December 17, 2025 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

December 17, 2025 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

I call the planning board meeting to order. It's Wednesday, December the 17th, 2025. It's 6. Choose your microphone. This is it. This is as good as it gets. We have tried and tried and tried. The Council of Agents, they don't have a microphone. Just please be quiet. Thank you. That's a good question. It's Wednesday, December the 17th, 2025. At 6.30 p.m. or 6.40 p.m., we're meeting at the Council on Aging Building Community Center at 8 Andrew Avenue. The agenda for this evening is calling the meeting to order and moving on to PB2502, the continued public hearing, including a joint session with the Conservation Commission. Thereafter, we're going on to the Carroll School, public comments on matters not on the agenda. We don't have any draft minutes to approve, updates from the planning department, board concerns, and matters not reasonably anticipated by the chair, and I do have such a matter. So, what I'd like to do is, one, two, three, take roll call, because Larry Kiernan isn't here. He's on the agenda. I know, but I have to do roll call. Larry Kiernan. Sure. Thank you. Ira Montague. Here. Jesse Newberry. Here. Robin Borgestedt. Here. And Ed Lewis here. Okay. So, for this evening, Sean, how would you like to proceed? We were hoping to be done with you in no more than an hour, because we have lots more to do. Yeah. Yeah, thanks. That would be fantastic. So, if you don't mind, we took roll, but I haven't opened up our piece yet. So, if I can do a real quick spiel here so we can open up on our end, and then Linda's helping Barbara come on, I know we should be ready to have a joint chat here.
All right. So, for conservation, this is a public hearing. This is 2A, 169, Rice Road, DEP, file number 322-1053. This is a continued notice of intent filed pursuant to Wayland's Wetlands and Water Resource Protection Bylaw and the Wetland Protection Act and the Wayland Stormwater and Land Disturbance Bylaw, Chapter 193, submitted by St. Pilipater, Mercurius, and St. Mina Coppock Orthodox Church for the work at 169, Rice Road, and Wayland, Mass. The proposed work includes a demolition of an existing church and construction of three new buildings, parking surfaces, a courtyard, a sports field, stormwater management systems, and a project sitting with a 200-foot riverfront area and a 100-foot buffer zone of a border-vegetated wetland. The property is shown on Assessor's Map 40, Parcel 08. Thanks.
How would you like to proceed? Linda, I guess we'll start with you. We'll have you kick it off, if you don't mind.
And you're on mute. I'm on mute? No, I'm sorry, Linda. I'm waiting for Linda. I'm off mute here. I was hoping that the Conservation Commission would deal with stormwater and we could listen and chime in. Yeah, that's fine. I think we had, is Jason there?
Let me see. Well, who's, no, wait, who's doing, oh, no, it's Bert who's doing the property church, right? Bert is here. Yeah, Bert's there. Maybe you can give us an update on the stormwater management, where we stand with that. That would be great. Bert? You guys, you want to sit at the table? You can hear us. I'll stand. I'll stand so I can address everything. Okay. And I'm Corey with DGT peer review for this project. We issued a peer review letter, the second one. Haven't received any responses back to that. I don't know if we're going to be getting any of that or not. But I did mention several items in there. some of them were with regards to the chapter 193 file I don't really have anything to report other than there was some some responses back from the applicant saying that they didn't they weren't sure where the regulation was to address a particular item that I had called out in my second peer review I have mentioned to them where that that particular regulation is so that they can address it I just haven't seen anything back with that yet so rather than go into the little details of that knowing that I haven't got anything back yet there's two other things that I'll bring up right now probably a little bit bigger than those items anyways one of them is with the mounding analysis I had mentioned before I haven't seen anything with the mounding analysis I would expect that they would they would produce something with that and then the other one was even though it doesn't require or isn't required to regulation I asked for a kind of like a test of the infiltration system just to see how it how it how it handles stormwater flows under less than ideal conditions and I haven't seen anything back from that so my report is is kind of short tonight sorry but that's what I got right now thank you conservation commission Linda no the again we were the only new information I think we received in our office was the phasing plan I think that's probably what planning board also received so yes we're so we still have some outstanding issues again stormwater mounding analysis and the third issue for us is also the off-site mitigation we do have an issue with that because of the way that was handled in the application and that the commission and has not approved any off-site mitigation on their property that's done by a third party so I think that's that's probably one of the bigger issues because you cannot meet the riverfront performance standards without doing off-site mitigation and as far as the input from our consultant Marty Nover who wrote a comment on that it it's it's something that I don't think it's I don't think it's sufficient to meet the restoration standards and again we typically don't allow third parties to come on to our properties and do and do mitigation or invasive work that's that's just one of our policies not having somebody else working on properties plus it's um again that I you know that's really up to the commission in the end to decide that but um I'm not sure that's a great idea so do you understand applicants what they're talking about yes we yes we do so we propose some yes we do we propose some mitigation work across the street on restaurant I believe right that is the case right but they're telling you that it's on town property and because it's on town property you don't have the right to do that without having a signature I think of the owner of the property so what is the process to obtain to obtain such a signature um Linda can you hear he was wondering the process to obtain the signature and the go-ahead from the town to do the work and that was provided in Marty Nover's um comments that she submitted to to the applicant I think that was preview um the before even the last meeting and Goddard did reply Goddard consulting did reply so um I would I would check with your consultant Goddard consulting about how to move forward on this but again I think the bigger step is whether or not you have permission to do that or to engage in even off-site um off-site mitigation with this project and that's again that's that would be that would be a decision by the conservation commission can you explain that a little more Linda I don't know um so so they're planning on doing some work in the riverfront area right which includes true removal and the moving of the um the driveways to different locations and all that is in the riverfront and in order to do work in the riverfront there's a requirement in the wetland protection act to do some um restoration and mitigation for that and since they have they don't have the ability to do that on their own property they're looking to go off-site to do that and uh we're you know that without having permission from the conservation commission even beforehand before even suggesting that it's you know um we have to go through the process of deciding whether or not we want to proceed with that that type of mitigate you I mean accept that sort of mitigation for this particular project and like I said before it's something very unusual we've never done this before we don't we typically don't allow third parties to work on um on conservation land um it could potentially be a bit of a time sink for us if we have to monitor and oversight all this and um you know that's that's really not we don't really have the resources for that so it's it's wouldn't be my preference to do that and I guess but again I believe it up to the commission to make that decision okay so just so I am clear right uh unfortunately Goddard is uh our consultant is not available this evening so uh so I just want to understand a few things so is it uh I want to make sure I understand is is it the case that that uh the mitigation work will have to be done by us and on the town property and and the town has not done that before do I understand that correctly yeah well that was proposed that's what what Goddard proposed was doing off-site mitigation on town town owned property across the street and again this is not something we normally engage in and not something that I'm not sure we would want to engage in um so is is the is the issue is the issue uh the the church doing the work or is the issue that that it's on town property I think the issue is combination I think doing all on town property by
since it's conservation land and it's it's got restrictions on it right well and there's some regulatory option things that came up during this process during its review which is we we should be listed as you know if you're working on our property that should be listed in the notice of intent we should be listed as a co-applicant we should the butter lists should need would need to include those properties also the 100 foot of butter list and so none of that was performed and so I think we have some regulatory issues that haven't been met either in addition to not um getting our buy-in on this or you know our approval to do this so for people who can't hear take your chairs and move them up we can't do anything else we were told that this room had microphones and that we should be here um okay Linda is there anything else that you guys need to from the applicant no those like like what burt brought up that's an outstanding issue and be you know the offset mitigation is another um issue and and again the phasing I think um I don't know what you guys have just what planning board has decided yet and it's how they were going to um permit this project is if it's through if it's using the phasing um um again our permits are good for three years and so what we're looking to permit is something that can be accomplished in three years right um we haven't talked about it yet in detail a few times in conversation and we'll deal with it tonight okay do you have a regulatory time frame by which you have to render a decision no it's it's 21 days after the close of the hearing thank you um if there's anything else that you guys want us to know about it would be helpful madam chair yes sorry it's jonathan silverstein for the applicant um i tried raising my hand but i i don't think it is working um could i just uh follow up on a couple issues that were have been discussed uh so with respect to the off-site mitigation my understanding is that there's an acknowledgement that the mitigation is required that there's no place on site to do it and so i guess the question is if the uh we're happy to pursue whatever approvals we need uh through the commission if that's uh if doing the work across the street is something that the commission is supportive of hopefully it would be um but if it's not what is the alternative uh in light of the acknowledged fact that there's no place to do it on site uh and and it would be helpful to be able to have an understanding of that with respect to the peer reviewers um comments uh he did cite regulations um but the regulations that he cited i cannot find anywhere my understanding is the commission has not actually adopted regulations under site disturbance by law that it's been considering some draft regulations for a number of years the sites that he's uh provided do not line up with um even the draft regulations so i'm just hoping someone can enlighten us because we've tried to figure out if there are any actual regulations that require the information he is saying is required um and we cannot find it
conservation commission the regulations are on our website under conservation department under the there's a section called storm water and land disturbance on the left side of the uh the link is on the left of the the web page um those were recently updated tonight's meeting we are discussing the most recent what we call final draft for the concept the chapter 193 regulations and yes they've been in draft form for a while we started this pre-pandemic and we have also we have also told all the applicants that this is guidance this is the information we need in order to make a decision on on for projects so that's why it's it's it's it's not a true regulation yet um but it will be very shortly uh however i mean again we're just trying to provide guidance to applicants so they understand what kind of information we need in order to make a decision and in order to you know um be able to review the information or have the information to review in front of us okay is there anything else mr silverstein uh i think that's i mean i'd be curious as to what guidance the commission can offer us in terms of the mitigation because if there's no place to do it on site and you know if the commission just tells us it's not even worth pursuing doing the mitigation on the conservation commission land which i'm not sure why you wouldn't want to see invasives removal on on the town's conservation commission land but um then we won't pursue that and and then i guess the question is what other alternative might uh you suggest we pursue sean can i ask a question on that please um mr silverstein i'm sorry if i if i missed uh exactly what you were referencing but i i heard you say a couple times there i think that it's an acknowledged fact that there isn't uh room on the site on the project site for this mitigation work um and i guess i'm i'm a little confused by that because i think speaking for myself i've been pretty transparent here that in my view the the magnitude the scale of this project is uh i think just far too large um and it's as i've said before sort of a maximum build shoehorned into this site uh so i guess i'm i guess a i'm i'm thinking a redesign could either pull work out of the riverfront area or allow for mitigation work on site um and i'm not sure what you mean when you say it's an acknowledged fact that there is not space for that i'm happy to speak to that so i think it's important to bear in mind that the mitigation my understanding is it needs to be in riverfront area our riverfront area is a very narrow sliver at the front of the site because the riverfront is across the street so my understanding is that mitigation that we do in portions of the site that are not within riverfront would not satisfy that requirement it's not my area of expertise i happy to be corrected on that um and that the quest i thought i just heard the conservation agent acknowledge and again i'm happy to be corrected that there is not room because we have so little riverfront and again when you're talking about redesign it so that we can do less in the riverfront all we're doing in the riverfront is relocating driveways to make them safer um so that's what we need to mitigate in terms of the riverfront protection act in terms of the land disturbance bylaw that's a separate bylaw we're meeting the requirements um and i understand that you'd like to see a smaller development but i don't think that is a requirement as long as we're meeting the requirements of the bylaw again there are no regulations that are enforceable in place there is a tree guideline document that i think is of questionable enforcement but we have voluntarily met it and far exceeded it um and so if there's something
we're not required to build a smaller church and frankly i think trying to compel us to do so um um is contrary to the law but we are happy to talk about how to mitigate what minimal impacts actual impacts to the riverfront are resulting from us moving a driveway to make it safer either on our site or on town land uh and so that's what i meant by that question thank you and i would just say i guess uh you might not be obligated to build a smaller uh church but you are obligated to meet the performance standards of the state weapons protection act on our bylaw so uh where you're proposing work in the riverfront area you need to meet those performance standards lindy have any well and i agree with with luke that you know if you can't meet the performance standards and you have to make you probably there's probably some redesign necessary but you can't make the assumption that you can um go across the street and do mitigation on property that doesn't belong to you and um again you know that's not something we normally allow and um it i you know there's there could be potentially other off-site mitigation from um others in the area that you could approach but that's not something that we would normally allow on our properties so i would i would i would check with your consultants goddard consultants i think they could help you through this um and see if there's something else that can be some other mitigation that can be performed okay so just so i'm i want to make sure i understand that commission is not interested in seeing any improvements or invasives removal on the town's conservation land across the street we won't pursue that we'll pursue some other off-site mitigation um if that's the case i just want to make sure that that's the sentiment of the board and and um if you'd rather not see invasives removal on your land then we'll pursue another option well i guess that would be my preference because like i said we net we have never allowed a third party to come on our property and do work um again that's that's a little bit more um time consuming for us if if anything um to monitor that the you know your the proposal was a 4 000 square foot area to remove invasives and with replacement of 20 shrubs native shrubs and i'm not sure that's going to suffice and it's just going to require you know years of monitoring years of you know removal to keep keep the invasives at bay it's not just a one-year process or even a two-year and you know we're not ready to start that project now we have plenty of other properties that we're working on and have um in our priorities lay somewhere else so um that's it's just it's not it's just not a good fit for right now and um you know if we're going to do invasive removal we'll do it with our own staff okay i understand sean is that how your commission feels i can truly let you know commission certainly freaks free to speak freely obviously um usually do that or if you're asking for an official vote we should really do that but to one point we've never allowed it we've never done that before so you're certainly welcome to have us take a vote but linda's trying to steer you towards a more kind of manageable uh solution um again commission feel free to speak your mind if you differ on any of that i mean i second what linda is saying i mean actual true invasives management is a challenging thing um it requires expertise it's easy to be pulling out things or doing um soil disturbance that shouldn't happen um four thousand square feet and 20 shrubs like doesn't it isn't certainly what i would choose to do in invasive management so i would be you know this is something that i think you know there's a reason doesn't happen too often to just have outsiders going into town on land to do this and um you know i i sort of i'm aligned with with what linda is saying about this fair enough i don't think we need a vote we just wanted to get a sense so i think we have it um i have a question while we're all here on the planting plan um there were several of them but uh there's a planting plan that is um like a gis print uh or a flyover with uh the planting on it and i'm trying to understand what we're looking at there are in front of the church uh near the entrance way over well over to the right in the parking area there are circles with three dots in the middle and i couldn't find anything uh it showed in the key what that meant
yes sean landon with studio dsk uh the following page there's a there's a i think it's l 400 maybe it's the the site plan a landscape plan 401 401. can we pull on the screen if you can yeah it has a planting schedule uh on there and um i believe those uh plantings are called out on the plan they are i'm trying to though go from the legend and i'm ha i was just to make sure that i'm reading your plan as prepared yeah and if you look at the legend if you look here these have three dots in the middle i don't know that you can see it real well over here excuse me three dots in the middle and there's nothing this one says how many of one kind of tree and another says how many of another but there's nothing that describes what that is you have a key for proposed trees of two different sizes with one circle in the middle and then you have proposed shrubs of three different sizes i'm sorry i can't see the designations that are um pointing there's an arrow pointing to those three dots yeah i cannot read the hcf is the hcf in the schedule and right where you're pointing i guess maybe the answer is you're not sticking to your key you're just putting other things in i'm trying to read the key i'm not trying to do a total comparison i'm trying to just look generically at where different kinds of plantings are going up there i see cf there are 12 of them they're cornice florida flowering dogwood go back to the key robert if you will the legend at the top left i'm looking at the legend and i'm looking at the two bottom samples of supposedly what's on the plan and there are three different sizes of proposed shrubs and there are two different sizes of proposed trees and the proposed trees have one dot you have three dots in the other is that just because that's what you happen to put in there or is that a different kind of uh symbol i would rely on the call out that has a leader to it and uh calling out uh whatever that is okay for instance that's a three dash ar and that and then i would go over to the schedule and i would see what what that said this plan right here i would say is a governing sheet the other one i know it's calling out certain things i think it's there to represent um that there are uh trees in certain locations trees or or shrub trees in certain locations but i would certainly rely on this plan uh for back to the legend on this plan this one over here down here yes i see all of that fine i'm looking again at existing trees proposed tree shrubs and plantings so the shrubs and plantings that's different okay so that one has three dots in it but that's a different size got it i guess um around the exterior of the site you have um what i think are shrubs just want to check they're the ones that you see around the perimeter uh not there but these in here and here yeah so there are shrubberies uh where the cursor is right now and there are trees um uh three ar uh right we can tell that those are trees trees because they're bigger i was just trying to yeah okay has the conservation commission had an opportunity to look at the planting plans was this in a previous packet this was certainly not in our packet of information this week no it was it was what this was a an original or if not an original the the second uh um submittal so it had been submitted quite a while ago um we've had
the key somewhere
i never find it can we look at the date on this sheet um we had um uh 826 maybe was the first one and then um it's uh landscaping and then you had uh 11.5 i think 11.5 this one is 11.5 down a little bit yeah it's very slow it's 11.5 okay linda one's the most recent one you've seen this one which is 11.5 i have i have a number i mean i have roles and roles of plans here um i would i'd have to go through this and look at it you're saying it's from 11.5 not 11.5 uh that's correct i while we were on site this morning um madam chair um expressed some uh confusion amongst the plans and asked us to um send uh just a latest of uh the site plans uh and instead i sent the latest of the site i've sent the latest of all of the documentation that is has been submitted um and i believe there was an email that went directly to you as well as emily anina and robert um and there's one pdf um that can be downloaded so you can see all of the um the latest documentation or the documentation that's been submitted drawing wise not schedules not letters from the lawyer but just the drawings so i would suggest you know taking a look at those if you're confused about certain submissions sorry um and so uh i hope i hope that helps you uh when looking for specific documents for specific information okay um if you have nothing more conservation commission does anyone on our board have anything any questions to deal with the conservation commission right now larry how um how much land or what land is in the riverfront how much land is in the riverfront it's very small yeah i don't have that number uh offhand um if you look on that same sheet i believe it shows the 100 foot um
uh riverfront area the front is 200 feet it's 100 200 foot as well there's 100 foot right there at sort of the side of rice road and then the 200 feet goes well into the parking lot so it's in the 200 inside 200 okay yes the underitarian okay well conservation commission if you have no more questions um we would like to excuse you from our joint meeting and you can go back to your meeting and we'll continue on with ours sounds great thanks we need to continue those sean and we need to figure out how when are we continuing to the next meeting okay we got closes for yeah so uh uh net when what's the next meeting linda what's the date uh january what is it seven we do have something yeah january 7th yes commission are we good i think we're good if we can continue this for these for our commissioners part to uh 7th of january sometime after 6 30. that work yes and we'll get those updated plans in the packet it'll make it easier to review just so you know on january 7th at 6 30 we're meeting with you on the carol school
