences between the applicant, its engineers and contractors and all involved town agencies can be scheduled to discuss construction sequencing standards, proposed fencing, and compliance with town rules, regulations, and requirements. The outside. Consultant must be contacted for the required inspections throughout the development of the project based on the schedule discussed at the pre-construction meeting throughout next paragraph, throughout construction, the applicant shall maintain the perimeter erosion control depicted on the final approved plans. Next paragraph, the hours of construction shall be Monday through Friday from 7 AM to 4 PM and Saturdays from 8 AM to 3 PM. No work or construction related activity shall take place on Sundays or on holidays, recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the next paragraph, all construction vehicles shall be parked on site. I think that the next three lines, Robert, um, are dealt with elsewhere, uh, in 4, 4, 11.
So I think that that can come out. So. It would read, and then I, we can go down and look at what we're, what 4, 4, 11 is all construction vehicles shall be parked on site, uh, on site period. All trucks transporting earth materials of any type to, and, or from the site shall be covered in compliance with state law. Any debris or material that falls from such trucks onto the public way shall be removed and cleaned up promptly. Um, the, uh, I'm skipping 1 paragraph and we'll go back the paragraph. The lines that we would have taken out are in the last paragraph of this section during construction, all local state and federal laws and regulations shall be followed regarding noise, vibration, concussion, dusk and blocking of public waves at all times. The applicant shall use diligent efforts to minimize inconvenience to the residents in the area. And then the 1 of the 3 sentences. These two brother, trucks, transportation, earth material, all types of, on the site should be covered. You want that removed? Correct. I'm sorry? You're talking about the one that used to be 4 4 9 and isn't 4 4 9 anymore. The 1, all construction, okay, you're, it's your 447, all construction vehicles, should be parked on site. And then pick up with all trucks transporting earth material. Did you want that in or out? I'll. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. I'll do that. All trucks transporting earth material should be in. What we're taking out are, there are two sentences that you're taking out. During construction, all local, state, and federal laws and regulations shall be followed regarding noise, vibration, concussion, dust, blocking of townways. And the next sentence is, at all times, applicants shall use diligent efforts to minimize inconvenience to the residents in the area, because that is in the very last paragraph. Yeah, all set. Okay, and then the paragraph that we skipped over just now. Any fill that's imported to the site shall be clean, and any debris found within the fill, such as, but not limited to, asphalt, metal, and wood, shall be removed. Then the next thing we have is constituting majority of the planning board. They voted to approve whatever. I know that you haven't had a chance to look at this, but we didn't have a chance to among ourselves. Does the board have any concerns with anything we have here, except for the two paragraphs that we're going to go back and recraft?
No? No. Okay. For the applicant, I'm asking you first, Mr. Pariah. Yeah.
To see the decision, and just make sure that basically everything that we have discussed is what you understand, that's fine. We need to finalize this by Friday, or if the changes would be significant, then we have to come back to the board, and we would need an extension of time.
Yeah, no, I hear you.
Can we take maybe a five-minute recess? Sure.
Annette, can I ask you a request? Is it possible for somebody to email this document to us?
Yes. I can do it right now. Yeah, I would love that too, Robert.
And I did have one question at some point, Annette, whenever you want to take public comment. Okay.
I'm happy to take it, but I don't want to interrupt their thought process. If they're recessing, so let's wait for the five minutes, Dan. Sure.
All right, so I'm sending to Carrie, Bill, and then CC Dan on it.
And now you should have it. I just sent it. And that's the copy we just looked at right now, the changes. Except for those two paragraphs that we need to just read better.
Robert, the paragraph that used to be 319, are you here? Yeah, I'm right here. Okay. I can't see because I've got my thing up. It used to say applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with the student arrival slash student dismissal slash parking protocol dated whatever date, 26, and site circulation plan dated March 18th, 2026. Is that somewhere else in here?
I'm just trying to find it.
Which one was it? It is. In A version, it was a 319, and it was in between off-street parking facilities. It was in between the number of bicycle parking places and then the thing about running along the eastern boundary of Appletree Lane.
Is this one 317 that you're looking for? I don't know. I'm just looking. I'm just looking at what I have. I'm going to close what I was looking at.
All parking should be on site and not public streets, roads in accordance with. That's different than the dismissal. What I was just asking you about was the dismissal of the, oh, God.
In this voluntary committee, all parking should be on site in accordance with that.
