December 3, 2025 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript

December 3, 2025 - Planning Board

Autoscroll:

It's 7.02, and we're calling the meeting of the Planning Board to order. It's Wednesday, December the 3rd, 2025. I know that people wanted to have microphones. We tried. There weren't any that are compatible with this room. So we will continue to talk to facilities people about getting something that works for the entire building. All of our members are here this evening, so I don't have to take roll call. I'm going to go over the agenda for this evening, the meeting called to order, and public comment for matters not on the agenda. Then review and approve our draft minutes for 11-12. I believe that's the one that we have. Then at 7.15, continued public hearing for EB-2502, including a joint session with the Conservation Commission. We will start here at 7.15 with things that the Conservation Commission is not concerned with. And then at 8 o'clock, the Conservation Commission will be joining us via Zoom to participate with us and deal with stormwater and those other things that they deal with. Then at 8.45, again, in conjunction with the Conservation Commission, we're going to do PB-2503, continued public hearing, including the joint session with the Conservation Commission for 3745 Waltham Road in Wayland, the Carroll School Site Plan approval. And on that one, we're only going to be dealing with stormwater, drainage, and trees at 9.45, hopefully. We're going to try and stay on schedule if we can. We're going to have a discussion of future zoning for ground-mounted solar and bulk energy storage systems. And then we have a section update from the town planner going over some proposed zoning articles that we hope to submit this year for town meeting. Most of them are in housekeeping kinds of things and going over the schedule for annual town meeting. And then we're going to schedule a scenic road tree hearing with the Board of Public Works. Then we have board comments and concerns and matters that aren't reasonable. Well, I'm not sure what to do about it. It's amazing to me as well. There are some more seats in the front row if you'd like to move up. Can I just ask a question? When is the Rice Road meeting coming up? It's 7.15. All right. Thanks. Why don't you move up seriously if you can't hear? Because I'm doing my best, and I'm not sure what else I can do.
I'm not aware of anything that's new that we haven't known about 48 hours in advance. At this meeting, I will try to speak loudly. If you can't hear me, just sort of wave your hands that way, and we're just going to start with our minutes. I think you guys had a chance to review the minutes. I have. 11, 12. Yes. Any comments? I had one comment. When we were discussing, when it's talking about the ADU presentation, the last paragraph of that section, somebody talked about whether you could have, on a larger home, a single lot where you divide it up so that different people owned the principal. I don't remember if it was you or me, but one of us commented that that was condominiumization. You did. I think it was me, and I didn't know if we wanted it to reflect that. It's up to you. It might be a useful comment for somebody who looks at it later and wants to know. Okay. So do you want to? Okay. So get her to the right place and tell her. So let's see.
Okay. I think page four, the last section about the ADU presentation. Okay. So right here, right there. One attendee inquired about the idea of dividing large homes right there. So after that sentence, you could say, you know, Arborgestet noted that this was condominiumization and not an accessory use.
Is there any, and is there any other comments? I had one other comment further down, or not further up. You can ask the green thing. Yeah, that's something for later. Um, right at the beginning, the first set of comments about, uh, 169 Rice Road.
Is this murder?
Only because I want to see.
Further up? Further up?
Further up?
Okay. All right there. Tom Kearns said that the community deserves a place of worship, and I think he should say the church community deserves a place of worship. He didn't say church community. He said community. But I, you know. He said community. Okay, so we'll leave it. I didn't. Yep. Okay. Then that was all I have. Okay. Is there any, is there anything else that any board members have? Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 11, 12, 25 as amended? I'll motion to approve as amended. Second. Well, one of them, you pick whoever you want. All in favor? By hand, vote five, zero.
What time do you have now? By hand, vote five, seven, ten. Okay.
It's not 715 yet, so I'm going to just. Jesse can probably address the ground month of solar in that time. Okay. Because I haven't been able to get any addition on the draft yet. Okay. But I know that our meeting schedule is. Can you talk louder? Because they're never going to be able to hear you. I know that our meeting schedule is maybe adjusting for the rest of the month here. We might be. If we could push that two weeks out. We can try. Okay. I know we also have to hit the schedule for the town. Yeah. For the scenic road hearing, we've been asked by the Board of Public Works if we could do that on January the 7th. We have a regularly scheduled meeting on that date. Doing my best. Is that okay? Yeah. I'm sorry. January 7th. That's a premium. It's just, it'll tack on to our regular meeting. Yeah. Nothing extra. Okay.
7-0-9. 7-0-9. 7-0-1.
We, we go to the meeting earlier or don't you? We don't, I haven't set the time yet. I was going to try and set it in our regular time if we can. Yeah.