just at 6 30 just so you know oh that's news um we did it at the last meeting okay sorry no well and lisa all the we tend to put all the plans on the website too on the uh under under projects and i can send you a link for that so i know there's a lot of them there's a huge stack of plans here so it might be easier if we just if we just load up you know they're all loaded up on the website you can you can pick and choose which one you want to look at it so this and this one was dated what was the date november the the planting plan is dated november 5th 2025 yeah and i remember seeing a planting plan and that could have been the most recent one i just don't have it in front of me as as we were talking about it so thank you it would it would probably been in your last um packet i think it might have been in the one before that no the one before you're right in the november packet you're right yes the last november you're right commission can i get a motion for uh continuance to january 7th 2026 sometime after 6 30. thank you i heard luke said i think we'll hear a second thank you i think that was lisa quick roll call please luke lazier yes barbara howell yes jenny brown yes shannon fisher yes lisa aubin yes cliff lewis yes and sean fairs yes continue to then playing board thank you see everybody later appreciate it um continuing on with our hearing what i'd like to do is spend no more than hopefully 10 to 15 minutes on public comment because we have shortchanged the public uh as we've gone through this but no more than 15 minutes because we have a lot to do and we have another hearing after this one so um i know that the attorney for the three condominium developments wanted to speak this evening uh uh thank you madam chair uh members of the public my name is dennis murphy i'm from hill law um i'll save the comments about the commission's questions for the next hearing there uh i do represent the management boards of the condominium associations for the fields turkey hill village and the meadows now so hopefully if i take four minutes we can avoid dupli uh duplication um so the first thing i wanted to point out uh attorney leger kind of touched on the expansion of the church uh really doesn't make an effort to fit within the rice road and turkey hill neighborhood the historic context of this area is that it developed from farmland it has been developed as uh modest residential and that really has been driven by the hamlin family as well as the town's own conservation efforts so one of the issues is the sheer bulk size and mass of the buildings and the uh radical change from what is a wooded site based on decades of preservation uh and i don't think that is compelled by the dover amendment and it is certainly not consistent with your own site plan review criteria so let me just remind you you do this every day uh i was surprised to see how directive those criteria are you're told by your own bylaw to integrate buildings into the existing landscape to preserve and enhance the existing aesthetic assets of the site and to screen objectionable features from adjacent properties uh i don't know that i could have written a more advantageous bylaw uh than the the one you already have for the protection of the people that i represent um attorney legere used the term um i wrote it down in my notes but some maximalist uh development and you know part of the reason i think there's been some tension in the room is that there hasn't really been the usual give and take that you normally see in permit proceedings that i see on a regular basis where one side says you know this is what we really need and the other side says well these are our concerns um and i i think that part of the issue is that they have designed something that doesn't even really try to comply with the criteria in the bylaw um and i'm not going to throw a lot of statistics but i did want to make it clear the magnitude so the current church is uh on rough order about 11 000 square feet uh rose floor area it would be more than 10 times as large as proposed 119 000 the footprint is 7 500 square feet and that would be over 43 000 um as proposed um and as we sit here right now uh mr corey has done a magnificent job of following the details and the technical aspects one of the things that your dimensional criteria which is a core dover thing is lot coverage but as we sit here right now i can't tell you what the lot coverage is currently and what it is proposed uh that's nowhere on the plans and that's in in uh in bert's own report so uh it always falls to the lawyer i think to uh kind of get to the bottom line and as i see it there are half a dozen unresolved issues that the board will have to address so one is and i wasn't on the site visit if there was another one but uh as of the as of the last i knew we don't know the corners of the building where the fire road is we never had the balloons so we didn't have a way to look at the height that's again something your own peer reviewer has recommended uh i think there's still an outstanding fire flow test uh this is a very um radical increase in the intensity of use of the site and uh you know that's a basic issue if there is in fire flow then uh that that should be done it will have to be done at some point um there's been no stress test of the infiltration again this is a point that uh bert made it's um it's just a good engineering thing if you're saying you're going to infiltrate five times maybe it's more but it's at least five times the amount of storm water you can just do a hydrograph uh if i'm using the right term and run that simulation and show whether in fact the the system's going to work as as it's uh proposed um i saw there wasn't a new peer review that looks like that on the traffic that the traffic peer reviewers are getting closer but i think there's still some unresolved issues there um so one of the things that uh i wanted to address is that this is critical information that the board doesn't have and if if you don't have it you still have to make a decision and the usual way to do that is to take whatever's missing and make that a condition uh and that's a fair way to do things uh the problem is that there's some really important stuff that yes you can condition your approval on a adequate fire flow that makes perfect sense but there are some major things that are not elements for the proposed expansion that are not core dover uh and so in my view given where we are with the state of information the best that this board could do is really focus on phase one which is the church itself we acknowledge that is a core dover there isn't the debate about you have with housing or soccer fields or indoor gymnasiums and that sort of thing and the timing is such that they've made it clear that it's uh 12 months of permitting followed by 18 months of construction times three so that's two and a half years for each phase that's seven and a half years for a project where your own approval is only good for two of those so my recommendation not your council i'm advocating is that you focus your attention on phase one because that avoids a lot of the sticky wickets that are gonna be still unresolved whenever we finish here so for example uh you don't have to decide or get town council to help you decide whether you can or cannot permit housing if you give an approval for phase one you can completely avoid that issue for today uh the other thing is you don't have to deal with uh what is a major point for uh the folks that are here tonight the the sheer massing uh another dimension that you can't find on the plans but i've scaled is this is a very large building as it presents from the scenic way and that that'll come up when when they have their shade tree hearing and and and public scenic way hearing uh but one of the regulatory tools you have is the ability to regulate uh bulk and massing that is a dover thing and one of the things i pointed out in my letter from three weeks ago uh or earlier this month i don't remember when it was is that you could if you are going to look at all three phases say don't connect the buildings move them further apart allow there to be some view corridors some green space between them because that's the first thing in any large-scale project is to try to break it up so it doesn't present from the street where most of these people will see it as this monolithic uh i also i'm not an architect but i also think that that highlights the majesty of the church itself if it's not uh also in line with everything else but that's a that's a that's not my uh call to make uh uh two two other things there are non-religious amenities that i think uh certainly you could have programming for sunday school no one would contest that but can you have a soccer field and an indoor basketball court and all the extent of what they're trying to permit uh under the dover amendment most of those non-religious amenities are phases two and three office buildings that sort of thing so if you just focus on phase one you can kick that can down the road and and not have to uh deal with it the other benefit so most of what i do is environmental and conservation law uh mostly for you know land trusts and that sort of thing the last thing anyone wants to see is an approval that would entitle them to go level the site because then uh well it's not a very nice thing to do it's also um one of the things that makes it possible to have the kind of mitigation that the church could have significant scale in in a proposed expansion but the real benefit to the site is that you have really mature woodlands there and if those are eliminated i had a site 13 and a half acres on nantucket and on a saturday morning in january i hired everybody that had a chainsaw and before i could get an injunction and i did by 11 o'clock in the morning every tree on 13 acres was lying on the ground so i would say please don't do that by by limiting your um approval to phase one they can't touch the rest of the site it's only the church the last thing is uh i had some homework uh from the chair from the last meeting and i'm pleased to report that i did speak with attorney silverstein and we have resolved for purposes of this hearing the easement issue involving turkey hill village so that's one small thing you can cross off your list that the attorneys have uh at least for permitting resolved uh thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak so long thank you anyone else wants to speak if there's a hand up i can't see it yes i thought the decision for this was december 31st yet the conservation committee is meeting on january 7th they have different deadlines than we do we're just trying to combine it so that if there's something that is really problematic for them our own decision okay so if they make a decision they're not going to make a decision they're not because they're having another hearing on january the 7th right and then you know so if they make a decision on january 7th does it affect what you did or it shouldn't affect what we did okay all right i have no idea how that works um it won't well let's put it this way it won't it won't affect it won't they may need to come back to us uh for the entryways all right thank you yes my name is ken bruss i live at fab rambywine i haven't heard addressed how the project will ensure privacy specifically you had made some reference previously regarding traffic and the traffic you know from the church grounds including construction vehicles will not be going on to turkey hill property and the second just general question i have is there are so many open questions that have been raised tonight unless they're like three more meetings between now and the 31st how is that 31st deadline for your committee achievable it's going to be an issue and we're going to discuss it later is there anyone else who has public comment i've asked the issue about privacy and i've asked the issue about traffic well you're asking me oh okay okay okay okay i'm sorry yeah um and i don't know um it's up to you if you want to address it i don't know that it's necessarily something that um we have any jurisdiction over and that it's an appropriate question here these are things that you can try and discuss with the applicant offline yes hi my name is jenny plumber president at the field i want to say thank you to the planning board you couldn't pay me enough to do this job
we don't have a vote this is very hard this is our lives our neighborhoods we came here for a reason we love trees we love the natural habitat corridors that exist it's up to you to represent and take care of us so i i appreciate it and i appeal to you thank you thank you all right i just uh have a question identify yourself and where you are marlene tacler uh member of uh central bacteria can you spell your name so that we can put it in the name another name so that we can put it in there m-a-r-l-e-n-e m-a-r-e-n-e i renee wade midway yes okay so um i just wondering how big is turkey hill village and how many trees did they remove to build it did they move trees or it was like uh uh they are like our neighbors so i'm sure I don't know that it's appropriate for me to answer, but I moved at town meeting by special zoning to allow for the entire development of the whole Mainstone area. How many villages are there at this point? Eight. They were done in sections, years apart, but they had very strict restrictions on them. They have conservation areas all around them, and the whole area was preserved that way, and then the town recently bought a conservation restriction on Mainstone Farm. So they just followed the same rules, right, and went through the same process? Absolutely. For years, they did. And they removed a lot of trees too, right? They had approvals in advance for the kind of development that was going to take place. It was low impact, low height, with lots of land around it that is preserved. I mean, and everything had to be approved. The roadways were much more than you're even, that we're even looking at here because you're a Dover Amendment application. Thank you. Okay. Yes. So, on behalf of the church. So just a couple of things, right? So we've tried to actually reach out to our neighbors at Turkey Hill to have an agreement to discuss issues. We've tried this multiple times. We've made multiple concessions. We're planting over 143 trees above and beyond the guidelines, which are not even really rules, right? We've added walkways from the Turkey Hill road to the church so people can actually walk on our property onto the trails. We've reduced lighting quite significantly. And basically, the response that we get is that's not enough, and we're not going to meet with you, and we're not going to talk to you, okay? That's basically the response, okay? And I've been doing this. I've been spearheading this for the last several months, and basically the response is zero, okay? We've communicated by email. We've communicated in person. Nobody wants to meet. Nobody wants to discuss it. The only thing we want to do is we want to slow down the project. We want to stop the project. Well, let's just start at the law, right? And I should also say, and I've said this before, is we're not interested in a partial approval of the project, okay? We're not going to build a church if I can't have a Sunday school. We're not going to build a church if we can't have place for the kids to be able to play. We're just not going to do that. These are integral parts of our religious rules and requirements that we have for our church that already exist on our lot today. Our lot today has a church, has a soccer field, has basketball court, okay? Has Sunday school, has dining hall. These already exist. They're already built under the existing church. We're simply making those larger, okay? So for you to approve a church that holds 570 people that I can't have Sunday schools for, what am I going to do with that? I have no use for that. None. This is of no value to anybody. The idea that I'm going to build a church that has no Sunday school is crazy. It's nonsense. We've been talking about this for the last four months, and I've been trying to reach these folks by email, in person. Nothing. All the concessions we're making mean nothing. At the end of the day, we're just going to take them away. Because they've made no difference in any sort of relationship. None. I think we're done. Okay. I'm going to ask the attorney. Is that the case that your clients haven't been willing to speak to the church? Oh, no, not at all. I did speak with Attorney Silverstein
yesterday or earlier this week. And we have not had a meeting with principals. So it's just been attorney to attorney. Our focus for tonight was on the issue that the legal issue that I raised in my letter. We didn't really get into any other specifics. Mr. Murphy, this is simply false. And the reason it's simply false is because you emailed communication to Carol from your association. And on your advice, you advise her not to meet with us to discuss this. It's an email. So standing here and telling me that this isn't the case, it just isn't factually true. Okay. This is not, we're not going to, we're not going to do this right now. Sorry. I haven't had any email communication with anyone from the development team, other than attorney Silverstein or, or, uh, any other kind of, and I, and I should say that my name and my email and my phone number is plastered all over town documentation. Nobody has any issues finding who I am, how to reach you by phone, by email in person. Okay. Normally when people are represented by council, others rep called council. Nobody's reached out to council either. Madam chair, may I speak briefly? Very briefly, because I want to move on to real work tonight. Okay. Um, that's fair, but I do want to be able to refute con, uh, statements that have been made. Uh, Mr. Murphy reached out to me after I responded to his letter, which was full of flat out un-true statements. Enough. Enough. Sorry. We're not going to go there. You cannot disparage each other. It is not, you may not disparage each other. Madam chair, respectfully, I responded and I demonstrated in writing that the interpretation of the documents referenced in that letter were not true. I'm not disparaging Mr. Murphy. I have a good relationship with him. I am trying to clarify the only thing he contacted me to discuss was the emergency access easement. And I was present when McGed attempted on numerous occasions to connect with the principals. And during my conversation with Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy, he acknowledged to me and commended my client on the concessions that had been made with respect to lighting and landscaping. And that hasn't been referenced at any point during the hearing. And I want to reiterate what my client said. We are not going to accept a partial approval. It's not legally permissible. It's not within the type of dimensional regulations you're allowed to apply under Dover. The subjective standards of fitting in with the neighborhood are exactly the type of things that Dover amendment is intended to prohibit. And I've cited case law on that. We will sue and we will seek damages and attorney's fees under the federal RLUPA statute if we are forced to do so. We satisfy the standards of the bylaw. The board has no jurisdiction over trees, over screening, over how long it takes us to build. Thank you. I'm going to have our board talk because we don't have a lot of time and we need to start. Normally, we would close the hearing. I'm not going to call on you, sir. Normally, we close the hearing and deliberate. I'm not willing to close the hearing at this point in time because we're not comfortable with the plans that we have in front of us. We want to make sure that we understand what we're approving. The plans do not show that there are stone walls in the right of way that need to be removed. I've looked at them again. It's not there. That should have been on the original existing conditions plans. And I've checked through all of them this evening before I came to the meeting. And there are some other issues as well. And so I want to ask the board board. Larry, okay, you're there. At this point, what are your thoughts about, I mean, I don't believe that the applicant is willing to give us an extension. I've asked them before. And we can ask again. But without an extension, we have several options. One is to approve the whole project, but the plans are unclear. Another is to approve phase one and condition it on them fixing certain plans, the numbers of which I think I can lay out so that it is just phase one and clarifying what in fact is in phase one. So what are your thoughts on what you'd like to do as individuals? And then we'll see where we go from there. This is just a straw poll. Just to phase one with the conditions. I mean, if those are our only options, then we still want to lead to it. I'd like to know how we feel about an extension. So I guess I have a few questions, right? So we submitted these plans to the board in July, right? And the plans haven't changed really substantially in any material way since then, right? So there's not like this method of change that have happened since the last four or five months. It's been exactly the same plans, right? So except for adding some trees, reducing lighting, but no substantive changes to the plan, right? I think we can all agree to that. So I guess I'm trying to understand a few questions, right? So the issue of stonewall, I have to go back and look at the plan. But the stonewall that is an existing condition, right? And the remedy for that condition is when we file for the scenic road, tree disturbance in the scenic road, I guess that's what it's called, by DPW. And as the gentleman from DPW indicated this afternoon, is that we actually have to get planning board approval first, before we go to them? On scenic roads. On scenic roads, right? Or so I don't, I am failing to understand the relevance of the stonewall to the issue. I understand that you're missing on the plans as an existing condition. Because we would have told you ahead of time that that's a real issue and that you should be applying for that now, so that we know if we're going to approve it or not approve it, so that you would have your opening right where you want your opening, so that your church, where it's laid out, can be seen from the entryway, which is what you're proposing. So I guess I'm trying to understand, is whose jurisdiction is the movement moving of the entryway? My understanding is that this is DPW's... It is, except on a scenic way, if you have to cut trees in the town's right of way, or move stone walls in the town's right of way, you need to go to the planning board, and we need to have a hearing on that. And it's not a zoning requirement. It's outside of our zoning. Right. And that hearing happens, I believe, twice a year, something of that sort. Is that correct? Or approximately? Well, normally, the tree hearing happens. And we do, we can do a stone wall, a hearing on a stone wall before that, and then sometimes we can bring in the DPW. Or we do the hearing, and then the DPW does their, what's called, it's a state requirement. Right. It's called a public shade tree hearing. Right, which is, that's for the scenic road, correct? Public shade tree hearing is for any road, anywhere. It's a state law. Got it. So, so I think as we've, as we've said, you know, earlier today, right, is that we accept this as a risk that it may be the case that the, the movement of the, the driveway gets denied. And in this case, we end up with a driveway, it doesn't line up with the church and, and we will deal with that. We'll come back to you for that. Okay. But you're asking for an extension. I, I just, I gotta go back to my board and say they need an extension. I, I just don't know what, what is the extension is there to address? What are the open issues and the open items? Because I'm feeling to understand. As I explained to you earlier today, we need to approve a plan. We do not have a plan to approve. We have, and I've spent a lot of time today just going back through, looking at each of the plans that we've received. You've changed things and you haven't specifically told us. For example, on your phasing plan, now you're not proposing the, uh, soccer field is phase one. That's some, that's coming down the line. Originally, um, in the top of your plans, on the phasing plan, it said that it was part of phase one. Uh, another plan said that your courtyard was part of phase one. That doesn't appear to be the case any longer. So we're not sure what we're approving. And, um, again, this is, I don't want to get ahead of myself. Let me finish pulling the board and then I will. Jesse. What are your thoughts? Uh, I think phase one. Okay. I agree. Larry. I don't understand. Um, I heard the app again say they're not required to do phasing, but I've also seen that given the timeline that typically Wayland would do, uh, a phased approach that can you comment on that? I don't understand what you're asking, Larry. Well, have we, is phasing required? No Wayland bylaw. No, but what is required? They decided they wanted to phase it. What is required is that when we issue a permit, you have to pull a building permit and or start and start substantial construction within two years of the time that we do our approval. There is a provision where they can ask for, um, an extension, but it can't be any more. They have to finish the project in five years. We already know from the timeline that looks to me like it's about 12 years and five months to get the project done. So even with phase one, they're going to be rushing to finish in that five-year period. There's nothing that requires us to give them an extension. Boards change over time. Staff changes over time. People might not remember what we've gone through here, uh, for the last few weeks. And I don't know if that answers your question or not. Well, yeah, um, it helps. The, uh, the applicant has said they don't want to apply in a phased approach. So, um, but they did apply in a phased, they applied for a whole project, but in phases. They're showing us. But, uh, well, I understand that, but they're seeking approval for the entire project and, uh, are objecting to, uh, putting in phases. So I, my, I would lean towards approving or not approving the entire project. Um, so we've heard from everyone but me and I'll speak for myself. Um, I would do a phased approach. I don't really want to have to deal with the entire project. Um, the attorney for the applicant has said that they're going to sue and they're going to sue anyway, because somehow we're going to be involved in a lawsuit on one side or the other. I would like to have something defensible that we can, uh, support. Uh, and I think with our regulations, uh, and the timeline that they have that approving phase one is appropriate. There is also legislation pending now, uh, for religious, um, house properties to have housing on them. And, uh, if it passes, it would require that they have affordable housing in there, percentages of affordable housing. That's not what this housing project, uh, talks about. But things change over time. In a 12 and a half year period, things will change. And I don't see how we can approve now something that takes 12 and a half years to approve. Larry, any thoughts?