Maybe that's it. Sorry. Yeah, I can't say it because I'm looking at a different decision. No, it's not. It's 319. It's not that one. There was that one, and then you had the thing about the town code requiring the number of bicycle parking spaces. And then after that, there was a paragraph that said that applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with the student order. So, I'm just going to go back to that. Student arrival, student dismissal, parking protocol, dated, and the site circulation plan. Those are different thoughts.
Yeah, I'm not seeing that on any of the designs. No, I didn't see it either. That's why I asked what happened to it. That needs to be in there.
Did we take it out? Let me see.
I don't think it was in any of the plans. I don't think it was in any of the decisions. Because I'm looking at the one I emailed myself. This was afternoon. Yeah, it was in one.
Of course, I can't find the date on this. this one, but it was in one. So we can get that back in because they did agree to that. And that was part of the basis of the neighbors' agreement.
I think the other thing was that language that Robin was talking about. Robin, can we figure out how to say it a little differently so that they can deal with it? The one about they had agreements with the neighbors outside or whatever. Oh, that one that we tacked on? Yeah, I don't think that they have different agreements with the neighbors. I think that they entered into agreements with the neighbors. And I think we can acknowledge that, can't we? I think so. I just don't know how to phrase it because it's not you know, we don't have like a, I think it ended up in there as like a signed agreement, but they don't have like a signed agreement. Right.
I know. It would be conducted in accordance with almost. It's applicant has, we had changed it so that it would be applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal. So in front of 18, right in the beginning.
I'm just pointing. That's fine. I'm pointing. 18 is applicant has voluntarily committed. That student arrival. And student dismissal, those aren't capitalized. No I just pulled this from the agreement. I know, but they won't be capitalized. They're student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with the and then there it's capitalized quote, student arrival slash student dismissal slash parking protocol end quote end quote after protocol what do you want there i want to end the quote the student we don't have a's and b's here what we have is applicant has voluntarily committed that student arrival and student dismissal will be conducted in accordance with take the colon out the quote student arrival student dismissal parking protocol and quote dated april 15th 2026 and the site circulation plan and that's also in quotes and caps tight circulation plan dated march 18th 2026 both of which are on file okay if that's uh wait a minute no you don't need it there that it's on file because it already says it's on file
okay so um robin do you want to see if we can wordsmith that um thing that you want to put in yeah well if robert wants to scroll down to what he's put in there temporarily which one was it the one that we added it there right there 3.25 one could oh this was an info we could put something is this this is not is this findings of fact still yes yeah um one could say throughout the process i'm just trying this don't type it uh the applicant and the neighbors of butters uh uh met and negotiated or met and agreed to uh many terms uh that have uh found their way into this decision or something like that well except that they're not what we're referencing are the ones that really aren't in here like just something simple like the email address they're going to maintain so that the neighbors isn't that in the plan it's in the plan that we're attaching isn't it there are two documents that we're attaching which i don't have right in front of me yeah isn't that in the plan mr priya yeah that everything that we had discussed and we had shown the board and the neighbors had also you know weighed in on and provided revisions to comments on are all in here so i'm just trying to see if there's anything that is in here now there's no other document so this 3.2.5 is not a fact okay that one isn't but we could say that you did negotiate or worked the two sides worked it wouldn't say it that way but worked together throughout this process and you know and and many of the can your i don't know if everything in here was agreed to but uh many of the conditions uh as a result or as a result of agreements arrived at i guess if you want to i don't i don't see the point in doing that but okay there's again i mean the board made it very clear some things couldn't be conditions but they'd be findings so right you see them in this document and the things that can be conditions we see them in this document okay so i i mean i can't tell you what to say i just think the way you structured is the way we understood it would happen so that's all i have to really say about that one i just had a sense that they were things that are not really reflected in the conditions or the findings like the fact that you know the email and you know being responsive to complaints about traffic and things like that which were in the letters that we saw um but it's fine to not have it in there if we don't need it in there i just thought if there were things that are not reflected in here that because we can't reflect them that we we had talked about making reference to the fact that there had been discussions but it's fine to not reference them at all i don't know and that um you know i haven't done very many of these so i i bow to you you just but i think um the one of the documents mr priya i i can't remember which one talks about when you're going to have a big uh event that you will uh notify the neighbors and and all that stuff so that's in there isn't it it is that's part of this those documents to this yeah yeah i mean if something's attached here i think it you know it speaks for itself sort of if you want to refer to things like that are attached to this but i don't i'm just trying to make the point that that aren't included in this decision isn't really what's happening right okay okay um do you want to say anything else before i go to dan i was waiting for him yeah one other thing so can we go back to 4.3.6 4.3.6 yes the one that says with the exception of architectural plans yeah for interiors so i mean there will be changes to the exterior i mean we haven't come up with a final exterior design but you haven't submitted that kind of detail