Um, okay. That's not 7-15. Damn it. Uh, there's a, there's a, there, there, there, there, there. There. Okay. Okay. Does anybody have any comments or concerns about anything right now? That we could get this over? Well, I was hoping to see the brown shoulder. Oh, sorry. You're so disappointed. Yeah. I got it early. No, I don't think so. Well, I'm going to start. Um, I'm going to start because I'll just read the beginning information again. It's. I'm really sorry. We do not have microphones. The town does not have them. We have tried to get them. That is why they have set this up so that it goes around this way. If you would like to move up with a chair to the front, that would be wonderful. There are, there's a table. You can see. We can, we can hear you now. Go ahead. At this level, we can hear you. At this level, we can hear you. Well, these other people seem to not be able to. I'm in the front that I can barely hear. Oh. Let me know if it sounds better when I'm standing up. I have no idea if it makes a big line. I'll do my best. Thank you. Thank you. If you have a break every hour. Thank you. I'll be generous. This is PB2502. Continued public hearing, including the joint session with the Conservation Commission for 169 Rice Road, Wayland. St. and I hope I pronounce this properly. St. Philip Hatter. Philip Hatter. Philip Hatter. I'll do my best. Philip Hatter Mercurius and St. Minna Coptic Orthodox Church Site Plan Approval Public Hearing. I've begun all of these meetings in the past with reading from the state law about what the planning board can and cannot control. So I wasn't going to do it tonight, but I see a lot of new faces, so I will. So, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 3, says these are subjects which zoning may not regulate. They are exemptions. And Paragraph 2 is referred to as the Dover Amendment. And it says that no zoning ordinance or bylaw shall prohibit, regulate, or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by a religious sect or denomination or by a nonprofit educational corporation, provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage requirements. We also have our own bylaw about the same subject matter, and that is in the town code under Section 198-601, and it repeats essentially the same things that the statute does. And I won't read all of it, but it says, except to the extent that the applicant shows that a regulation is unreasonable and unrelated to a legitimate municipal concern and will substantially detract or diminish the applicant's ability to conduct the exempt use. So those are the guidelines that we're operating under. And I know, and I know, and we've heard from all of you, we know what your concerns are. Many of them we are not able to address as a board. You as homeowners and residents are free to try and work with the applicant to see if you can accomplish the goals that you're looking for. For the things that we can deal with, we will deal with them. I think what we should do is probably begin with the applicant making any presentation that they need to make. Um, I don't believe our, we have our, yes, he's here. Okay. Right next. Oh, hi. Okay. We do have a peer review consultant. Um, and, um, you can tell us, applicant, what you have submitted and on what date you submitted it. Uh, because some of the things came in quite late and we're not going to be able to address them tonight. Uh, we got the stormwater report, um, today at three, uh, that makes the joint meeting a little difficult, but we will go ahead with that. So, um, I don't know who wants to speak first from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. And you need to speak closely to Samantha here. Uh, Sean Lennon from Studio DSK, um, we're the architect. Um, and I thought I'd give you a brief update, uh, since, uh, we last met, which was on November 12th. Um, we, uh, had received, uh, a peer review comment, uh, prior to the last meeting, short time before the, the last meeting. And so, uh, we had worked to provide responses to, um, uh, the three, uh, peer review, uh, sets of comments that we got. Um, that was from Nova Environmental Consulting, DGT, and Chappelle Engineering. Um, we have submitted those responses, uh, uh, uh, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, um, and we have not heard, um, any, uh, further comments back from any of the peer reviewers at this time. Right. Um, uh, those were, so we, we've provided those responses, um, to the peer reviews. Um, we've made revisions and clarifications to the existing conditions, earthwork, site plans, and utilities. We've updated the septic, uh, septic and stormwater management materials, which I apologize for getting that to you so late. Um, the exterior lighting revisions were included, um, as well as some architectural plan updates, um, that were, I believe, um, requested by the board. Um, and those were for, uh, clarity, consistency, and accessibility. Um, and would you submit those or just update them? Uh, those were submitted on, uh, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving at well. Okay. Um, so together, these documents reflect coordinated updates, ensuring alignment with review comments, and providing additional detail where requested. I'm not sure, uh, how you want to proceed, um, with, uh, presentation of the materials. Um, uh, uh, as we've not received, you know, any further comments, um, and since they were Wednesday before the Thanksgiving holiday, there was nobody here on Thursday or Friday, and, um, our consultants were not available. Yeah. So that's why we haven't responded. Yeah, no, we were, um, given the, you know, as usual, the week, um, before the actual hearing. And so, um, we felt we, we, I understand it was a holiday in there. Right. Um, so, um, so that's what we've done, uh, since the last, uh, review. Okay. Um, Bert, do you have anything that you want to say, or are you just here to listen tonight? No, actually, I'll say if you think. Okay. Oh. Okay. Yeah. Unless you, unless you want to proceed. No, take it later. Okay. Okay. Okay. So. There are, they should be online. If, if they were submitted, they should be online. All