No. Um, I, we're all expressing our opinion. I just want to make sure that you understand where we may be coming from or not coming from. Um, so, uh, it's, it's up to the applicant, uh, how they want to proceed. Uh, we can, uh, uh, Robert, do you have any? No, I just want to note something. Yes. Um, in the plans that we got just tonight, the soccer field is back in phase one. Um, it wasn't in, it wasn't in the last thing. And so, um, we don't have a good plan that we can approve. I spent quite a bit of time this afternoon trying to see if we could approve certain plans with conditions that you make the changes so that, and that would come back after we close the record. I'm uncomfortable closing the record when we don't have something that we've really looked at. Well, uh, but I think you've heard a straw poll of the board and what our thoughts are. I guess I'm just trying to understand. So you, what you're really saying is that the church should come back and ask for approval for a Sunday school for a church that has no Sunday school at some point in the future. Is that what you can, I mean, that's basically, that's the fact of what you're saying, right? We don't regulate what you do in your building. Right. But we don't regulate. Of course you don't. You could, you could in the basement, you could put a Sunday school if you wanted to. I mean, that's not something that we're telling you, you can or can't do, but it is not, in my opinion, appropriate for us to approve something now that won't be built for years and years and years. And things change over time. And it's very very disruptive. The reason that we have the rules is so that it's not disruptive to the community. Right. So I, I guess, uh, I guess, so, well, so I would say this way, right? So you're approving a church building. So you want to approve a church building that has. And your infrastructure because you wanted to do your infrastructure. I mean, we're approving a church building that has no Sunday school, right? So if I were to change that building and add Sunday school in the basement, which it doesn't have, then we'll have to come back to the planning board for that. We don't regulate what you do inside of your building. We only regulate. We don't regulate how your, what, how you configure the inside of your building. Right. We only do the outside. And, um, when you're doing something like housing, because we have special requirements for housing. I understand the housing components. I get, I get the housing component, right? But I think for us to have a church ever, we are a Sunday school is not, is not a useful thing. It's not a useful instrument for us. Right. And, and I'm trying to also understand this phasing of the project, right? Which is done for logistical reasons, right? We have to operate the church. We have to continue to operate the church. We cannot shut it down. Okay. We have 300 people that come to church. I can't tell them to go home. Right. To do phase one and your Sunday school with the housing on top is 8.5 years, eight and a half years. Right. And, and, um, and I, I'm, I'm just trying to understand does a Dover project is under, still under the requirements of these timeframes? Or that is, because I don't see that in Dover amendment. Dover has nothing to do, in my opinion, has nothing to do with this. I agree. Respectfully, Madam Chair, you're, you're just wrong. The Dover amendment says you can apply reasonable regulations about building height and massing and, uh, lot coverage. It says nothing about time of construction. It doesn't say anything about overruling procedural regulations that exist. And we have talked with our council as well. And so that's where I think we probably are. Um, I do not, you're denying the other phases of the project solely based upon the phasing. What would the purpose of of an extension base? If you want to build the whole thing and do it all in the same time frame, hunky dory, go for it. So then why don't you, why doesn't the board approve the entire project subject to a condition that we comply with that timeline? What timeline? The five-year timeline, unless we come in. It's not in front of us and we haven't had an opportunity to look at any of that. And what would you be looking at? I'm confused. You're telling us that you're denying us because I didn't say we did not say we're denying. We have not taken a vote. We've taken a straw poll. And now we're asking your clients what they want to do. And we're happy to try. And we have been trying extremely hard to work with all of you. But I don't really appreciate your attitude. That's not our perspective, but. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'm trying, I'll just ask the question. So if, is the issue that the board has seen as a timeline of the project? Is that the issue? I'm trying, I'm just trying to understand what is the issue. That is, that is, that is part of the issue. So I understand that you've stated that there is some mix up of plans or coefficient of plans. We'll sort that out, right? But the plans haven't changed, right? They really have not changed. They have changed. I understand they have changed. I'm saying that they have not changed materially. And what we attempted to do today is to give you one file that has everything. Right. Okay. Let me finish. Everything has already been submitted weeks and months ago, right? So there may have been a clerical error in a file that got submitted to you today. That doesn't change the fact that all these files, all these have already been submitted before. We're just for convenience, making them all into a single PDF. And we're happy to do so. Not an issue. If you would like me to point out in each plan where the stuff is not the same, I'll be happy to do it right now. But send us an email. We're happy to take care of it. We're happy to take care of it. I know, but you see, we have, you have a deadline and we have, we have to write a decision. But, and, and, and our, our plight is timing. You have, you've given us an extension until the 30th, 31st. We have one meeting that we're rescheduling. The board has been willing to do it right after Christmas to approve our decision. And then it would be on the 30th. And the next day we would, we would make any amendments that we needed to, and then we would file it. So I guess what I wanted to just say is this. So we're happy to submit one PDF that has everything in it, right? And if there is inconsistencies or error, typographic errors, we're happy to correct this, right? That's not an issue, okay? So let's just put that issue aside. I guess I'm just trying to understand. You understand the untalered position that I am being put in, where you're telling me I'm going to approve a church with no Sunday school. That's not a church. A church without Sunday school is not a church. You understand that? I think everybody here understands that, right? So this, this Sunday, the Sunday school is integral part of the church. This is not an optional component, okay? This is not something I can come and negotiate later and, and, and, and, and let me finish. I guess my question is if I go, if I go to, if, if I go to my board tomorrow and says, guys, we need to build the whole thing at the same time, okay? Is that, that's fine. I, we can, I will take a vote. We'll do it tomorrow, and we'll get back to you on that. If the issue is your phasing plan, that's not a problem. In the history, we're timing. What is it? I don't understand. We'd need an extension of time. We would then need to look at the plans the board would have to need, the board would have to deliberate, make a determination, and then we have to write a decision. I guess I'm trying to understand the extension that you're seeking is what are we trying to ascertain from that extension? Because I'm trying to understand, right? Because I'm not, I don't, I'm not trying to ascertain from the extension. If we get an extension is making sure that we know what your plan is and that we can approve a plan. So I'm trying to understand. And we, we, it sounds like the board currently is not inclined at this point, and we certainly haven't voted, not inclined to approve more than phase one. And my understanding of phase one, as of this morning, was that it was the church building, the two entrances, and your utilities, and the parking areas. You were not going to have the sports court, and you weren't going to have your interior courtyard. Right. And Lisa, we're not going to have those. Thank you. Where did you find this?
Welcome to the 21st century. All right. All right. Oh, geez. It's taking so long. Thank you.
Madam Chair, may I ask you a question? Certainly. So you say that you don't understand the plans or the plans have changed, but the, the, the plan for the church, I'm talking about the floor plan. I'm talking about the floor plan for building B, which is the recreation slash Sunday school and apartments and for building C, which is the diocese have not changed since we've submitted in August. And, and so I, I don't, but we're, we're talking about two different things. You and I, we're talking about a timeline for completion. And we're talking about our concern that the project is very long and things can change during that period of time. Uh, if we were approving phase one, then we want a plan that shows phase one, and that is what has been changing. What constitutes phase one? So if I may, we looked at the phasing or phase one, um, with respect to, um, everyone's concerns about the trees, uh, all being clear cut down. And that was, that's where, kind of where we started, right? That's correct. We wanted to make sure that we had a plan in place that satisfied the neighbors and the amount of trees that were coming down. We didn't, they know that they don't want to clear cut. So that was, that was concern number one. Concern number two was the fire apparatus and getting it around because we'd like not to build the fire access mode until phase two where it's actually needed because we've provided three sides. And we've spoken with, um, assistant fire chief, Rich, uh, about this. And I know he's, he's gotten back to us with a couple of, um, qualifications. Um, and we wanted to make sure that there was enough parking for the existing church, as well as for the construction workers. And so those, those criteria are what we used, um, to move forward with, um, with phase one. So we were looking for, okay, we know that in the beginning, you're not going to need 190 spaces. And I do know that you said we submitted a project for 570 occupants requiring 190. We were wondering and hoping that we could make it a requirement or a condition that in this first phase, that we could give you a phase one plan that, you know, gave these, you know, criteria or, or met these criteria and gave some relief to the rest of the site. So this is where we came from. And it's, and, and, and again, we're, we're trying really hard to not cut these trees in the back and on the north side that we need to do that. And that's really, we're trying to be as accommodative as possible to our neighbors, right? And now you're telling me, no, that's, that, that basically means that I can't approve the project. No, we've said you've shown us before that you can accommodate those parking spaces and in your phasing plans. And this is not new. We have asked you since day one, give us the phasing plan. Tell us how you're going to build this out because we need to understand that. And I, I, we're talking at each other. We're not listening to each other. We, you have applied for a project that you have said requires 190 parking spaces because it's based on an occupancy of 570. That's correct. And once the church is built, that's what you need. So we want to approve a plan plan that shows that. And again, we haven't voted, uh, but it sounds like the desire of the board is to approve phase one. And that is the church building and, um, you know,
that's in parking in the utilities. I'm sorry. Excuse me. You're not talking now. We're not having public comment. We're not having a public comment. I'm sorry. So could you clear? I'm not having public comment, please. We're confused by his answers. I'm confused by hers. Well, I, I, I, again, I'm just trying to understand, right? I'm, I'm still, I'm still not really clear what the real issues are, right? The issues are. So I understand. I understand. Let me finish, please. I understand the issues. People don't like the projects. I get it. That's not what we're talking about. No, no, I understand. I understand. I'm listening for what's behind me. They don't like the project. It's too big. It's too high. It's too tall. Too many trees. I get it. Aside from all of that, for a moment, okay, from a planning board perspective, which is we are here in front of you, okay, asking for this project in totality to be approved. And what I am hearing is really two pushbacks, right? The first pushback is that you don't have a consistent set of plans. You're missing this here, this there. I get it. Note it. We will take care of it. If you give us the list, we'll take care of that. Okay. That's number one. Issue number one is this. Issue number two, is you're telling us your project takes too long and that's outside of what the town normally allows, correct? Correct. So what I am saying is that if we've come up, if we come back to you and we said our phasing plan is to build the whole thing at the same time. And we would ask you how long it would take and this is how long it would take. And we would say, no, we can't do that. Well, so what you're saying is that you want us to come back and approve a Sunday school that's... We want you to come, we want you to have approved something that can be permitted and constructed within the timeframes provided for in our site plan regulations. So I would say, so the site plan approves a site plan, right? The five-year limit, and I went and looked it up, is specific to Whelan. That's effectively a zoning by law for Whelan. It's not a state law. That's a... It's not, and site plan isn't a state law. No, no, I understand. Let me just finish. So it is a, it's a Whelan specific issue. This isn't a state regulation, right? The five-year or the two-year or whatever it may be, right? You know, and so I have to basically build the church and then come back through this process again and go and try to approve a Sunday school that I can't have a church without the Sunday school for. So what I'm going to tell you is, okay, we'll build the Sunday school and we'll build the church at the same time. If that's what you want, I'll come back with a plan for that. Okay? I mean, we need, we need an extension of time and an amendment, a request for... But I'm just saying, I can't build a church without Sunday school. I'm not arguing with you, sir. The bottom line is, we've been at this for quite some time, and we have really tried hard. We are not listening to, it's too big. We're not listening to any of that. We're working on the regulations that we have in front of us and the Dover amendment requirements. I'm trying to get to the, to the, I am trying to get to the core of the issues that are preventing us from having a functioning church. For me to have a... From the time we give you an approval, you... For me to have a functioning church, madam, for me to have a functioning church at a Sunday school, I can't do without it. It's useless. I can't operate it. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna even go there. But I'm just saying, it's, you know that, I know that everybody knows that this is not a secret, right? Okay? So, so I need to understand what impediments are there for me to do so. You need to show us that you can complete whatever phases it is that you want to do. You can start your substantial construction within two years and have a building permit and that you can complete the work. And, and I think, uh, where are the regulations? It's within five years under 604.8. And the board has the authority to grant unlimited extensions from that five-year deadline. Again, it might not be the same board, it might not be the same staff. We can't, we're not going there, Mr. Silverstein. I'm just making a proposal, Madam Chair. I'm not trying to argue. I'm, I'm looking at the regulation and if I could have 30 seconds to make a proposal. The bylaw says that the site plan approval will lapse after five years if it hasn't been substantially completed. Phasing plans aren't a subject of the site plan review. We proposed it because we thought it made sense. We're now telling you that we will, that we're not planning to do it in phases. It'll be a single phase, in which case you don't need a phasing plan. And we will comply with the bylaw or if it turns out we can't, we will come in and ask for an extension. And if we don't get an extension, then our site plan will lapse or we'll have to contest the denial of the extension. I think where we are now, sir, is we have spent a long time going over things with you and your client. You have shown us, we've asked because it's a very large project, how long it would take to build. We finally more recently got the information of how long it would take to build. It's that. And we can't, for me, I'm speaking just for myself, I'm not going to approve something that isn't, that it isn't clear will be able to be finished within the time frame.
So, you know, the other board members may have different thoughts.