to us in the plans have you anyway no okay so but i don't want this to be interpreted you know in a couple years or whenever we get to that point that there's some sort of final architectural plan somewhere it sounds like that in this okay condition i'm just worried about that and i don't want to create that imp that you know impression that we have gotten to that point robert in looking at the plans um i haven't looked at the final final i looked at the hold on it's not that one i looked at the other ones and i don't think they've changed substantially is there i mean there really are no architectural plans that were submitted as part of the site plan right well that's what i'm wondering but but this says with the exception of architectural plans no deviations this just says for the interior it doesn't say for the exterior and there will be um floor plans floor plans floor plans overall elevation plans not alternative plans more like elevation um so if it either it's correct and we can or you might want to clarify to make sure that it's very clear in five years or four years whatever whenever that you know they're submitted that you know that the plans were not actually there's no we actually didn't get any real final plans for architectural plans robert but if you're looking at the list of drawings i don't have the current one in front of me i just have the last one from before when they submitted them there's a whole series called architectural a0 a1 a2 a3 and a4 mostly floor plans right three floor plans a roof plan and elevation yeah so um i would call it out if the applicant's saying that that they they might modify the plans and they want the wiggle room to modify it slightly so not stuck on the plans that they have that's fine well what if it says no significant deviations or it can just refer to those plans with uh with you do we even yeah we hit the interior so it could say something like with the exception of the architectural plans for building interiors um no deviations from the uh approved architectural plans because you don't really have anything and you're the ones who set them up as architectural uh would be allowed or commenced because you're dealing with height floor plan and roof plan i mean the elevations are you know submitted just to sort of show the massing that we were compliant with the you know the height limitations but they're not you know they're not design plans right the materials aren't called out the kind of fenestration things like that so i just don't i think if dahi's on or well perhaps you can help us but we we can't can't give you carte blanche yeah you have i mean you have to have you can't be higher in height and you know yeah i mean i think we have no problem restricting you know the building footprint and the the height and the massing i think you know to to bill's point you know you also can't build what we have drawn because there's not enough detail right and so i think that's what we want to make sure that you know as we develop those plans that we don't have to ask for written permission you know each time we add a detail because it is different but what but as long as we're staying within the massing and the um heights and all of that per this original um these original elevations i mean i think of these as sort of envelope plans right it's going to sit here on the property with these setbacks and it's going to have this general massing it's going to be within this building envelope i think we can live with that i just don't want this again to be construed as you know where we show the windows for example might change and you know color will definitely change in material the cladding things i so i just don't so if we don't and if we don't call it architectural plans what basically our bottom line is we don't want any any big deviations and we can't list every single thing that we don't want you to deviate from well what if it says no structural deviations
well that doesn't take into account where the placement of the buildings would be where the placement of the parking lot would be right yeah i the parking lot i suppose no i mean yeah i mean that that wouldn't if we said and this i think is too broad for you no deviations from the approved final plan shall be allowed or commenced all we would have approved is essentially your skeleton yeah whatever i said whatever i said without prior written approval and it's in since they plan but for playing board agent and so we're not the other thing i don't think they want to come back to us for anything like that though robert i know i'm just trying to find out somewhere where there's some oversight at some point but not too much if i i'm assuming that the board doesn't have a problem with what they're saying and i want i'm polling you so you let me know please we just need to come up with language you're shaking your head ira that's right yes and robin yeah the question is how to word it i guess right and i just want to deviations i wanted to ask larry and um jesse jesse i can't see you guys so you'll have to speak
what's our question the question is what we've just been talking about with paragraph 436 um that they would have no deviations from the approved plans um and they're saying basically no deviations from the uh exterior footprint height all of that kind of stuff um and they don't want to talk about architectural because they're concerned that that would bring in um like siding and that sort of thing i don't think it does but i understand what they're saying so if yeah this doesn't give them flexibility they need so could it be significant deviations or well i just first i was just trying to find out if we're okay if everyone is okay with that concept and if they are then we can work out some language and or maybe the applicant and or mr hill together can suggest something i think adding the word significant in there helps i don't know that it helps if they um are concerned about the footprint or the height or the character um what's our concern that's what i was asking i don't think i don't have a concern all right i was asking if you were all on the page and if we were then we would try and figure out how to craft something robert is this from the um the standard conditions that we have i believe so yeah i mean i think the concept of sort of a building envelope is what i hear the board wanting to preserve right yeah you want to know that it's going to be generally where it's depicted in space on the land yes and i'm just looking back at other yeah i mean dover dover's reasonable regulations are regarding bulk and height right and so maybe those are the