It seems that you're, as a board, you can, you can enforce that. You can lapse the site plan after five years and it is our loss. Then we have to come back to you. Anyway. Again, I, I think, uh, it's just, it seems, you know, again, I, I, I would, I don't think it's worth any further conversation. I think it's clear that this is the tack that the board is intending to take, um, knowing that it is a poison pill. And I think it's not worth, uh, further discussion, but it's, there's certainly no reason for us to give them an extension of time to force the poison pill down our throat. Okay. So if you don't give us an extension of time, our choices are to deny the project, uh, because we don't have sufficient plans that we can approve, uh, or we can approve plans and try and figure out here and now, uh, what has to be amended and make that a condition. And that's certainly up to you which way we go.
If you need to consult, feel free. Do you have a list of all the, the, the changes that I, I mean, I, I feel that you've articulated many issues with clarity. Do you feel like we could work together through a list of conditions and for, for the whole project? No, I don't think so. With the kind of clarity and, and let's say within a five year commitment, could we work with Robert and the board on the list of the whole project? I mean, and have the whole thing built within five years? Maybe. Yes. That's what we say. It depends. Correct. Understood. There could be a path toward working together with obviously a significant list of conditions to address the points of clarity. Just in terms of what your question is like, what does a path look like? Right. Yeah. We need Sunday school. Yeah. The other option is approving phase one and two with all these same conditions and the five-year limit and not approving three. I haven't even looked at you all that well, but that's just that school building. Well, it's not the school building, it's the housing too, which, yeah.
Do you want to do a closed session after you finish? It's a potential list of conditions, the way we're just working on this. I don't know. It's up to them. I mean, I think council would, you know, yeah, we want to work with you, but understand please that I can't have a none. I don't can't have a church at Sunday school. I can't have it. I'm not, I can't, I can't deal with it. No, I get it. I understand. So I'm saying, you're saying I'm going to approve building A without approving building B. It is just not a workable. Well, if you want to withdraw your application and start again, that's fine too. But the path, the path I just articulated seems like it had at least some promise. I think Council Silverstein, does this seem like a reasonable path that we, we create clarity, it'll generate a list of conditions within a timeframe that's reasonable. We work together. It's more productive than what we're doing here tonight. Yeah. I just think in terms of what we've articulated, our point of view, that the larger pieces of the projects have remained in place from our perspective. There have been smaller things that we would, we've made adjustments and additions and refinements. Those we could, there are issues with walls, curb cuts, soccer fields, et cetera. We can work on a list of conditions, create the kind of refinements and the agreements. You know, I'm sure working through Robert on that is what I typically have done, who checks back in with the board and we, we go through that checklist and we get it done. Again, it's going to be related to timing because there's that statute going through the legislature, which would require affordable housing in your units. And that's something that as a town, we're interested in. And we're happy to work with you on that. I mean, nobody's expressed any interest in that before, right? Yes, we have. And your counsel said it was. I don't recall that, but perhaps I missed it. At the very beginning. Right. So again, we're, we're, we're at church, right? We're happy to help and work with people, right? That's what we do, right? We're happy to do so. Okay. But you understand, you know, this is, these are integral parts of the, of the project. They're not ancillary. And I haven't focused on the housing at all. And that would be something that we would need to talk more about. Sure. Can we ask about what the time I ask, just show me. May I ask, I'm pursuing this, and I'm looking through my client and our attorney to grab, grab me by the shirt collar. The pathway I'm articulating in terms of clarity, conditions, working together, what potentially would it require of the board? Another, I, I know it's a lot of work. I know that, but I, but in terms of timelines, is it another here, another meeting? Oh yeah. It'll probably be at least another meeting. I just wonder, you know, I'm not, I don't, I don't know that it's just one. I understand. I'm just trying to understand the context of that. We are back on January seven for. And we have another, we've been, we're doing several Dover amendment cases at the same time, and we're trying to do them on different nights. Yeah. Understood. I'm not suggesting a date at all, but I'm just saying that we're, we're still at it. We would like to work through whatever issues we need sometime before the end of this year. I'm, I will show up here to any meeting anytime, Tuesday, Saturday, Sunday, whatever we want. We have before the end of the year is just not, it's not doable. So either we can deny the whole thing, if that's how you want it presented, or we can try and figure out how to approve the phase one, you can withdraw your application and start again, uh, using all your same materials. Uh, we can't, we can't, unless we close the hearing tonight, I'm not sure that we can come up with a decision. Um, we can try and deliberate among ourselves right now. Uh, but that would be it for that. And we might, might be able to leave the hearing open until the 30th, which is when we've scheduled to look at a final decision that would be drafted. This is why I asked about an extension. So Jesse, I, I, again, I, for just timing, I said, and we understand, and this is your decision. Okay. And you just decide how you'd like to proceed and we will go for it from there. I understand. I, I guess I, I'm still trying to understand, right? Because from our perspective, right. To grant an extension. Right. Is what are we trying to ascertain here that we don't have at the moment today? And I'm just trying to understand what that is. And how did we get to closing those items? Because I'm, I'm still not sure what they are. Right. May I try to answer? I'm sorry to speak. That's that there could be a path forward to look at the entire project for approval with a rich list of conditions, with a timeframe that fits within what we're talking about, which is five is what I think I hear is on the table, which will take another hearing. Probably more than another hearing. Yeah. Great. And that's where we are. That's yeah. That's the, the comprehensive plan, but it doesn't get done by the 31st is what I'm hearing. I understand you want to get completed, but why is there a bid stop at the 31st? Why not? And extend it like another month with a couple of meetings. What is the big, I'm just curious. I'm not. So, so I get, I, you know, I, I answer to the church, right? So I got to go explain the things I do. Right. And the money I spent. So I, I, I can, I can say one thing. A lot of times we come to the meeting and response to review the day before. Um, we don't, and, and, and, and we just keep pushing, we keep pushing. I don't. Oh, and we have it the day before. Yes. Both of them. Both of them, right? Traffic and, uh, stormwater. That's why the exception is difficult to give because it just seems like it's, you give us information, we fill out our stuff, and then we don't hear anything for weeks, and then we're told we got 25 other things to deal with. Some of them, we don't even know if it's actually, uh, should be talked about or it's, it's in the preview because we're going in circles on a lot of these issues and some of the responses in the peer review repeat. So that's the problem. And that's, that's the issue is that again, I, I can go back to the church that says we need an extension. We extended this because of one, two, three, and I'm happy to do so. And I take a lot of fact for it and I'm good with that. Right. I just don't understand what the issues are. I'm still sitting here. I'm going to, I'm going to tell you what I think. I'm ready to make a decision and I'm ready to make a decision on phase one with conditions, uh, and, uh, say exactly what the plan has to look like that then you would have to submit the plan by X date and, uh, and then we would stamp it and say, fine, that's where I am me. I don't know where anybody else is. So I guess I have two questions, right? So when we submitted the application, we submitted application for all phases. We didn't submit it for phase one, right? We didn't submit building eight. It didn't make any difference. We're not going to approve. I'm not going to approve something that can't be done within the time frame that our regulations require. It's there. It's a reasonable regulation. It's there because it protects the community. They don't have to live through 12 years of construction. And that's just the way it is. And that's why we apply it to everyone. It's not just you. Right. Can I suggest that the four of you find a room and have a discussion before we move on to our next meeting and decide once and for all, whether you'll give a short extension or not. And that's the end of the discussion is if we have to decide tonight, we decide tonight. If you're willing to give a short extension, you might get a better decision. I don't know, but we were willing to try. So if you step out and have that conversation and then come back and let us know before we start. Okay. Give us 10 minutes. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Have we had a delay in the, um, when they get the, uh, I don't think so either. Well, they should probably wait for them. Yeah. Pardon me? Yeah. It's taking time to interpret. I don't think so. They might get, who knows? We send it to us. Let's give it to Joe. I almost use like her. I mean, he doesn't understand what portable house and games is a studio. So he's the one who's trying to tell them.
Well, I. I don't even know how to do it. Annette or Robert, can you hear me? I can't hear anything. All right. There was a lot of crosstalk. So I'm already, I'm going to go for donations right now. Sorry. Hold it closer to your mouth. Yes, Larry. Yeah. The background noise is, uh, makes everything unhearable. Right. But we're not talking. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, but. Let's go. Let's get started. Let's get started.
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. relations
can i call everything to order please can i call everything to order please sit down and be quiet please sit down and be quiet now thank you for the board to consideration the entire project clarifications as required and as noted we have a draft list of conditions and a five year time you can't you've already shown us you can't
and uh we request most thoughtful to see if board members would agree to keep the face together over this extended period of time as a consideration um i guess i would say i would agree to consider it um i would also wonder if perhaps if we might get to a point where we considered one and two and not three but i'm willing to consider anything because i think that's we can't come into a dialogue unless we're willing to consider that the right plan phasing a little louder
um i think with the right plan and the right phasing um with the one month extension as long as that comes back to us and we have plenty of time to deliberate on it one month extension is problematic we have uh a decision on the carroll school we've gotten an extension from that to be done on sounds like it might need to be more how are you are you for jerry it's january 30 yeah we have articles that we have to be dealing with so we are in crunch time would you need uh uh hearing and then the time to write the decision yes i i'm sorry what did he say he asked if you if you need time for the next meeting plus a time for to have a meeting to discuss the decision so you have time to actually develop yeah so what we need like if we need something that's maybe the middle of february how do you feel like surely willing to work for the month um yeah i'm amenable to that a little hard to hear you hopefully folks in the room yeah um i would need to know that you could in fact complete the project in the five-year period um without thinking about extensions for me when you approve a project you approve it for to fit in the timeline uh and it's only if something goes haywire that you get the extensions and i would not anticipate getting an extension so that would be
thank you thank you uh but january the 30th is not a good date for us uh again because we're managing a bunch of different things at the same time next one no we meet on the 11th and the 25th yeah it's january 13th yeah we have next things are january 7th 28th the 11th of february and february 25th right but the 28th is tied up we have we're fully booked earlier january meeting the earl that we could do uh we'd have to have a special meeting uh i appreciate that but i don't know that we can do that possible to ask for the extension of detail in mid february well i'm looking at the schedule here okay uh january 7th we have uh zoning amendments and the carroll school uh and we have to file the zoning amendments then on the 28th we have the scenic road hearing then come article hearing and the carroll school decisions due on the 30th so that'll also be a full night so we don't open up for the first time if it's even an open up until february the 11th and then the meeting after that is the 25th so far just so you know we have been putting in extra meetings to accommodate all of this yeah thank you i know i appreciate it so um
i mean i guess so so for the next meeting whatever the date ends up being right so on our agenda is we need to provide you with a you're going to provide us with a list of issues that you know with defense right and we can turn around and provide those right these are not some not huge amounts but whatever they may be will address those right um is there anything else to what you would need from us before that um i would have questions on um the housing uh some of the uh the write-up was very helpful uh but there were other find all my pieces of paper sorry you gave us a schedule um on the senior housing uh and the first page is what you're currently doing together that is correct okay um and i can't tell when you do it is that every day that you do this or is this just once so this is done monthly and it's limited by by by servants abilities availability and abilities okay so it's a monthly program on our first page and then the second page if you had the senior housing you would be doing it daily actually there is a there is a there is a whole week schedule there that you will see for sure right i did right right right so you would be doing it daily that's quickly yes okay and um for the requirements for the housing i've asked this again several times um what is it i i see what you say here but you have to be able to decide between individuals so what is it that you use to determine which individual can be in um you say it's age 55 plus um able to live independently even though your answer to us recently was we don't ask people if they can't live independently and that's i don't make sense to me but you said that that was a criteria and i asked how we asked how um you know how do you determine that um and then um you had also repeatedly told us that the people no longer drive or can't drive and or that they live a distance away but none of that is in the criteria the criteria is that they cannot have cars there but that doesn't mean that they can't drive and and these 55 plus is still workable age working age right so so it is 55 plus right we anticipate that vast majority will be over 65 but there may be under 55 or sorry under 65 i should say i misspoke so um and as we've stated in our response is that we're we there there is no we are not planning to provide any skilled nursing care right so so what happens if somebody needs skilled nursing then they have to move out just like any other you're going to have you're going to have um please you're going to have um agreements written rental agreements okay because here it said that you hadn't decided yet what what is what is we have not decided on on rental agreements well eventually there's going to be an interview of course this has to be a rental agreement of some sort as required by the states right i mean no it's not necessarily you know you can't rent the unit without an agreement that's not probably you can't rent the unit without an agreement well you know we don't know if we're even renting well no they there's have to be some cost to it i mean i understand that and we've been asking these kinds of questions so and and we still don't have those answers and i know that i don't so i don't satisfactory but it it needs a little bit more so i so i don't know if i have all the answers for you because i don't haven't drafted leases well we haven't drafted leases but what we're saying here very clearly is one this is for parishioners of the church who regularly attend the church and cannot or unable or unwilling to make the drive i hear you right but you have 24 units correct
if you've got 50 parishioners how do you make the determination on who gets the units there is going to be a decision that the that the fathers make based on me right based on distance of travel based on a bunch of things i don't know we've already heard that people from framingham want to move in and that's not distance again i think it's it is going to be based on meat anyway i don't want to argue with you all i'm telling you is that the same questions that we have asked before are the same questions that we still have and we'd like those kinds of i'm not sure i have answers to those right so it is based on need need is broadly defined using multiple criteria i don't have the weights of these criteria okay we're not going to have to wait for these criteria so it is going to be based on the need right it is like saying you know how does the church decide which family to support what it is going to be based on need how they decide that that's their business anyway um
so we're turning any other what other outstanding issues would there be for such consideration i honestly don't know because i personally have been focused on phase one because to me that was where we should be headed and then we pulled the board and you know that's we don't talk outside of the board meetings no no that's okay i guess what i'm saying is that we're we're you know we're looking through this extension right solely for you know proper and complete consideration for the entire project okay so i want to be prepared so i want to come in i want to be prepared i don't want to have two dozen things okay neither do we and i'm sure you don't right so i want to be prepared with everything you need and i will make sure that it's available to you before you need it okay but i don't want to be surprised with issues coming on the next meeting so tell me everything you need well we're not going to do it right now we'll be happy to uh try and figure it out um you understand that we're volunteers and i get the amount of time that we have spent on this of our own time not just here but reading through everything and going through things has been extraordinary and it's our job and we're happy to do it but we expect me and you are on the same payment plan we expect that when people come in with a project yes that it is really organized and presented well and i'm just going to say this for your next project if you have one it is not a good idea to have the architect be your project manager you need one project manager who oversees everything and coordinates everything whether it's your lawyer whether it's somebody who's called a project manager and everything goes through them so that you're sure that all the materials reach us when you say they're going to reach us which we've had problems with before and that you all somebody who understands permitting is with you because it is very complicated and to talk about oh you're just the planning board and you do this and you're just that it doesn't work you need to have all the boards thinking about the same stuff at the same time and we've been trying to do that and i think today was a very helpful meeting and we appreciate that you came and let us do that site walk we're happy to do it as many times as you want so um for an extension of time uh it would be an extension of time for a decision and you might not like this but i'm going to suggest the end of february i don't cannot i we can't okay so we'll just make a decision on phase one and um and move from there um do you think that we have enough in the plans that we can uh do something on them
i think we can refer to the difference yeah we know what's missing from the plan so we can refer to what's missing right or what's put in and shouldn't be right okay so um if that's you know where you want to be then that's fine and um should we close the hearing if we close it you can't take any more information why why close it because then the next time we could close it is the last night and we would be doing our deliberations at the next hearing okay close it then vote okay uh the next hearing then is january the uh yeah we are for the carroll school this well now it's december 30th that we were meeting um the next meeting is december the 30th uh so i will uh accept a motion to extend um if if you're willing if you're not willing well no 30th no we're just we're on the same schedule 31st okay um so uh the uh next hearing will be uh motion uh for december uh the 30th at i hate to say this but 6 30. unless you can do the 29th you had a problem with the 29th but it would sure be a heck of a lot better and we wouldn't be rushing around like nut balls um yeah if i have to move stuff like so you can do the 29th it's a little bit of an issue for me okay okay i'll be in a hotel okay it should be parked a lot of the car right okay why did i mean yeah i think by soon
so is that going to start at the 29th 29th december the 29th at 6 30 30. do you want me to make it do you want me to make it you want me to make it later um no i should seven would be better because it's okay i can get something okay i can eat during seven so um can i have a motion to um continue this hearing until december the 29th at seven o'clock and we'll meet by zoom okay i move that we uh extend the public hearing to december 29th 2025 at 7 p.m second second all in favor yes yes yes yes we don't need you larry all right because if i do you then i have to do a roll call um okay um i don't just so you know i'm not expecting public comment at that point um i would have closed the hearing this evening uh uh we'll work on the decision uh before and uh robert will work on it and then we will um have further discussion uh i'm wondering we still need to talk about stuff though okay okay thank you very much the 31st is when we have to do the decision for these guys so we have to file it on the 31st board members so we have a meeting on the 29th which is killing uh and we haven't really uh and any other thoughts you have we'll ask them to think of conditions we're going to talk to you right and then no i know and i've got a bunch we're going to talk to you right and i think we're going to talk to you right okay looking forward to christmas uh five years I can't really talk to you about it. I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Thank you. Recording in progress. Is that our recording or does somebody have a recording? No. I'm going to share. I'll do that. My side. I just need to be probably promoted to. There we go. Sean is welcome to join. Wonderful. Are you all ready for us to jump in? It depends how you define ready. Jump in. Very good. Let me just announce, sorry. This is PB2503, Continued Public Hearing, 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan Approval. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. So Carrie DeLeo, Explora Consulting, the owner and project manager. We have just a few items we wanted to cover with you all tonight. Understanding that we met previously with the combined meeting with conservation and we are being heard in a combined meeting again on the 7th of January. So not really talking about stormwater tonight. Trying to keep those just separated. Update since we were last seen, just kind of as an overview. We did do some work on the photometric plan to show compliance with the lighting. We also have evaluated and would like to present to you a new strategy for lighting that will even help that more. The school and the neighbors have met to start discussing conditions of approval, and we have a draft that is actively going back and forth. We hope to think getting close on that that bill that the planning board does have a copy of the current draft. Not yet. Okay. Okay. And then we also received an alternative circulation plan idea from one of the neighbors that we did consider. We just want to speak to that really quickly. We also have the traffic engineer with us this evening to review the updated items that were in the supplemental report that was submitted earlier this month. And so tonight we'll just jump in. We'll do landscape first, then talk about the conditions of approval, and then overview of traffic and any questions. Okay. Good evening. Michelle Crowley from Crowley Control Landscape Architecture. This is a plan that was seen last time when we had the combined meeting. This is showing the buffer trees that were added. We've also, this is, I'll show some future slides that show the lighting, but there's a new lighting strategy which is represented on this plan as well. And we are waiting to submit the formal permitting, the formal plans to you based on conversations. But that the next plans before the 7th will show the new trees and the new lighting. Can you go back just one slide? I just wanted to comment on the, the, we received earlier this week, a revised or an alternative plan to, for, for drop off. Um, that we did look at, um, actually back in February, we had a very similar approach. Um, and one of the things that the, the, the benefit of that plan is really about the buffer. Um, the, which is, which is great. It would, it would, uh, you know, save trees, more room, uh, from Waltham Road, uh, to the parking. But what, uh, what the cons are to that is, um, there would be, it would, we would lose the whole rain garden in the middle, which is, um, capturing a lot of stormwater. And so, and it's an amenity to the campus. Um, the other thing is, uh, it really, um, for the drop off for the queuing, uh, it shortens that, um, a lot, um, if you want to have a single point for drop off, um, and for pickup. And so what's really difficult about that, and then there were some alternatives to then doing, uh, extra drop off and pickup in the parking lot, which would mean kids would have to cross the parking lot and cross the traffic. And the whole way the, the pickup sequence works is, you know, very timed with, with walkie talkies to get people, um, at the, at the cars. And then cars are released all at once. And so if there's cars coming from two rows in the parking, two rows in the road releasing, we just feel like it's really not a safe. It's, um, it's not safe for the kids. Um, so we have, we don't agree with that plan. I think this plan is much better for the queuing. All of the cars can stay, um, on campus. And so there would be actually less, uh, backup onto Waltham road. Um, next slide. Uh, this just shows, this is just a blow up of, uh, where we've added, um, evergreen trees. We've added 12, uh, spruces, um, which will be dense along, uh, Waltham road in between, um, the road and the parking. Um, and we've also added, uh, four evergreen trees up near the gymnasium. I said last time, or I think, um, Robin, you brought up, like, could we, could we, uh, screen across there too? And so we've added against the, um, gymnasium wall. We have some evergreens as well as evergreens in, uh, as a buffer to there. Um, next slide. Uh, so we have revised the, the lighting strategy. Um, before we were doing, we were using the existing light fixtures, um, and then extending those. And so it was, it was, um, it was maintaining that fixture, uh, and therefore they had, they, and their height. Um, and we had to use a lot of them and to, to get the correct light. And, and, uh, what we last showed was there was spill off onto Waltham road because they were too close. Um, they needed to be on both sides of parking. And so the spill off happened on Waltham road. So we've taken a different strategy and reduced the amount of light fixtures by, um, we, we had originally 33 lights and we've reduced it down to 22 lights. Um, we're changing the light just in the parking area. We're changing the light fixture to a taller pole so we could have fewer of them. And they are only on the south side of the parking so that they, they won't be spilling over, um, uh, towards Waltham road. Uh, if we, and then all of the poles along the sidewalks are still the ones that we showed before. They're, they're at 14, they're at 14 feet, but we've now replaced all of the original lighting with a new fixture that's more efficient. And further apart. So we can have much fewer of that slide. This shows the photo metrics of, uh, the, our new strategy here, um, which it's great. It, it stops right. Um, we were able to get it. So there's no spill over, over the property line. So this is, this shows where all of the lighting is. Um, now I'm going to kick it to. Can I ask a question before you go on? Um, a few slides before. You were showing us where you added trees. And some of them look like they're. I mean, I know that it's just a drawing, but very close to or on the right of way line. Um, yeah. Yeah. I see there's, there is one that. Yeah. You need to think about that. We'll pull those in. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Because even if they grow over, then it becomes a public shade tree. And if you have any problems with them, you have to go through a hearing. Okay. We will pull those in. Easy. That's easy. That's why we're waiting for that to submit for the seven. Thank you. Bill Proya. Yeah. So I'm Bill Proya for the applicant. Nice to see you all this evening. Thank you for the time. We, um, did meet with and some of his clients earlier in the month based on a proposed, um, set of conditions that we had provided. We had a discussion about them. They sent us a red line of the document. And we responded as well. And that's the stage we're at. So Dan and I talked earlier tonight. We want to have another discussion. See if we can, you know, reduce the, the red line. And our goal is to try to get something to the board before Christmas. So there'll be some time to look at it before the January 7th meeting. And whether that's a complete, you know, we're in complete agreement on the conditions, I can't say, but I'm sure Dan will be able to speak well for his clients. But in any case, we're going to submit what we think are sensible conditions, reflecting all the comments we've heard before Christmas for people to take a look at. And the board can, you know, weigh in on it, of course, and we'll get it down to something we all can agree with, I hope. That's really it. On the conditions. Unless you have questions or. No. Robert, have we gotten anything? I can't remember. I've been reading all this stuff. But is there anything that has come in from anybody since the last time? By consultants or peer reviewers? I don't think so. I don't think so. Obviously. Well, we still owe comments. Yeah. I was going to say any day now we should have comments to your last. To Jason. Yeah. That's what I was wondering. Yeah, there were, I think there were, they're just a handful of items. Most of them had to do with groundwater mounding and some tables that need to be updated. There was a question about whether the updated TIA had been submitted, things like that. So that's, Sean has that drafted, and it should be ready to go. We were just waiting because we wanted to, you know, present this idea of the change of lighting strategy, because that is part of the review comments. We want to pull in the appropriate direction into that final. Jason, do you want to wait? Yeah. So I don't believe we provided any additional comments. I will have some this evening on the additional traffic supplemental study. Okay. That we received, Robert had gotten that over to us the end of last week. So we've managed to get into that. And then we also did receive, with regard to the mounding analysis, we did receive the request now that, on the septic mounding, now that the health department has done their review of the system itself. So we received that yesterday. We're starting to look at that. The, the actual mounding. The actual mounding for the septic, for the septic system. Got it. The septic system. Do you want to talk to those things that you'd like to speak about now? And maybe if the FDA wants to do their presentation. A microphone or something. Pardon me? Yeah. We, this is our last slide. So if you want, we can have, um, can just talk about what we've done since. Oh, okay. Yeah. And then, then we'll jump in. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. Um, Ken Cram, uh, Fasno-Neil, formerly Bayside Engineering. Nice to see you all tonight. And I just have to say that it's first time being in a building. I helped permit for the town a number of years ago. The Wayland Town Center project was built and permitted. Uh, so I'm back. But, uh, we did the original traffic study and we heard that they, uh, there was concerns about the South Great Road, which is Route 117 and Lincoln Road intersection. So we've added that into our, uh, traffic study and our supplemental information. We got new traffic counts for the intersection, uh, which is, uh, basically it's kind of like a, almost a three-legged kind of animal because it's got three little intersections associated with it based on the geometry of the intersection. Um, so we added that. Uh, we looked at, we re-looked at, uh, the traffic generation. We looked at the actual school peak hour, which we had the counts for from the original counts, but we also looked at the commuter peak hour and we put the actual school peak hour on the school peak hour volumes versus the commuter evening peak hour. And we generated traffic for the commuter peak hour, which is substantially lower than, that it's about a half give or take. Um, and we, so we did all that analysis. Uh, no, no real big surprises. Uh, there was, uh, a couple of minor degradations in levels of service from like an A to a B or a B to a C, but nothing that would have been onerous. Um, and that was all summarized in the traffic memorandum. Uh, we worked with the, uh, both the police chiefs from, uh, Lincoln and Whalen to get, uh, supplemental crash information because, uh, MAPS DOT at the time did not have data up through 2024. Uh, so we got the actual crash reports, uh, where they were applicable, uh, from both Wayland and Lincoln and added that to the area. Uh, didn't change anything yet. And then we compiled a memo. If you print out, this is what you get, uh, only because of all the capacity analyses. Uh, please don't print it. We had, we've killed enough trees. Um, but, uh, and we submitted that to the town, to Robert, uh, on the 10th a week ago. So that's a brief summary of what we've done in terms of traffic, uh, since then. Thank you. You're welcome. Jason, do you want to comment? Sure. Uh, and then I'll introduce myself. So, uh, Jason Creel, uh, peer review C, uh, ECT. Um, and I, I guess, uh, Madam Chair, I'll, I'll address those, these comments to you, and then the applicant can address. Um, we did receive, obviously we have received and reviewed the August 26th, uh, access study, and then we did receive the, uh, supplemental study, um, on the 10th. Um, we have gone through that, um, in general, as, uh, Mr. Cram just indicated. They did look at the, the peak hour of, with the actual, um, with the actual dismissal time, uh, in the afternoon. So it no longer corresponds with the, uh, late PM, uh, commuter traffic, uh, and, uh, did add the intersection of, I believe, the Lincoln Road at South Great Road. Um, uh, we're able to obtain, and I appreciate the additional crash information from both Whelan and Blinken. Uh, and I'll, I'll even say, I think it helped you a little bit. Um, and, um, whoops, last one. Yeah, additional distribution. Uh, and with that, they did update the, um, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the uh, unsignalized level of service analysis summary. Um, you know, in general, um, general comment of all of it is it, it does follow the, uh, mass DOT, uh, traffic safety design submission guidelines. Um, they have included, uh, effectively everything in that, that is usually required. Um, I know you guys did include some, some traffic diagram, uh, some crash diagrams. Which were helpful specifically at Lincoln Road. Um, but beyond that, they did have most of that. Uh, the comments and the questions, uh, that did come up, however, on both of those was, um, uh, the, uh, VC ratio on the August 26th report for the 2030 no-build. Um, I think there may have been a, there may be a typo in those, uh, but it looks like it has been corrected in the supplemental. Okay. So I used the supplemental to, uh, to review, um, the delays at, uh, so for the board, the delays in the queue at Waltham Road at Concord Road in the 2032 build condition are excessive. Um, the analysis with, uh, the software represents an AM increase in delay of five minutes. So it goes from one minute to six minutes, uh, with an additional queue of 15 cars. Uh, effectively that queue now on the 95th percentile will, will put a queue from a line of cars from the intersection, um, halfway back to Lincoln Road. Um, the, the, the downside of that is there may end up being, you may end up blocking traffic. You may end up blocking side street traffic. You may block people in their driveways. Um, but for that period, that queue is, is fairly excessive. Um, I was curious if you guys did perform, uh, if you did a warrant analysis. Um, no, we didn't do a warrant analysis because we didn't have eight hours. I mean, we could have used four hours, but what we did do, and it was included in the, uh, traffic study is, uh, when we did our original accounts, at the same time, we recorded the actual delays and queues for the Waltham Road approach at Concord Road and found that it was significantly better than the model indicates. And that's because of the nature of the unsignalized highway capacity analysis methodology that were, that were required to use. Um, and I've been saying this for close to 40 years. They've, they've worked on the signalized capacity analysis methodology, but the unsignalized capacity analysis methodology is still the same as when I was doing this as a youngster. And so that's why, and I've done this at many unsignalized locations where we've actually recorded actual delays. Um, and, you know, probably 99 times out of a hundred, the actual observed is better than the model indicates for the unsignalized capacity analysis. I'm not saying that there's aren't delays during certain other times that might be longer, not as long, but it's, it's not as bad as the model indicates. Because the other reason is if your volume capacity ratio for the unsignalized condition exceeds one, the curve that calculates the delay. If you remember your high school algebra and geometry, it's a parabola. So as you get closer to one, your delay is going like this. Um, and when you exceed one, and in some cases, the model won't, won't calculate a delay for you because it just, it ends up being meaningless. So I did note the, I did note the, um, the assessment of delay. Um, did you guys consider calibrating the model to that delay? It's conservatism on conservatism a little bit, but that's Correct. I mean, we couldn't do that. And we, we would end up with great levels of service everywhere. Um, and because the, the characteristics that they're, they're not all the same, because that's, you know, that intersection and the intersection at the other end of the corridor, that we looked at initially, um, South Great Road and Old Sudbury Road, same kind of issue there. If we, I'm sure, if we had done the delays when we did our actual accounts, we would have come up with something very similar. Unfortunately, we thought, okay, let's go back and do it. But we really can't do that because it's under construction right now. Um, and would, would not make a lot of sense. But I would, I would bet you a dollar that it would be better. And the model and the. Good, but better. Good dollar. How about a million dollars? Okay. What point do traffic lights get called into play? I mean, F is F, and I know there's nothing worse than that. But the numbers are really quite significant for both of those. At this point, I don't, I don't think this would warrant a light at this point. Um, well, I would even, for you guys, what point you would consider? I would, I would not consider a light at this location. Mass DOT, um, there are, uh, 10 or 11 warrants of new MUTCD. The first three are volume related, uh, volumes one and two are based on continuous flow. Eight out of 10 hours, eight out of 12 hours have to meet certain criteria. And if it, depending on another speeds and population density, you may make some adjustments to those. The warrant three is what we call, um, the four hour warrant. Then warrant four is the peak hour warrant. And mass DOT will not look at, uh, a peak hour warrant or accept a peak hour warrant for signalization. So I'll go ahead and open the next one, uh, the delay. So there is also a kind of pretty significant delay, uh, Lincoln Road southbound at Waltham Road in the 2032 build. Uh, increasing from 16.7 seconds to 70 seconds, uh, with a queue of, I believe, five additional cars. So it goes from about a hundred, uh, excuse me. A queue about one car to a queue about five cars, um, in the AM condition. In the AM condition, correct. Um, I, I mean, I've already commented about the calibration. Um, the delay in queue at south great road at old Sudbury, uh, road, uh, are excessive, but they are excessive in all conditions. Um, they are not significantly worse as opposed to Waltham at Concord where there's clearly an increase in demand and therefore an increase in the queue lane. Um, the intersection at Lincoln Road and south great road has been added to analysis. Uh, that intersection does have a higher than average number of accidents. I'm not sure if you guys want to speak to that or, or include that in your, or sort of amend the analysis to discuss that condition. It does have a higher, that the crash rate is higher than what MassDOT would consider significant for, uh, the volumes and crashes that were recorded and reported. Um, but yet, uh, there's, uh, I don't believe I'd have to double check this. It does not show up on MassDOT's, uh, safety list. Um, I don't think it was an RSA done, but I can double check that. Road RSA is a road safety audit, which is a typical tool traffic engineers and the state uses, uh, when there's a perceived issue. Uh, when I say perceived, I mean, that's, you know, what's reality and what's on paper. Um, so, and the RSA process helps, you know, towns and police departments and DPWs and communities work through a process to identify what the issues are at the intersection. And then I also identify, uh, what could be done to improve that both on short term, midterm, long term, uh, at the same time, it's a giant matrix. Uh, low cost, medium cost, and of course, high costs. And what triggers that? I'm looking at it. Uh, what, that would be a request from the town. Um, uh, just curious. You could, you could do it yourself. Um, uh, with your own town or with your own consultant, even. Um, the way it goes is there's a meeting amongst all the interested parties. Um, and then you leave the meeting and you actually go to the intersection and you actually look at, okay, what are the issues here? We have site distance issue or are trees and limbs blocking signs, something like that. Is there a geometry issue? Uh, is the pavement in good or bad shape? Uh, any kind of myriad, any kind anything and everything is literally thrown against the wall and taken down as notes. And then whoever the consultant is that's doing the RSA, whether it's for the town or for a private developer, they, they summarize everything in a nice little report format, submit that to the town and mass DOT. DOT, it gets reviewed. And what's great about the RSA process is they have statutory timeframes for when these things have to happen, which is fantastic when they implemented it because it really shortens the overall process. But at the end of the day, you end up with a document that highlights the issues, identifies potential solutions, and it's a working document for the town, a developer, a community to go forward when other projects come down the line to try and find ways to get these measures implemented. Thank you. The other thing to note, so that is a Lincoln intersection, right? And I do know, I don't recall when, but they have recently modified that intersection to try to remedy some of those crashes. I think when you said they gave you the crash data, it wasn't a lot of significant crashes. It's a lot of, nobody knows which direction they're going, right? So they have made some, but I don't know if they've made them long enough ago to be able to see if they are working, right? Thank you.