words you want to use since that's where you know bulk height setback no it's important to be safe depending on the ground size it does not have to be leveled yourself right and you don't even need that you don't even need to like push you know i mean they've gotten like new champion and new non- Cynthia they're right but because there was a primary� no yeah it's all basic zoning stuff yeah exactly yard size lot area i mean we could do that but in the case of the of the building it's really bulk and height and coverage which is you know floor um footprint right those are those are really the the building pieces that pull out of dover as to what planning board has has yeah i'm just looking back at other decisions uh that language is in the uh decision for the um veritas christian academy and i do believe it's probably in and i'm looking for it in the decision of saint uh the coptic church i believe so yeah i mean you can't just take it out that that doesn't fly it can't come out it needs to have something around it yeah we're not we're not saying take it out i just want to kind of refine it a little bit if we can well if you can come up with one language that would be helpful i mean i think the concept is the design of the building right the the exterior elevations no it's everything it's it's that it be placed on the property in the right place have the proper have the proper setback no i know but what i'm saying is the exception just has to be broadened a little i see so it just accepts the design of the building nothing else not the placement not the height not the setbacks i guess i'm not following with the exception of the architectural plans for the building interiors and we want to just carve out an exterior design exception and the rest of it can stay that's all we're trying to get at
we just want to be able to finish the design of the building meaning i understand except that basically the first part with architectural plans is just to carve out the bottom line it is no deviations from the approved final plans shall be allowed
and for the things that we are approving they are i mean it's it's on the plans we're approving those plans and those types of things that are on those plans we have uh i don't know oh no deviations from approve plans except as to exterior finishes and now they're talking about more than that i think there's um i don't know who da haki blair is this is that on any of your teams yes he's the architect okay can you uh elevate him please he's coming right now look you guys hear me yes and can you identify yourself and what organization you're working i am dahi blair the project architect for this project with Flansburg architects. And I just wanted to give my insight on this specific note, the 4.3.6. So I think what Bill, what everyone is getting to, it seems like there's a general consensus to what the challenge is. I think that when I read the first portion of the sentence that says, with the exception of architectural plans for building interiors, the way that I read that as an architect, is that architectural plans isn't necessarily referring to floor plans, it's referring to the drawing set. And the drawing set has all sorts of different kinds of drawings in it, right? It's got elevations, it's got floor plans, it's got reflected ceiling plans, it's got details, it's got wall sections, it's got, you know, fenestration plans and glazing and drawings, right, to develop an entire set of construction documents. And so the exception here is for architectural plan, with the exception of architectural plans for building interiors. Right. So it's not just about the exterior of the building. It's also about just like roof penetrations and all the nuts and bolts of what makes a drawing set. So the exception to me basically seems like it implies that the only thing that we can change are things that are inside the building, when as we develop the set, there's ultimately going to be things that move around. So that was the kind of first thing that kind of flagged it to us. You know, the set of drawings that were provided with the site plan application, application were elevations of the building, then there were floor plans of the building that did show some of the interiors and how it was set up. And those were included in the site plan application because they're required for the site plan application. But generally, the approach was that that was showing, as you alluded to before, zoning requirements, that this new building on this parcel is not exceeding the setback requirements or the height requirements or the floor area ratio or any of that. We did have meetings with the Zion Review Advisory Board where we did show elevations. I think those are enumerated earlier on in this agreement. But those meetings, while we did take in some of the input that was received in those meetings, are also non-binding. And there's also common ground. So, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. The comments that we received from those meetings that aren't necessarily addressed in the elevations as they are now. So, it's just to say that the elevations of the building, while the bulk of the building in general, the layout of the building, is set, there are things that are still going to move around that are both with, say, the possible location of the exact sizing of windows with the exact composition of the different materials on the building facade. But then also, like nuts and bolts stuff about, you know, where a vent pipe comes up on the roof, or like how the roof membrane folds and integrates with the wall cladding. So, that's kind of the main part that we would like to try to get clarified in this language. You're going to have to figure out how to state it, because I'm looking now at the Coptic Church decision. And that one says, there shall be no placement of structure, excuse me, no deviations from the endorsed final plan shall be allowed or commenced without prior written approval from the planning board. Okay. Approval for all such deviations shall be requested in writing, clearly citing justifications for said deviations. So, and I think that we have it in our subdivision plans, in all of them, in special permits and other site plan reviews. So, we can't not have a condition. And again, if you have a specific way that you think that you can live with it, that's fine. In our opinion, or our practice is that when you submit plans, those are the plans we really want to see. And if you've given us skeleton plans, that's fine, you've given us the skeleton plans. It's the outside of what you can do, you can't go beyond that.
Well, I mean, I think that, you know, I heard, kind of as everyone with spitballing, have kind of come up with a way to kind of change the language in this to be more. accommodating one of the terms i heard was significant right but the issue with the word significant and it gets out to us like it's a it's a judgment right right that it's not it's not a black and white decision that's very clear right like you could say that you know the if the for example if the height of the roof deck doesn't change but the level of insulation on the roof goes from five inches to six inches because of a energy code requirement and the building is now one inch taller i think everyone would probably agree that's probably not significant i won't bind you to anything there but say if the steel moves an inch up like is that significant right so i don't i don't know how to deal with the word significant all i can say is that the way that the thing is designed is so it doesn't actually get to the point where it's actually encroaching on any of the zoning requirements so as not to require an appeal and that was the kind of level that we were thinking that we were working inside of so we can try to we can try to work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work it out and we can work something um in the next day to have for you to react to but that's that's kind of the the biggest issue here is that if we're set to a part where we can't make any changes and we continue to develop the design of the project we're stuck we can't yeah we're not true i don't think that we're trying to say that and i don't think that it can if you submitted plans and they're part of the application and that you're saying these are the plans and we're calling them final plans those are the the final plans. And I can't parse each of the individual little things, but that's how the whole decision is written. Everything's based on the final plans. Someone's hand is up. I don't know who it is. It's me. It's Bill. I was trying to listen carefully, Madam Chair, to the condition you were reading from another decision. I didn't hear it exactly like this one is written. One of them is exactly like this one. The other one doesn't say anything about architectural. Yeah. So can we just say no deviations from the approved final plans? Yeah. That's what it says now. Okay. With everyone. That's what it says now. Without the first phrase. Architectural piece. But the first piece is. It helps you. It helps you. It says except for the interiors. You can't. You can't regulate interiors anyway. Right. And that's what it says. You don't have to say that. Well, we're trying to be clear. And by saying that, we're being clear and giving that to you that we don't mean to make any incursions into your interiors. I know. It just it seems to imply that you can have a design veto on the building. No. And that's I don't want that to be. So no deviation from the approved final plan. No deviation from the approved final plan shall be allowed or commenced without prior written approval from the planning board. Sure. Yeah. And then once this is signed, then then the I assume the building commissioner upon receipt of a of a building permit application would say, oh, this is within what was approved or no, this is not. You have to go back to planning. Is that how that like kind of comes to be? Yes. But I think you would hit it before that because you're going to have. Yeah. Yeah. They'll all be talking to hopefully to each other at the different departments. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. I'm just trying to think about, like, who makes the determination, you know, if if we've made modifications. But I think that that seems that seems right this way, because then it's a little bit simpler.
OK, thank you. Dan, do you want to make some comments? Sure. Thank you. The the issue of the event management was. Included in the protocols for student arrival, right, student dismissal, and you have a finding of in three point one seven to that effect. I the way that finding in three point one seven is drafted, it doesn't reference at all the event management issue. And I sort of feel like you should have a maybe a separate finding that that calls that out, that that the applicant is voluntarily. Committed that the management of events shall be in accordance with that protocol. OK, isn't it? Is it OK? I hear what you're saying. And where would you suggest that go? Probably just under, you know, three eighteen or three seventeen. OK. I'm just writing notes and Robert and I, if we if it's OK with the board, we'll come up with the same language just to make sure it's in here. I'm just writing notes and Robert and I, if we if it's OK with the board, we'll come up with the same language just to make sure it's in here. sure it's in here it's fine i'm going to open it up to public comment now can i and then i have like a few more can i oh okay i'm sorry um condition four three one uh it says that the project shall be constructed in compliance with the approved site plans did you mean to say in conformity with four three one project shall be constructed and operated robert what did you want in there i don't think it matters conformance compliance but if it's a if it's a stronger word to say then that's fine the boys will hear that i just think that conformity is the more accurate word okay i think i'm saying okay board holler when you don't agree i i think that's fine fine um four three five it says the exterior shed shall be located do you want to say may i mean you don't want to dictate that there shall be a shed right it's on the plans isn't it yeah no uh we talked about this last last time that there's no shed shown but they want to they want to have the right to put a shed in that location maybe may be located yeah it's fine it's fine um we had