Anything else, Jason? Yeah, and I will note that that intersection was channelized, similar to what they did at South Great Road and Old Sudbury Road, where they installed center curbing to force turns at, at, at actual drive, at road openings, as opposed to the cutting the corner of the number of, some of the diagrams that were available did show, and I unfortunately know that intersection because I drive through it every day, but it showed that the diagrams that were available, a number of them were turning from eastbound on 117, northbound on Lincoln Road through part of the triangle. That certainly wasn't all of them, but that was a number of those that were actually shown in diagram. Actually, you mentioned this evening, and I saw it on the plan earlier, I think at the previous meeting. The new trees that are being, being installed for screening, have they been provided to, plus and O'Neill, to make sure there's no site safe, site stopping distance issue? Because they are on the, sort of on the curve there with Linway. Yeah, we can get to get them to hear that. I think going back to the previous report, there's, it indicates speed, posted speed limits as both 30 and 35 miles an hour. I think that could just be clarified. On the trip generation, it clearly indicates 204 students, and then you use both ITE and empirical data. We use the empirical data, but we provide the ITE data as a comparison. I assume in the empirical, I think one of my previous comments was, I think we, you had indicated the number of employees at the school in the, in the current incarnation, and that there would be 80 employees. So I think there's like a 50, a 50 staff number difference between previous staffing and current staffing. Is that built into the empirical number? That would be built into the empirical number, because we counted, when we did our empirical counts at Lincoln, we counted everything coming in and everything going out. So that would include everybody. Okay. I did see that, I did see that there were staff cars based on the time in and the time out being in excess of eight hours. I just wanted to clarify that. Um, we covered that one, uh, in the PM dismissal. It didn't look like you guys made any changes to, to the 2032 build calculation for weekday evening. It looked like from the previous, from the 26 reports to the, to the supplemental, the weekday evening looked like it was the same. I, I may have, I may not have that correct, but I believe that was the case. So if you're shifting, I would assume if you're shifting that, that traffic to the dismissal time, uh, it'd be worth taking a look at, yeah, because you do have some, some degradation over the 2032 build period. Okay. Um, and that is all the traffic comments I have at this point. Do you have any other comments that I need to add? I do have one on the, uh, new fixtures that you just mentioned. Are they, so it looks like that, is that a standard cutoff fixture or is that going to be, it looks like the light is directional. It's, it's cut off. Okay. Um, yeah, they're all dark sky compliant, fully cut off. Okay. And that'll come in with the, that cut sheet will come in with the next. Yes. Before, yeah, before the seventh. Thank you. Um, with the new trees, were you considering snow storage areas that came up at the last meeting that we had? We have a condition for it and. Okay. So it will come out then. Okay.
Does anyone have any questions? I have one question. Where in the traffic studies, is there any consideration being given to, um, I know you have your regular release time, but what about, uh, after sports games and after sports practice that happens after school? So has there been any study of those times because those much more lined up with rush hour traffic? Exactly. They do. They typically, the schools, when they, if they're after school activities, they generally live out at the same time as the weekday evening peak hour. So I, we've analyzed that in the update. Okay.
Ira. Thank you. Larry. Do you have any questions? No.
I don't have a question this time.
Um, we're done with what you have to say. Okay. Um, I'm going to open it up to public comment. Thank you. Good evening members of the board. Um, my name is Dan Hill. I'm the attorney for some of the letters to the school. Um, I just had a few questions on the traffic if I could ask through the board. Um, first with respect to the, the, um, it's what path analysis. I think that was a comment that was raised before in the prior, uh, peer review comments. We also raised the question. I think there was a, a, a few, a few areas where the fire truck cannot clear. Um, and there was also an issue with the fire truck or the ladder truck exiting the school driveways onto Waltham road. I don't believe they actually modeled the fire truck turning left. Um, so the first question is, has had those issues been addressed or answered by the outfit? Uh, so I, on the previous submittal, the site plan we received, um, I believe on the, uh, Robert P. Hulman debate, um, the previous site plan that we received, uh, that was the, uh, focus of discussion at the last meeting. Um, they did address the curb lines, uh, for the fire lane, uh, to, uh, transit the, uh, east side of the building to go behind the structure, uh, as well as, uh, turning out and turning right. Um, I don't believe they had a left turn, um, but at that rate, they could include it for, to be clear, but it does not appear that there is a conflict there. Uh, most of the conflicts also were, uh, appeared to be curving. They clarified what, that it was not curving. It was edge of pavement. Um, they also moved a number of, uh, sign posts that appeared to be within the swing of the, of the, uh, bumper. Okay. I, I raised the issue with the fire truck turning left because I think that's the route that would go back to the fire station. Sure. Um, if they were coming from Wayland. Yeah. As opposed to Lincoln. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's another question. Is there a mutual aid agreement? We always have a mutual aid agreement. The town does. Okay. So they don't need to coordinate with the fire chiefs. I mean, they're talking to the fire chiefs, but the fire departments have mutual aid agreement. Okay. Um, while we're talking about, uh, chiefs, um, a member of our group, the Lisa Rafferty, I believe, talked to chief Berman, the police chief, and, uh, broached the subject of a school zone. I think this came up at the last meeting and, and I don't know if Lisa's here, she can speak to it herself, but I, I believe the upshot was that it's actually not that difficult for schools to be created and that the applicant or the, uh, the school would petition the police department and the planning board for the creation of a school zone. And there's a process for that. So, um, we all think that's a good idea. So we will talk to the applicant about that during our next meeting. Um, with respect to the trip generation, uh, that Jason just brought up. I thought when I read the traffic report that the trip generation statistics were, were basically provided for the increase of students, not for the total population of the school. Um, maybe I was misreading it, but it looked like the trip generation provided in table five was only for the 204 new students, not for the 250 total students and the 80 total staff. Um, I don't know, Jason, if you, did you flag that or do you know, do you know if that was an issue? So the, and I can let the applicant speak to it also, but the, the, generally the, the 46 that are already there accounted for in the existing 1950 trips per day. The additional 204 was accounted for in both their ITE calculation, um, and their empirical calculation. It was the, it was the additional 50 staff members. That was my question earlier. Okay. So they, they actually haven't provided a statistic for the total trips generated by the school for the future enrollment. 204, 204 additional persons. They, I would, I would say that no, they have not included what's already potentially going into the school. Okay. I think, I think our, our probably biggest concern is the, when it comes to offsite traffic impacts, uh, is the future congestion on Waltham Road and specifically the intersections and the capacity, the intersection capacity analysis results that have been provided by, by Ken are very concerning. And, you know, I, I think that there needs to be more analysis and brainstorming as to what mitigation can be provided, whether it's by contribution from the applicant or by the town of Wayland. Um, but that we can't just let this, these intersections increase by over 200% and having these incredible queue links. Now I get what Ken said that in practice, maybe they'll, the queuing is not as bad as it is the model. And I understand that. I don't doubt it. Um, but I guess I question, I think Jason had a great idea of why don't we calibrate the model for the actual delays. I mean, that seems to be a logical solution. Um, with respect to the construction that was, actually, I, you want to speak to the construction issue, the construction that, that Ken mentioned is actually completed, right? It is. Yes. So, so Ken could go back out there and actually count the, count the trips accurately on Old Subway, it's also, Old Subway Road and, and all that was 117. Right. Okay. Um, and, and then just going back to the capacity analysis, I, I would encourage this board and the applicant to go, I think about what kind of mitigation can be offered short of a, of a, of a light. I don't think anyone really wants a light at the intersection of Waltham Road and Concord Road, but maybe there's something else we can think about. And one of the, the ideas actually that Adam Curry raised at one of the last meetings was possibly providing a, a, a left turn restriction out of the school during those peak hours so that people leaving the school have to take a right. If you can't take a left, then we're obviously we're controlling for the, uh, the increase of, of congestion down there. Try that again. What are you considering peak hours? Well, the afternoon peak hour, when people are leaving the school school or the morning too, after the parents drop off the kids and then they, they, instead of taking a left, maybe they're forced to take a right and then circle back around. If they circle back around, they're going to go down the Lincoln roads. Well, they would, well, it depends on where they're going, obviously. I don't, I don't know where these students, these students come from. Obviously if they're coming from South Whalen, they would have to go up and around to the left and then back down. Right. And go on the roads that you don't really want them on. And it means they have to take a left onto 117, which is, I'm not saying I don't have the solution. I'm just saying, I think there needs to be,
I think there just needs to be some brainstorming and thought going into this. And we just don't accept that there's going to be 20, 200% increases of traffic. So that's all I have on traffic. And that, and I, and just to, to address the conditions, Bill mentioned that we've been talking absolutely correct. We met this afternoon and we're getting closer, but there's still some issues. So I think we're going to have another call or zoom, provide you with as close as we can get on these conditions. There'll probably be a few that we can't agree on the language. And then we'll just give it to you and we'll say, this is the language we'd like, and this is the language they'd like. And then you guys can decide to keep that. Thank you. They got it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other public comments? Andrew Cooper from Five Apple Tree Lane. I just wanted to draw attention to some new information I heard tonight, new to me at least, that I do find quite alarming. And I think it just, again, reiterates the point. Traffic in this area is going to be a big issue. It needs to be taken seriously. And there needs to be solutions. The information I'm referring to, the car park is going to be a dangerous place, too dangerous for students to negotiate. The car park does not have as many cars as Waltham Road. The car park speeds, presumably single digits. Waltham Road, 35. Speeders, there's someone who walks regularly in the area. If this car park is too dangerous for students to negotiate, I don't feel safe on Waltham Road. Who is going to do something to protect me and other walkers in the area? I live on Clayford Hill Road, which is extremely dangerous, and there's a school and people line up, and we just don't walk at certain times of the day. And unfortunately, because of the rural character of the town, and there is no way to do, I don't think, sidewalks on Waltham Road, at least on the Wayland side. You know, that's how it is. And I think that there's a difference with individuals walking and a school that has multiple children crossing multiple times with cars moving through it. And I understand. I mean, I thought that the proposal, and I don't know who submitted it, but from one of the people in your group, was really very interesting. And I looked at it, and they started thinking, is that safe for that many children to be crossing four lanes of traffic? I think traffic is an interesting description of a car park compared to Waltham Road. I think also, as a resident of Claypit, you have already benefited from traffic restrictions during school hours. Is there not residents only in the vicinity of Waltham Road? Absolutely not. Nope. And what happens is people line up so that you can't go, you can't head toward Route 20 in one direction, and you can't head toward 126 in the other. I think what Andrew's referring to is you can't go, after the parents drop the kids off at Claypit, you can't go back out to... No, it's a circle. You can't go back out that, whatever, that driveway. It's a circle. So there are restrictions. The other way. Only right at the school. Yeah, right at the school. Just right in the school. Well, this is where someone else has suggested... Now, I don't actually support this one, but the right turn only out of the Carroll School. I think this model on Claypit. So I go back to my point that additional restrictions on traffic are benefiting the residents of Claypit. And I would like to see additional restrictions on traffic around the Carroll School. I don't support the right turn only. I suggest that you talk to the... I don't know if it's the Select Board or the Board of Public Works, but that's nothing that we have control over on the traffic on the road. It's not within our jurisdiction. Is the Planning Board happy then to simply give the go-ahead to a project that creates a dangerous situation for residents and just leave it to the residents to negotiate the complexities of the town to try and find a solution? The Planning Board has a limited jurisdiction. We can only do what we're allowed to do under state law. It's not repeated every time we've begun a hearing, except for tonight, what that jurisdiction is. It does not include traffic. We can deal with parking on site and the safety on site. Then surely someone should be reviewing this from a traffic perspective. Someone with some authority in the town to implement restrictions. I'm going to say it again and there's nothing I can do about it. If you believe that on your street or on Waltham Road that there need to be restrictions, I suggest that you petition Select Board and the Board of Public Works, because I'm not sure which one has the jurisdiction, and it's in their control. It's given to them by state statute and by bylaw. It is not given to us. I know it's unsatisfactory, but that's how it is. Well, it is unsatisfactory because this is divide and conquer. So we have to go to, I don't know how many different places to get satisfaction from one application. If you are not in a Dover Amendment situation, we might be able to do something. But it is not something that we are allowed to address under the Dover Amendment. Is it not something that you're allowed to ask? You can ask and we can push. Is it something that you're not? I think they've heard you. And if they can come up with something, I'm assuming that they will. And we would like you to be able to do something. So we can say that to them, but we cannot make them do it. But you seem to be telling me that I could make the BPW do something. No, you can't make anybody do something. You can request. And I think that we've gone about as far as we can go on this. So thank you for your comments. And I wish that we could do what you'd like. But it's not within our jurisdiction. I wish the town was a little more centralized. So than me. Then why isn't it? Why isn't it? Because that's not how it's set up. If you're concerned, I suggest you run for office and see if you can change it. Thank you. Yes. I don't know this for a fact, but maybe the school zone review has a broader, you know, sort of perspective, then we may know. They may look at the terms in and terms out. I don't know about it. No, they didn't. They just did half ask. Excuse my language.
Yes. Greg. Please. The camera's up there, so rather than... Oh, wherever you want to be, but hit the microphone.
Rather than having my back to the camera, my name is Peter Quant. I live on Waltham Road. Thank you. I heartily second what Andrew has said. I heartily agree with the idea of creation of a school zone, but I would also note that the creation of a school zone is step one. The enforcement of a school zone is a very necessary step two. There's no enforcement of the school zone down at the middle school, for example, and that's a numbered state route. Having lived on Waltham Road for 41 years, I know that the Weyland Police don't even recognize the fact that that road is in the town of Weyland, and neither the Weyland Police nor the Lincoln Police would agree that that stretch of Waltham Road is in either of those towns. So I would heartily and strongly suggest that the school pay for a detail each morning and each afternoon to see that the creation of the school zone is enforced. I want to acknowledge that I was the one that sent the very rough circulation plan. I want to acknowledge that I'm not an expert. That's very obvious. And I really appreciate everybody taking a look at it. I understand it's really last minute. It was a last minute idea. I really appreciate everybody looking at it. And I also want to acknowledge that it was very obviously an attempt to get some additional screening space in there. That was the motivation though. When I looked at it, I had the idea that if we were talking overflow parking, some of the flow scenarios that you were talking about, there was an initial flow of maybe 50 cars on the initial drop-off lane. Again, an uninformed across the street neighbor. I was wondering how often you would actually reach that 50 car maximum before you went into an overflow mode. And that's why I thought the plan was interesting, that the secondary flow through the parking area was just an overflow scenario. And that the plan both simplified the flow across the site, which I thought would be helpful. That's why I wanted to kind of address it to you all. And also in regards to the 50 car lineup in front of the main drop-off area that you're proposing, you have a two car side-by-side row there. So there's students crossing in front of cars anyway. So my thought that was in an overflow scenario where you could, there's still pedestrian crossways. So the intention was not to create confusion. My proposal was in, you know, innocently trying to, wondering if that would actually rectify the situation as well as increasing screening. And also in regards to the rain garden, I felt like if you increase the screening between Waltham Road and the parking lot, that's a rain garden could shift to that position. And it wouldn't be in between the two parking areas, it would shift to that position. So it wouldn't be losing the rain garden in any way. So I just wanted to explain that really quickly. I appreciate you. I understand. It sounds like you've looked at my little rough plans. I appreciate it. And if there's any other questions that you have to help explain that, I'd be, I'd be happy to answer it, but I just wanted to acknowledge, um, I appreciate you all looking at the plan and, um, thank you very much. Any questions? Is there any other
is there anything else that you guys need to say or want to say? I would just, I mean, I think this is probably where I had to just outline what, what comes next, right? So, so we know, um, that we, now that we know a direction on the lighting, we'll give final comments back to Jason and his team on the last review. Um, we also have some modifications that we need to submit as part of that so that conservation can see those modifications that were made as well as, uh, the stormwater updates that go along with, uh, the concerns they had. We'll be back in front of the joint boards on the 7th to try to close out stormwater, uh, concerns. And then Bill, um, will forward the latest draft once we've gone another round with the neighbors. Okay. Um, do you think that, um, if you can close it, I don't know if you can, but if you can close it out with conservation on the 7th, um, do you think that you'll be in shape with your, uh, conditions so that we could move to close that part out too?
I think so. Well, in any case, we propose, what we propose, we'll get to the board before Christmas for conditions. Great. We're looking forward to a wonderful Christmas. And so, yeah, I guess the other, the other question for you all is, is there anything else that you feel is still open with us that we need to respond to? It was the design review board, which we sent an email today. Um, that's true. Yeah. So I'm, I'm away for a week and a half or so. So I'd imagine it'll be after the new year. Yeah. And I think we were hoping to just get in front of them, you know, after the new year, but before we're heard at the end of January, you know? Yeah, we can probably, uh, I'm sure we'll fit it in, but I did, I did see your email come in today. Yeah, I forgot to mention that. I'm sorry. Just so you know, or you may have heard when we were going through the schedule with the other folks. Um, January 7th, we have you. Um, the 28th is our next meeting and, um, we have a full program that night. It would be tough to deal with much. January or December, January. Okay. Um, and then the meeting after that is February the 11th. If we had to, we might be able to put one in between, but shoot, we've been doing that a lot and we're getting tired. Let's see. We're hoping to get off your list. See how the 7th works out. Okay. And if we have to get fit in or February, we'll have to talk about it then I think. Design review is usually Tuesdays because I have to be here Wednesdays most of the time. Yeah. And Robert has other commitments as well. I'll do design review with us. We can't do Thursdays. There are no zooms on Thursdays. Okay. Um, is anyone on the board? Ira? No. Larry? Jesse? You're okay, Keith? Um, so can I have a motion to continue this hearing until January the 7th at 630? I will do it hybrid with the conservation commission. Uh, we might wind up doing it just, I mean, it will be hybrid, but we might just be soon. And we'll see if we're going to do it in person or not. Oh, both boards zoom. Yeah. Okay. Because we've been having technical difficulties in town. Sometimes it's easier to go one way or the other. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Can you just drag them in here? We tried. It was, but then they, they, then to continue their meeting, there weren't enough, uh, microphones in the other rooms in order to be able to, um, tape so that then they could use it for minutes. We just might only have one mic. Okay. So I move that we, so I move that we continue the public hearing to January 7th at 6 30 PM hybrid with the conservation commission in attendance. Second. Second. All in favor. Um, Larry? Yes. Yes. Uh, Ira? Yes. Jesse? Yes. Robin? Yes. Annette? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.
It's true. Yeah. He says for a short time.
So yeah, actually I was gonna, cause we've just, no, you're all set. Oh.
You can go home now. Yeah. Not really. Yeah. Regarding the comments that we had on the new supplemental, um, we'll put those comments in writing. What I gave you tonight, I, I will put it in writing. I will amend to the letter. We have three. So everything will be in one, one place. No, I appreciate that. Um, I think you guys, Steve has the dark color wall. Yeah. I want to speak. I want to you. And then the train I thought has been derailed about four times so far this week. Um, I know that the, the school zone, the support for the school zone was in the original traffic study. You're in those conditions, those recommendations. So they carry. They carry. Yeah. You had the, thank you. You had the, uh, monitor and monitoring of the intersection. Can I go to school? Um, obviously you can address how do you want to deal with thinking. Um, obviously they're outside the school. It's a lot of energy. Yeah. Um, I think the only thing to channel it, it's no different at work. I think to the board is just that there's bigger people. Yeah, exactly. That plan there needs to be, for my original comments, I think there needs to be some, either some kind of a frequency or, or some idea of what that, what that's going to look like. Um, but yeah, I will get those, I will get those comments. And then, um, as I mentioned, Chris, we got the septic review. Um, that went through the department. We've got it. We're looking at the mounting analysis now on septic only. Um, I've not seen anything new in the town from Sean, the stormwater. And that's, that's a bit of a bigger way of, so. That all is coming in through. I just want to wait on this lighting. It's all coming in that same response. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be back. Project manager makes sure. Oh yeah, you think. A professional project. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anything for me now? Nope. Thank you very much. The one thing I, I just, um, just want to yell it across everybody. Um, the one thing I just let the applicant know is that one of my original comments on traffic was the monitor and then provide mitigation, possibly a condition that they would agree to. Okay.
Sorry to do actually, um, if you could write something, it was a comment in my previous. Okay. So I will, I will just send it back to the board. Okay. Thank you. Uh, just the, I think there is some flexibility. If you have a suggestion on how to write the thing, though.
I will, let me see what I can do. Even if you get close, we can deal with it now. I'm hoping they'll provide some more additional information on the analysis at Lincoln Road.
So those intersections are bad. Yeah. I'm not sure what we can do. Um, the only other thing is, I don't know how much you guys, the way like one originally they offered the modern community at Waltham and Concord. I point out they did not offer it anywhere else. They have to work that out. So I know that's not. If you want, I can, I can. You can say it. Say it. Sure. Say it all. Say it all. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a good night. Happy holidays. Oh yeah. Same to you. Um, well, I'm good. It's late, but is there any public comment on things not on the agenda this evening? Where's the microphone? There's only four. So you can see there's a little four over here. So there's only four. Do we? No, we don't need that. We can hear each other. Yeah. They can hear on this thing. Uh, I think they can hear us. Larry, can you hear us? That's a service. That's fine. Yeah. There aren't a hundred people yelling in the background with their pitchforks. No. We don't. Do we need it? No. Okay. Larry, can you hear us? My phone's from, from, to the team. Are there any hands raised? Oh, God. I didn't want to do public comment. Are there any hands raised? Are there any hands raised? Uh, let me see. There's only four. Nope. There's only in the audience anymore. No minutes. Let's go over that. Yeah, we have no minutes. Um, but we have, um, what's the name of the zoning articles? Yes, we have five zoning articles. We have, uh, MBTA, housekeeping, ground-mounted, floodplain, and ADU, potentially. Those are the five that, uh, for grabs. Um, should we just go through them quickly? Some of them are pretty simple. Um, multifamily. I have no changes from the last meeting. The two changes were 58 feet from building height, and 20, 32 feet, 22 units per acre, were the changes I had. So I have no changes from our discussion last night. So we don't really need to discuss that. No, I just... So that we can go forward. Well, we have to vote. I would do a vote at the end, which I would try to vote. Um, housekeeping, I, I, I changed the word act in a wayland. Some reason it was, I didn't correct it when I left Mimi on Zoom. Um, but there was nothing else that I had, that I had. I got no comments from everybody else on anything on there. On all of these, you have to remove article. And it has, and the estimated cost, and to determine whether the town will, for what we're submitting now. Because these are not articles that we're submitting. We're submitting proposals for zoning. And that's... So how do you, how do you, how do you... I want it to say... Housekeeping? If it says, for all of them, I want it to say, proposal for zoning, uh, submitted by the planning board. And you can have the title, but we don't want it confused with articles, because the warren is open now. And if you submit it as an article, then you have some other issues. So you have a proposal by... Proposal by... Proposal for zoning, uh, amendments. Zoning amendments. Or planning board proposal for zoning amendments, or something like that. Under, under where is this article?
This whole thing should go. This whole paragraph, first paragraph, where it's all of this. You want all... Except, except it's underlined and striked through. You can read that. And it's not to determine whether we're going to vote to amend. It's just that the town's, uh, a proposal from the planning board. And then to amend the town's zoning bylaw, chapter 198. All right. So, so you look at the screen. It's, we're taking, like... It's too hard. It's behind us. Yeah. If you... Oh, you look over there. So it's taking away this piece here. Get rid of that. Get rid of that. I'm going to work this way. And say... And then get rid of this. Where I said article. And we call it a proposed... Proposal. Zoning proposal. Oops. It says proposed. Proposal by the planning board. And you want to put a date on it. Of course. For whenever you're going to submit it to the select board. Yep. Which would be tomorrow. Because we're going to... We're going to finalize tonight and submit them all. So it would be tomorrow... At the top, you could put a date above the housekeeping. Or wherever you want to put the date. Just some place where you can... Yeah, it's the right next book. But I don't know. And you're taking out to the determine. But you can do the thing about the underlining. Yeah, I was just highlighting. Yeah, it's just... So the multifamily one has to have the same changes. Yeah, they all have the same changes. Yeah. I don't think I'm messing with the format. I'm trying to figure out the substance of it. And then go back and then change all the stuff. It was more about gain energy on paper. Yeah. Hey, so MBTA. No, I didn't have any changes from the last time. Can we answer anything? Any comments on that? So we can just move one by one? No, that's fine. Can we... When you submit something to us, can you put a date on it? Sure. Because it's hard to remember which was the last version, and which is the new version. It is the digital that has the date on it. I started to put it in the file name just to help everybody. Yeah, the file name is great, but it also needs to be in the document. And when you submit something, it's got to say draft. You've got to put a draft across it. Okay. And here's a suggestion too in your naming files. If you put the year first, and then the month and the day, when you save them, documents that have the same name will come up in chronological order. Yes, it's very nice. It's mind-blowing. Year, year, year, month, day. Year, month, day. And they come up in chronological order. So if you have a million documents named application, they will come up in chronological order. It's like a life hack. Oh, I agree. Yeah. When I save... When Robert sends us packets, I save them with the date changed into that format, and they're all in chronological order. I'll try that the next time, because it's not how I'm set up. I have made it. The other dates. I have forced everybody in my practice group to save everything with year, month, day. And now we can't stop, because we love it. It's just everything is chronological. So. Yeah. Okay. This is the old. This is the latest.
All right. So META is fine. Housekeeping. I don't want any changes except for correcting. I got Clara Valera. And I didn't review it, so it's fine. And this was really just the easiest thing that we could do. Was everybody okay with that, if they looked at it? Okay. I mean, this is all to get to the hearing. Right. And at the hearing, we can make changes. As we're hearing, you can say trip all of it. That's great.
Floodplain. I have gone back and forth with these. There's some issues with that. Okay.
I asked this before, and I'm going to ask it again. The town floodplain is enforced by the ZBA. The federal flood protection is by the CONCOMP. So the definitions under floodplain district, those definitions that you added, aren't they really the federal floodplain protection definitions? And don't they belong under 1701.2 or 1702, whatever it is? Don't they belong in the second section? 1702.
You want to move it to 1702? I want, I'm asking the question. I don't want to mess it up if I'm wrong. I have sent this to the, to them, to the state, and they didn't, didn't fly that piece. Well, I'll tell you to put it, but I can circle, circle back up for my guys. Well, they're not looking at it, because they're thinking only about federal floodplain protection. Well, in that case, we can just, we can, I can just move it. They, I got all the substance into the. Okay. And so my question was, is anything in 1701.1 applicable to the town's floodplain protection district or the floodplain district, or is it only federal floodplain protection? I think this is most, I think it's most federal. I think, I think their lens up there, look at it's federal. And what do we have otherwise under 17, under the federal floodplain thing? Under the, under the 1701 or? 1701. That'd be it. What would be it? You would move all, you would move everything under the, I don't know, 1701 to 1702. But what would be in 1701? Nothing now. That would, that would, that's, we wouldn't, we wouldn't, we wouldn't touch the 1701 then. Hold on.
Well, there's a few, there's a few sections. Yeah, there's, there's seven, there's the floodplain district. There's 1701.1 currently, 1701.2, 1701.3. And then we would, they would, we would just readjust back to 1701, 1701.2, go back to 1701.1. I'm sorry. I don't understand. I'm really quite sorry. The 1702 is the floodplain protection district. So everything for that belongs in the floodplain protection district. We do have the floodplain district. And it has one, two, three big sections. Four, five, six big sections. And we didn't mention that here at all.
Do you understand what I'm saying? No, I don't. Sorry. Thank you. I know it's late.
This is floodplain and federal floodplain. This is floodplain. This is what happens in the floodplain. And the ZBA is the one who issues the permit. And that's one, two, three, four, five, six. Then we go to 1702 and that's the federal floodplain district. And that's where you were making the changes, I think. And I'm asking you because I'm not sure what. The changes under 1701 were the definition. We should, we should, we can move to the federal. So we can knock that off. Okay. So we don't have to, you don't think there's anything that we need to do in 1701? There is. There is a few minor changes that are highlighted. There was a few changes in there. Some new sentences without the blacked out. Because the existing 1701.1 doesn't include any definitions. Right. So then it's odd to, it has different texts. So it's odd to then add definitions to something that's not definitions. 1701.1.2, which, which is existing 1.1. That, that had some changes in it. Okay. What kind of changes? After that, the purposes of this bylaw to ensure safety for reducing the threats of life. There's, it's in, it's in the text. There's a paragraph. And where did we get that paragraph? From the state. It's in the state, but this is the low. Okay, shh. There's a federal floodplain thing. I know, I know. And there's, there's the local one. And is there a state one that's different than the federal one? No, I got the state guidelines of what to put in. So should we add a section, which is Massachusetts flood planning, and then put all this stuff that has to be in there because of the change in the state law into a new section, which is for Massachusetts floodplain. I don't think there is a Massachusetts floodplain. Well, there's state laws though. So if it's mandated by the state, it's not our local bylaws. No, but what's mandated by this? See, I think what's happening is the state, in conjunction with the federal government, I think it's, I think the, the state is enforcing the federal program. They are, yes. So 17.1.1 has some changes, and then there's an assentance later, or until all local state federal permits are obtained to carry this work. But right now, the only changes you have for 17.1.1 are definitions. All of them. That'll be, that'll be, that'll be added. That's, that's not, that'll be just moved back to federal. Do you push? So right now, 17.1.1 is just a little teeny paragraph stating the purpose of, of, of 17.1 is to protect, blah, blah, blah. So it doesn't, it's not consistent with, are there changes to the paragraph that is the existing 17.1.1? Yes. Because they're not here. They're in there. Where are they here? Because these are just definitions. They're under the, they're under 17.1.1 right now. I'm looking at it. Which, but that's, we will, we'll move the definitions to the existing. No, no, I'm, I'm looking at the current zoning bylaws, which include a 17, 17.1.1. This, this section right here, 17.1.2. We're going to move, we're going to move this, we're going to move the definition down. Definitions where a new section would be added. Yeah, I know. But so you're saying there are changes to the existing 17.01.1, but. Point one. Right. But I see the existing 17.01.1, and it's just a little paragraph about the purpose of the. Yeah, what may change is that? What changes, because I don't see them here on these pages. I only see the definitions, which we agree aren't going to be in the definitions. And that's just more definitions, and then it, nope, it goes to 17, it goes to.
Okay, so, so we just need to swap them. We're moving some, we'll move the definition page back on the federal. Okay, you have this as 17.01.2, so it's going to be the new 17.01.1. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Because it is the purpose of, so then it is. So is the text changing? Yes. There's a new text. Okay, so. It's expanded. Okay. Show me, show me what we're looking for. So this is the, this, it says 17.01.2. That's really the new 17.01.1, because it does, this is the language of the existing 701.1 is the purpose of level. So this is the replacement for 17.01.1 is right here.
Nope. Further down. The purpose. Nope. Keep flipping up. Protect house safety welfare. Yeah, it doesn't look the same as what I have.
Which version are you looking at? I'm looking at what you've most recently sent us. Let me see this here. Sent you or printed out? I printed it out myself. That's, it's outdated then, by then and then. Yeah. I've been going back and forth with the state all day. Okay, so, but you understand now. So what was, so all of these above it are definitions. Okay. They're going somewhere else. Okay. So this is the new 17.01.1. To ensure public safety, so reducing threats, collect personal injury, eliminate new hazards. And where is, where, this is the towns.
Well, why in the towns. These are the comments they got from the state, right? They want this in. They wanted this in. From the town. They understand that this is a, I don't think they do.
They want it. They wanted it.
They wanted it separately, like this. And it's in, under. This is, I gave them a version and they put to edit my version. No, I understand, but the version that you gave them had all the definitions in it. And all the definitions don't belong in that section. They belong in another section, so when they're reviewing it, they're probably reviewing it as if it is the second section.
Do you know what I'm saying? I didn't say it. I spent way much, too much time on this. But I can see where they want to change because the old language said it was just to present, protect against the hazards of flooding along the Sudbury River. So now they're expanding it and other water bodies. And this is much more broad than what the old language was. So I can see them wanting it to be more broad.
When you guys sort out what you're talking about, I have a basic question, but I don't want to interrupt the flow. Okay. You better jump in now. Are you fooling? Yeah, jump in now. Jump in now. Heaven sakes. I, so I'm confused as to what is the flood plain district? Is that the Weyland flood plain, 120 or 124, or is it something else? I don't know what 120 and 124 is. So if you look at the Weyland, I'm trying to understand what properties are impacted by So are you looking at the GIS flood plain map? Yes. Okay. And in that map, there's, and Robert showed me, there's two views, flood overlay 120 feet and flood overlay 124 feet, basically four feet higher. And that four foot higher is kind of like the worst we've seen in Weyland, like 2010. So, but we're talking about a flood plain district. And I want to understand, is that a separate GIS map? Is it the 120, is it the 124? I don't know if it's a separate GIS map, but what we can go back to is I believe it's in 301, where we set up the districts.
If it's the 124, it impacts a lot of properties. I'm just looking at the definitions here. The flood plain district. Okay. This is the definition of the districts. A flood plain district that includes all land and water in the town of Weyland, subject to seasonal or periodic flooding by the Sudbury River, except for temporary excavations. The surface lies below elevation 124 feet above mean sea level, as such elevation is shown by the notation 124 flood plain in the atlas of the town of Weyland, Massachusetts, prepared and corrected to January 1, 1972 by Everett M. Brooks, corrected to January 1, 1775 by Weyland Engineering Department. That's the flood plain district. That's the towns that's at 124. The federal flood plain protection district is described at, and this is, we worked on this last year. The federal, it includes all special flood hazard areas within the town of Weyland designated as zone A, AE, AH, AO, AR, V, VE, and A99, and the floodway areas in zone AE on the Middlesex County flood insurance rate map firm issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program, and then we described on what panels you have to look at on the firm to see what is in it. So these are two different things. And the federal one, I believe, is the one that the state is overseeing, because we've got a Middlesex County flood insurance map. So I think the state works with the feds, and the general requirements come from the feds, but the state then oversees the program. So the questions that I've been asking are, I don't know in the flood, in the flood plain district, which is the one that the ZBA supposedly enforces, although I have no idea if they do.