a um build I had a condition that basically restated the condition from the 2016 approval with respect with respect to the athletic fields and that didn't seem to get carried over to this draft regard to what I'm sorry the athletic fields because we haven't done anything with athletic fields at all no I thought I saw that in here wasn't that one of the very first oh maybe I missed findings of fact it's enough yeah it's in the finding yeah yeah yeah 3.2 that's exactly what was in the 2016 agreement I know Robert tried to pick up the things from the agreement if he could well I mean that that says at that time the applicant voluntarily proposed that conditions would be incorporated including the athletic conditions I guess I'm not clear why isn't this a condition in the in this permit it was a condition in the last permit because we didn't talk about it you've got the last permit this isn't superseding the last permit the last permit was for what's there now and this is for what's being uh approved now so you're saying that the the conditions in 2016 are not superseded by this this not totally they can't I don't think they can't be well then then I think you should say that I think I think this decision should you can't the problem is because of the way you've repeated certain things that you wanted to have in this particular decision um some of them do supersede because you've changed the uh the two attachment documents uh on timing we've never talked about athletic field Stan but they're shown in the site plan it doesn't matter if you haven't talked about them they're shown in the site plan and I our expectation was that the same conditions that were imposed in 2016 would carry over if you don't carry them over we do think that they carry over but I'm concerned that that a future planning board or building inspector may not agree with you and well I don't know why you wouldn't just state it explicitly that that this condition carries over why don't you read the condition for us with respect to the athletic fields that there shall be no lighting of the same no permanent electronic scoreboard no permanent spectator seating and no outdoor sound amplification we have not talked about that at all I'm looking at the way that it was written here for relevant findings let me think for a minute we can say that those things that aren't superseded by this remain in effect we've just not talked about any of that Dan well Annette this was in the site plan but I don't think that that's the case I don't think that that's the case it's not in the record it's not something that the board has discussed how do you what do you guys want to do members I I wouldn't add it now um we haven't talked about it at all I thought the field was outside yeah we haven't seen them and and also you know the condition says the athletic fields now are here after located on the property well it's still the same condition it's still the same condition it's still the same condition it's still the same fields located on the property so I would think that the same rules are still applying I I I would just respectfully request that that you just say that that the the conditions in the 2016 I've never seen those conditions Dan yeah we did at one point once they're your conditions that's the planning board's conditions but they're not a part of this application are they they're in your record that this is part of this is a permanent actually the conditions were written by Sarkis who sent them to the building commissioner and said oh gosh these are the ones that you should apply and then he applied them he's not making any changes to them why can't we just keep it the way it is and say that we that we bless the the conditions that they're in now right because there are some changes to them so we could say that you know the things that didn't change are still just noting that the things that didn't change are still in effect yeah I think that's all we're asking is that except as addressed in this decision the conditions from 2016 remain in effect I'd agree with that it's fine I think that's going to be very very difficult for the building inspector to understand I'd rather just put the field condition as a condition then you're voluntarily agreeing to it it won't be a condition it can be a finding of fact why can't it be a condition in that I don't I don't understand we haven't discussed it ever you didn't tell us that we had to discuss issues in order for them to be conditions it the this language was in the drafts that Bill and I have worked on for the last three months and and for some reason it just came out that's they this was agreed to by the applicant and the neighbors and it was again never any discussion because I didn't think anyone had an objection to it the way that we handled most of these things was on those things that we had no control over we said that there is a voluntary agreement we can say that uh that was um if that's the only thing that you're talking about from the last decision that that uh in the last decision it said ABC and uh yeah it would still be in effect does anyone know what that really means does anyone know what that really means yeah what what really mean that that if it's not changed here it's still in effect I don't looking at that 2016 decision I I wouldn't necessarily know what that meant okay I was a building inspector so uh does it belong in what's referenced in three the new section 325