I don't know if we need it. It's here. And if it is here, we need to make sure that what we're saying really relates to it, and not to the federal one. Am I making sense? Right. Yeah, that is. But if you look at the 124 level, like you said, and it says you can't do basically anything in there, it covers a huge part of our town center. Uh-huh. That's correct. And I've never heard anyone say anything about when we move pavement or put in buildings or... Yeah, we do in buildings. We have. It has come up when the apartment complex wanted to go in where terrain is going in now. That came up. Ah. All right. Because that makes sense. It comes up in the center of town lots. It comes up other places, but in the center of town, as you know, it floods and it's underwater. So they're really not excited to have more things built there. And if they are going to be built there, they want them to be able to withstand the flood. But not only terrain, everything across the street is in that zone as well. Yeah. It is. Because if you, I mean, we've had two really major floods since I've lived here, where people were canoeing in the center of town. True. I was one of them. So, yeah. Canoe to work. So, um... My son was canoeing down our road with floods. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. That helped me. Uh, I wasn't... I guess... Yeah, well, I'm still not clear. So, the question becomes,
what do we do in the floodplains district versus in the flood protection district? It's 18th. We used to have one more in here, and that got dropped out a few years ago, because I don't know why it got dropped out, but it made no sense.
I know it's getting late. So, you could have just... Stay up. Stay just inside of...
Can you ask Linda what that's supposed to be? Yeah, you have time to look at... Yeah, but you need to ask a pointed question. Asked for the pointed question I got back to you about. What do we need to... Because the question... One of the questions that the states asked, it's like you don't have to put all those in here if you say chapter 9 184 or whatever it is you can you can just do those you don't have that you don't have to put in both places but it sounds like the town wants to put in both places
well or we have to take it out of some place i mean whatever it's just that i know we've set up the zones already and they're on the maps i know and that seems to be they're on the female
system of any role well um i guess for now i would move what you can move easily to the second section yeah and if you can't figure out what's happening in the first section um we can publish it and then just deal with it in between yeah a lot a lot i so i went back and forth with air across some from the state um cr i think he's works for me and a lot of that he he's focusing on making sure everything is in there so the changes i give you printed out the ones that were finalized like this afternoon oh we're printed out i didn't yeah i've been i've been going back and forth to make sure this is like correct today they're just very hot is that the only other one that you did today for yeah yes okay i don't do you think he understood that we have two different floodplain districts i hope he does i mean i can't assume his mind but he reviewed the application and didn't ask any questions i'm looking at 302 we have to change 302 again yep why just some it's it's it's a date question it has to do with if you we had the right thing it's the way it's it's set up when we did it last year it was before july 8th and we knew we were going to have to change it again i remember we had a discussion we knew we'd have to change it again when they finalized i thought we did that wasn't final meeting and it wasn't finalized because it wasn't july 8th yet and the way that and the way that the habit ran out i didn't want to didn't want to like cross this off here and move it here so i just took the whole sentence and just like deleted it and added exactly what they wanted to put in there so it's it's almost correct it just you think a few things have moved around in the date but panel numbers and the dates changed slightly yeah so yeah okay um so i mean but the the best thing we can do is we bring this down hearings and if something has to be changed you change it great you get more information you change it someone it's just like but i think if we work on how it's organized so that we get the definitions in the right place and the 1701 i will move the definitions to to the next section because then if you give it back to him maybe he'll view it differently i don't know if the definitions are throwing them off i don't know and we have to and he has to understand that we have two different i'll i'll talk to him when he's back in the office and you can send them that page from the bylaw sure it has two different districts i would assume that he this is this is what his phone no i don't think so i think you i really think he thought he was dealing with his area all right so that's a potential article for for his own hearing so we've got three so far we have three so far um and we have to do these two we have to do ground mounted solar do the let's do let's do grandma's solar first we want to talk about them on the 29th we can't we can't we can't yeah you publish it it has to be available if you're comfortable with what i'm i'm ready if you're comfortable with these things i don't care and we can we don't have to go ahead yeah um i don't i don't remember was there any big discussion on ground mounted i mean just so there was just a couple things that i have i wanted to follow up on since our last meeting sure i looked at the state regs i'm now referencing them in there so there's an item in there in the first section where i reference right back to them um and we're in line with okay and it doesn't change okay i was concerned that the megawatts through the sizing might change great i think our take on that is uh is pretty good good and then um there was an ask about checking to see if there were regulations on glare and there really aren't we have there's there's like faa guidelines for for glare for pilots and there's um there's um retro reflectivity guidelines that are at the uh but they're not like you know zoning bylaw we have a thing about preventing glare and roadways from houses i mean it's part of the general thing and i don't think it says lights i think it just says glare there's one other thing there oh the um the the vegetative um boundary so i changed the language there to be a little more descriptive about how we're measuring from the edge of a panel and that's um with tilt included as well so like the longest point oh great and then um i also added language in there just you know we talked about this a little bit like if somebody has a bunch of trees already and it's it they already have screening on their property and you can't really see where they're putting it then that counts okay yeah sounds good yeah i'm pretty comfortable where it's that glare 2309.8.12 and this is about lighting fixtures but it's it should be arranged so as to prevent glare from any light source onto any public street or adjacent but it is it's from a light source let's see landscaping um promote the inclusion of new tree plantings in order to reduce visual light noise and glare 23 is the special zone yeah there's a general one this is for landscaping it's 2506.1.1 that's a special zone too it's way earlier i didn't find anything earlier yeah i couldn't i i i went on a wild goose chase looking for this and i couldn't find it okay and then i'm sure it's the state looking for something and i couldn't find anything there headlights yeah it's all it's all like sight lines for um like car traffic and that's 11.02 it's it's here because i know i've used it so where is it 600 i'm looking at 600 to see if it might be in um so the thing is this is searching for every place that the word glare arises okay and so it's because the headlights in 1102 and then all those other special headlights headlights yeah all right to the cars can you search for solar and then maybe get a regulation on is there anything for solar um um 2309 yeah 2309 2506 and then down the 11th and that's like when your airports but i don't just throw a flashlight you're not supposed to shoot it at that okay but we're not we're not overly yeah we're not i don't think it's a huge concern so that was that's four then yeah and then the last one is one i think needs some discussion so i think that i want to make sure that all the changes that you were typing up when we discussed it last time i want to make sure i didn't miss any of those when i was doing mine so i should compare what you had and what i had um but anyway so i added definitions so there was a definition for accessory dwelling unit which we've changed and there's a definition for affordable dwelling unit and i decided i needed to add one for affordable accessory dwelling unit because we use the charm yeah and so i added how how are we going to deal with the affordable accessory well we'll get to that but i just said i thought we have to add a definition if we're going to use it we have to add a definition so i turned i typed that in and i don't know why i typed it in and that's why i wanted to see what changes you made when we were when we met the last time i didn't write them down you typed them in so i just want you to send me your draft from what you worked on while we met because i wonder if this because it is one of them i think i was supposed to look at the existing one but i did i don't know about that so i just turned it blue because i think it's in there it doesn't need to be in there um so then i had a definition for principal dwelling unit that was a little tough because we have one for dwelling unit i know yeah so it was a little weird to come up with is there anything in the state regulations so there there wasn't anything useful in there but then i looked there were a couple of towns that had definitions so i pulled some up and none of them were exactly what we wanted but i tried to cobble something together so that's where i came up with that and then protected use adu i found the same thing i found i thought that was that was easy for us the state yeah so it's really it's just taking that yeah yeah it sort of takes what we took out of accessory dwelling unit and moves it down so so we take a look at that and then i think this is the question about well what's what's the green under i what's what's the highlighted for um it just because it was a change i just wanted the things that we discussed that i was going to change i just wanted to make sure we noticed them and discuss them um that we may grant special which a lot more than one adu adu on a lot or allow you a lot units on a lot that are larger than 900 square feet um last time i wasn't sure we discussed as we just were wrapping up whether we wanted to do anything bigger or not and we didn't um and also because i changed these to make it so the ad user by right if they're under 900 square feet so because that was something we discussed in the meeting and then later on i added that the um the deed restriction should be submitted to robert um and that the deed restriction had to be read had to be um you know filed with the registry of deeds before the certificate of occupancy can right so when you do the um aadu's you set them up so that um they're as of right if they fit into the protected use thing every place so where we discuss the protected use right i just put adu slash aadu if if you can get an adu by right then you can get an adu by right the way this is now right right do we need to do that can we just do we have we don't an adu is a by right one do we need to define it as an adu and or do we want to talk about um accessory dwelling units that need a special permit and just call those call those out you know what i mean we're creating a different class and i don't know how we're going to we don't have a way of dealing with it i think under state law they have to be allowed if they're up to no because they allowed our our what we passed last year which created you had to have a special permit for an adu they allowed that okay i can't remember anymore they allowed it because our current bylaw from what we passed at last time meeting you have to have a special permit to get an adu and it was because we felt we had to do that to get the deed restrictions right but we decided robert's enough of a control it's all on you robert everything everything we're going home you're in charge you're doing great um he's losing it
so and then 901.1.3.2 i sent you you i think i sent you all the email that i got from doug sacra right yeah which is confusing which is okay it's a little bit confusing some of what he wants is like some of the stuff like the percentage of a lot size that's and that's what we really wanted from him the other stuff he was like oh just allow everything i was like yeah no and so he said instead of saying um and i haven't changed this because i just like i don't know i don't know how we want to change it um if it's larger than 900 square feet shall not increase the gross floor area of the original building by more than what and he said no don't do that allow allow an adu to take up you know a percentage of the lot you know to the combined square footage but we already have that we have lot coverage size so do we not put this in and just stick to a lot coverage for a special for a special permit we can and do we have to say that we don't have to say that sorry we already have lot coverage restrictions so that was the thing was do we just take it out if it's an attached if it's anything it's still restricted by lot coverage yeah so if you have a teeny tiny lot you can't build an attached one if it's going to put you over but if you have a very large lot you could wind up with multiple adus you can't accept for the multi-family the the fact that then it becomes a multi-family we want it what yeah it not even so what i came up with for multi-family is really restrictive so i don't think we have to worry about that but yes you could end up on a huge lot but then i think we're not supposed to care i think we're supposed to say bring it on we need the housing which i i don't necessarily agree with but if you have 10 acres why can't you put because you should have i know i know it's not an adu yeah it's a different it's a different tax as well you have a house on a lot yeah it's a dispute some more money yeah right that's what you've done right so can we say it has to be smaller than the house well special uh permit just cover that in instead of us trying to define it um as each situations unique often have you ever seen the zoning board deny anything
just out of curiosity no but it would come to us if it's a special permit it's us but do we need to give ourselves a reason to say no because it's too big that's why so i think we want so is lot coverage the only restriction we have or do we want to peg it to the size of the principal dwelling perhaps and i don't know if it works we can do multiple things a certain percentage of the lot sizes whatever i mean or say under the standards um it's a special permit which means it has to fit into neighborhood blah blah blah blah blah and um the considerations should be a b c those kinds of things i don't know if that works but you could say like yeah relation to the current size of the principal dwelling you could say but it's not just a lot of coverage you could have a lot of coverage things i mean like you can have a bunch of factors in there then you can say like a combination of which or a little less of which or whatever to qualify it doing zoning articles on the fly it's my favorite thing that's why our bylaws look like garbage yeah um okay so but we're so we're not gonna and yeah you know using a percentage is just becomes one size fits all which you know if you're talking down in cuchituate versus up on i don't know moore road or something that's a little different we've been talking about that before right we were going to have a definite size so but what right but like on her property there'd be a mansion so but the thing is no i know we talked about this so but having one limit doesn't work because there are giant lots and there are tiny lots and so somebody with a giant lot could build basically a second full-size house yeah so right no so but it but it's not flexible enough so instead we'll give ourselves criteria and we can say well we think you're not meeting our criteria so who's going to read you that the building commission no we will because it's a special department but we have to give ourselves some basis so um and that was i think the big things yeah that's awesome so um no larger than a trailer um it was interesting so maura haley's got a whole bunch of like ads up on social media about adus and they interview this couple that built a adu but it's two it's like two full bedrooms and stuff like that i'm like i don't think that's a 900 square foot edu must have been a special yeah or super wide angle lens no no they're talking about it they walk through the house with her and talk about this lovely prefab adu but i think uh it doesn't say not waiting so anyway um so do you want to just finalize that yes so when do you have to have it by um i'm going to post by tuesday so tuesday okay yeah i am i'm going to do it twenty two day tuesday okay i'm just afraid for the holidays yes what date will they get published jan december december 20 23rd and 30th there's not a way to get it in by the 22nd by the 23rd nobody's reading anything is that okay i can try those with my second more it might make my point second i'm trying to shoot for this one but i'm not going to have you do tomorrow i'm getting up and leaving from wisconsin on seven o'clock in the morning so
no we have to sleep here take the things and we can do most of them give them to michael michael give them back to us and then you in the meantime you would be sending in the notice to the newspaper and so we need a final permit of you to send to michael right here but we can do them in peace because wisconsin having to i think that what you're saying before yeah and tell him one more is coming correct all right um so that if we can do that and get it to him and you can send the newspaper request in get in as early as possible that would be the best do you want do you want to if we can i would not like to be later than the 22nd we can do that 23rd 24th yeah 24th is not no that's really and the 23rd is really not fair either so if you can't do it by the 22nd but it would be better if we could i just don't know i know exactly what their cutoff is okay unfortunately but we're not you're just talking about zoning amendments in the notice and do you want me to to finalize and send send you a version of it i i need to look at today you can but that would be fine but if you need to go before i see it and just do it that's the word you're using i think so isn't it isn't that what we're doing it's not it's not article yet no it's only amendment until they actually get it yeah so i'll send so tomorrow i will finalize it i will send the four requests to michael to carry on that that one's playing and that he and he he's been instructed away or he has they were on friday they're going to vote on friday that we vote to you can still put the thing in the news paper yeah we gotta find a way to just like get us out of there um we have just one more thing i'm sorry um okay the select board oh yeah yeah what was that we talked about this at a meeting probably a couple months ago about right their desire for a task force and at the time we said yeah why do we need one for um we're going to work on the zoning we have we have a plan that they paid for with a consultant that we didn't hire yeah and we have that plan so looking at this task force thing it's like is is is is my thinking that they don't like the plan correct maybe and they want to no i think this one yeah they want everything yeah and um what's what they're proposing here is essentially sort of starting over with a different cast of characters that's why that's why i said what said like under state law they can't do master plans only we can um and the role of the planning board um so the question becomes how we respond um i've been told that there are some people on the board of selectmen who just want this want this want this um and um that it would behoove us to say we'll take something on the question is whether we take on a task force i mean we don't have any money i asked where the money was coming from you know we like we would never propose that because we don't have any money to do it um and just having a task force that says oh we'll write the rfp and then you know send it we don't even know what we're trying to do yeah yeah yeah what's the outcome exactly um so the question is how should we get back to them i'm concerned if we say that um it'll be a mess they'll come back yeah and then we'll get stuck um someone else suggested that we request a meeting with the select board board to board to discuss where we've been where we are what we're trying to do and uh see if we can sort of put this on a shelf and what we've spent the last six months dealing exactly and the last actually four years right do they want are they looking for a whole rewrite of this password yeah i guess i i think they want somebody to write the zoning bylaws that we don't have time to write but that's not what it says that's pretty important to see the task force is accomplishing that no i don't either but that's what they had one like when they came to us before right but that's not what this says why would they pay some we've already paid so we we tried that remember years ago oh yeah and it was like yeah for 500 bucks you get like five minutes of my time it was really expensive i would say to them if you can get town meeting to authorize the spending for that then you should go right ahead i don't want to say that i don't want i don't want it's going to authorize anybody for anything at this time what happened with the oh it passed it asked yeah it was close but it was six for six percent turnout pretty good i don't know i don't know i trust you to respond in any way i move that we authorize chairman lewis to respond as she sees fit i asked them to define what the task force is supposed to be what do you think about us having asking for a meeting with them to go over this because this is like being dumped on us in february yeah and what i said i said you know nobody has talked to us about this at all robert nobody talked to robert about it right and he's on the he's going to be an ex-officio member he doesn't have enough stuff to do and the the answer was well we asked you a while ago and you said you didn't want to do it and that's not exactly what we said what does behoove you mean that we won't get fired it serves you well i know but i fired that would be good could we get fired
because they'll just go ahead and do whatever they want to do
and intent of this um task force is and then decide okay um i have to respond they're meeting on the fifth of january and i guess we're meeting on seven yeah and before that we're going to have to meet on december the 29th you could send it out to the board and gather comments i did oh you did i mean not what month the response but i sent yeah no i know no so i think yeah but i think it's reasonable to say sorry what what exactly would be the i tried that i didn't get a good answer which is why it was suggestion that we have meeting with this let's go yeah let's go ask them the question in person okay yeah yeah so if we have to go i don't know if they'll look at this but if we had to go on january the fifth could we do that i know it's too much it's too much it's too much i know i wouldn't lose it just exhausted let's do it that's a monday right yeah yeah i'm in my office it's fine i guess i don't know what i have i didn't look i think i'm good i can okay so okay what does that mean he said he can oh i think he said okay it's just an office day it's fine hold on uh january yeah okay so i'll ask if we can be on their agenda in january and explain what we want to talk about
this is brutal okay are you ready for a motion absolutely i move to adjourn and say oh in favor larry all right ira hi jesse hi robin aye aye