there is no 325. no we took it out oh um yeah oh yeah I mean to 26 I mean why why why can't we just add that that field restriction in as like just a note that says applicant has voluntarily agreed to continue this condition or whatever that that wording wants to be but just we agreed to it before we're happy to agree to it again and just leave it at that if I do think there's enough things that are changing that it would be really hard to go back and say well did this get superseded did it not get superseded but that one we just said that that we would be happy to put it in that voluntarily agreed and they just said they didn't want it that way I I was suggesting that it should be a condition just like it was in 2016 and I'd and the applicant has agreed to it so I don't know why this is controversial or does this work I mean I think you know because we don't have jurisdiction over it there's a lot of things in this decision that you don't have jurisdiction over but they're still in here I mean most of the conditions don't fall under the eight and the Dover amendment you had a condition in a Coptic church requiring 22 EV parking spaces what does that have to do with bulk and and parking and density nothing because it's required under the building code so we put it in can we maybe there's sort of a hybrid way could we just say that the condition in the 2016 decision regarding the athletic fields is confirmed or remains in effect that's easy to understand and it doesn't require the building inspector to go sort of look back and forth to see what conditions may survive and what conditions may not yeah so what if at the end of 3.2 at the very end after the word amplification we just put comma and these conditions voluntarily remain in effect
that works for me sure it's there in relevant findings okay say it again Robin just and these conditions voluntarily remain in effect remain in effect voluntarily remain in effect why do you have to put voluntarily because it's not something we're enforcing on the parties the parties are agreeing to it you can say these conditions remain in effect too and you need an and before that I think we can do it without the voluntarily I know what you're saying Robin okay that's fine is that good now that works is everybody happy speak now or forever hold your peace that works for us thank you um I have no other comments
do we want to look at 433 and 44434 again before we go to public comment yes so this is the change language Robert that I sent you you send me something yeah I emailed you some changes for this the first one looks like it's changed are you talking about tonight or before tonight tonight
let me refresh my email maybe I don't have an email from you about that sent you one I already closed it out since it at 9 26. I'm just going to refresh him maybe it's not updating okay right now there it wasn't didn't refresh okay yeah let me put it back in so in red is the proposal they were the proposed changes Robert did you define project in the front or project did you define project it's capitalized here I was asking if you had defined it up front probably not okay you need to do that so you can figure out where to do that Robert were you also going to put something in the 434 that um called on the applicant to uh request the project any return of project monies because you were concerned that if staff changed they would forget and it would just be sitting there
um it's easy enough to say the applicant may request that the funds be returned our request sure
all right though is that okay otherwise the new language it looks better thank you
in two years it should say after issuance and if we have of any place else it should say after so that you um it's a clear what you looking at four three four the one two three
so instead of within two years of the issuance within two years after the issuance but you want to make sure that you give it to them you don't want to just upon oh never mind what would happen is it would wind up sitting there if the applicant forgot about it and then at some point in time foreign scaling applications and then at some point in time they might want it back I think it needs to be a stop that within those two years that the money should be returned, but that the applicant should, I don't know if the word is remind, the applicant should request, I don't know about request. Still the same problem. If they don't, it's the same problem. I know, but it took Robert months to try and sort out what we have in old funds. Yeah, but maybe we just need a spreadsheet instead.
It needs a timeline for when the applicant has to request it to be returned.
How about applicant within two years after the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy? In the event that applicant doesn't request return. No. Because I don't think we can give the town the right to just absorb the money if they don't request it. No, but what happens is that we have to get it off of the books. And then what the town has done is taken it for a gift, depending on how it was worded.
Do you and Robert just want to work on that language? I guess.
Or just put the burden on the action of the applicant or by the action of the plaintiff.
Okay. I mean, that the plaintiff aren't also. Okay. I mean, on his own returning. That's. I mean, we, we're better positioned now with all this stuff documented that we can tell us the plan. I don't know where the child trader could pick up the binder and see that can see where the, where money came in. And his memo, I can't remember explaining exactly why we're giving five hours before there was not anything. There's no receipts. It was bad. Just nothing. Okay. I go back many, many years. Just know there's no documentation of anything to explain where the money was coming from. When was it documented? Who, who brought it in? So the town trader right now, she's has done a lot bad job of helping us track all this stuff. So is there anything else? Board members first?
Nope.
Is there anything else? From anyone in the. Public comment section.
I don't see any hands raised. There's nobody left. Okay. Well, Dan is still there. Dan and Bill Sterling, but right. And there are no neighbors, no butters or neighbors. Mr. Pariah, are you okay?
Can we just make sure that that three, two, five or three, two, six, whatever it got numbered finally as is not there. Sure. Go back. Robert. It was the end of the last entry in three. So just go back to the last entry in number three. That three, two, six. Do you want to delete it out or. Yeah, I think the decision was to take it out. Yeah. Okay. Again, we'll offer you the opportunity if you want to review it before it's finalized. And there are not significant changes. I mean, just like wordsmithing. Okay. We can handle that. If there are going to be significant changes other than wordsmithing, then we would have to get an extension of time and have and, you know, continue the hearing. Yeah, I don't think so. Could we just make one last request that this version that the board finished tonight or so far? It's sent. I know Robert had sent an earlier version and we can do a quick look tomorrow, but an understood. We're not, we're not going to be proposing anything significant. I don't think we've had a chance to see it tonight. Is that okay with everyone? Yes. Yeah. And Robert will make the decision if the thing is significant or not. And I'll just do a final run through to make sure that it all hangs together. Yes. Seems good. So what do you want me to do? Send this to the applicant? Yeah. Dan, did you want a copy too? Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Understanding that we have to file it on Friday and Friday is a half day here. So any changes that you might be requesting, we would need probably by around 2 o'clock tomorrow. Understood. Okay. Is the board ready to vote? On this decision? Yes. Yep. Okay. I saw Mr. Quant. I saw that you just came back on. Is there anything you wanted to say? If there is, raise your hand. Okay. We need a, we need a vote to approve it. Oh, we, first we need to close the hearing too. Yep. And then we also need a vote to approve it. And then a vote for the chair to approve it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Here. Thank you. There is a vote for the chair to, for the chair to finalize the decision. And sign it. I will wake up. Okay. So I move that we close the public hearing on the application for 37. To 45. What the road in the Carol school. Pb. 25. Oh, three. Yes. So in that. But roll call. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. Ira, wake up. You have to unmute yourself. We're voting on closing the hearing. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Is there another motion that someone would like to make about finalizing the decision and voting on the decision? So do you want to move that we finalize and vote or do you want to move that we vote yes or no? I think that you both, all of that, and that you authorize me to work with Robert to file the thing on Friday. Okay. So then I move that we vote to whether we approve the decision and that we also authorize the chair to finalize any small changes to the decision. I'll second.
All in favor, Larry Kiernan? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. Okay. Thank you, everyone. I hope that this works out fine for this one. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you all for your hard work. Robert and the board. Appreciate it. Much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for your time and attention to this. Good night. Thank you so much. Is there anything else that we need to do? Adjourn? In one minute. I just want to know. Yeah, I know. I'm just kidding. Yeah, you're a riot.
But you're a helpful riot, and that's good. Did you use two screens tonight, Annette? I was having trouble with my screen. I still need some work. I couldn't. I'll explain to you later. It was a problem.
Let's see. We have the Dunkin' Donuts thing. Robert, you're going to prepare for us. You're going to send everybody the guidelines when you put the packet together, and you're going to tell us where they have and haven't complied with those guidelines. Okay. And then for the hearing, we need some kind of a memo that tells us what is going on. I have one draft of that. Okay. I know what you wrote, Robin, about the regulations, but we can change those regulations. Right. Okay. So I was working on that tonight, which is how I lost track of time and didn't realize it was 37. Because it was so much fun. I know. So I'll work on that some more. I'm at an off-site tomorrow. So maybe. Maybe on Friday, and then I'll send it to Robert. Okay. Terrific. Okay. Just so that people have some kind of a something to look at. It's just a starting point, yeah. And I think I got it sorted out. I looked at the motion session that I go to and Robin went to in order to look at the motions that town council has written for us to effectuate each of our articles. The one that was written for EE, which is the House. APPEAL. The order made no sense. So I talked to Doug Levine and we talked it through, and now we have a new one which makes more sense. So they're not looking to amend just 603, which deals with Dover Amendment. They're looking to amend the entire site plan process to allow for appeals under certain conditions. our existing bylaw under Article 6, which has size limits on what is subject to site plan and what isn't, and make sure that what they're proposing, because they're talking about sizes, certain sizes could be appealed to one place, other sizes could be appealed someplace else, to just make sure that it all works. So is Doug going to revise it even more than the one revision we already got? No. I think that we're getting, I think that's what we're going to be having the zoning hearing on, and we have to because that's what we noticed, and I told him he's going to have to speak and explain what it is that he's doing. Yeah, because, I mean, when we went to that meeting,
the select board was saying that it's just supposed to be about Dover cases, that they wanted to do it. Right. Not this change made. Right. But that's not how it's written. I know, and evidently Carolyn told them they couldn't do that. Our town council told them that they couldn't just make it Dover. That makes sense. So, hmm, okay. But that helps to figure out what we're looking at. Right. Okay. Okay. So anything else that you people want to have on another agenda? Just put the lists together. Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn?
Somebody else? Motion to adjourn. Seconded. All in favor. Larry Kiernan, you're muted. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you. Good night, everybody.