of that documentation should be online as it was. It's not? Submitted. It is. It is. Even the stormwater that came in today? Yes. Okay. Document today. Today. Yes. And it's, and it's up there now. No, it's not. No, it's the whole document. And we'll have to, we're going to, we're going to cut this off right now. This is a hearing and we don't answer questions at this point in time. You'll have an opportunity to speak later. Thank you. Um, this is Bert Corey from BGT. He's our peer, the town's peer review consultant. Okay. Okay. So I have seen the revised, uh, drive posted on the website. And then this afternoon I received the stormwater report and I did briefly go through that stormwater report. Uh, I was looking at all of the updates in relation to the air report that we issued previously. I haven't responded back to that yet. And again, Thanksgiving holiday, a little bit of time. Uh, but just some, some brief items to discuss. Just, just to throw out there right now as part of this discussion. Um, in the very beginning of the period before I, I, I mentioned about a balloon test. It sounds like, uh, based on the responses that, um, the, the applicant is not willing to go through the expense of providing any kind of a balloon test or staking out the buildings where they, uh, or staking out the center line of the emergency road. Uh, for the purposes of, so the plaintiff will try and make an assessment of the Boston height. Um, I will say though that looking at the plans, you can see that the, the, uh, the, the building, uh, the building, uh, all of the building dimensional, uh, items meet the zoning regulation. And the spire is very tall. You know that, I know that's your opinion and it's subjective, but it's a tall spire, or two tall spires, but the spires are exempt from the zone. So the reason why it was in the air review report was to see if there was any kind of a, uh, a willingness of the applicant to assist the planning board in trying to assess, uh, uh, the bulking height, as well as everybody that's here. Uh, I don't know where that's going to go, uh, but I figured I'd throw that out. Uh, the applicant went back and did some additional soil testing as required by the magnitude of PEP. Uh, and based on that soil testing and based on the information that's placed on the plans, it appears that the recharger number two or information based on number two, will require a mounding analysis, uh, with the amount of water that's going into it, because it's in close relation to the groundwater table as assessed by the engineer. And we'll say that the groundwater table right now is based on the bottom of the test pit. They never found water, but they're basing the groundwater at the bottom of the test pit. It just so happens that that's in too close to the proximity to the bottom of the recharger. So, under the Massachusetts PEP, they're required to do a mounting analysis, which I would be requesting and do that. Um, I also asked for a, like a stress test on the, um, infiltration basis. Uh, simply because these infiltration basins are receiving all the water with no overflow, up to the hundred year storm event. And if it's not maintained well, what can happen is the, the sand can clog, uh, and that underlying material, the water can start to build up within the infiltration valley. If it does overflow, where does that water go? One of those situations where it's almost a sinkhole. It's, it's, it's great sand material for, for getting rid of a lot of water. Um, however, as the stress test, as it's not in the regulation, but it is, it falls under, okay, here's a good engineering practice. Let's see what happens if something goes wrong here. If, if the maintenance falls apart and it's just, it's maintained well. Um, evidently the, the applicant is, is not willing to perform that because it's not the regulation. The reason why I'm asking him to, is under existing conditions, when we look at the hydrologic analysis that the engineer has done, it's about five and a half CFS. Do you know what a CFS is? By cubic feet per second is a measurement of flow that goes out into the roadway. It's, under existing conditions for a 25 year storm event, it's five and a half CFS. Under proposed conditions, the water that's going to these infiltration galleys, if the infiltration galleys fail, that water would then overflow and go to the roadway. The water that currently goes to the infiltration galleys today is about 19 CFS. So we're talking about five and a half CFS to 19 CFS. I don't believe the infiltration galleys are going to fail to the point where there's no water back into the ground. I merely entered this, this, this comment into the peer review. So then we could at least look at what happens if something does go wrong. If we're dealing with five to 19, that's, that's the point of that. And, and I will bring that again, up in my, my, my, my peer review letter to respond back to the Western issue. And then there was, there was a couple of other smaller items. For the most part, the applicant has addressed a lot of the items that were in my peer review report. Um, there were some sort of smaller items that, you know, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Um, I think the two items that I just brought up right now are the biggest items that I have. Again, I'll follow up with a rich important, but just for discussion. Everybody's here. Well, those are my thoughts right. Um, the traffic peer reviewer also got the materials right before Thanksgiving. And the traffic peer reviewer also got the, um, your comments right before Thanksgiving and was on vacation. Um, she did a fast review and gave me some comments that I will share with you now. Um, and, uh, she said that by the eighth or ninth of December, she will have a full report, uh, coming back to you. With regard to response number seven. Um, she's still unsure why MDM wouldn't analyze the higher trip generating day that the summer camp was in operation. It seems like the critical weekday for analysis. Um, in response number 15, we'll need to ensure an adequate pavement. All adequate pavement markings are shown on final plans. Also, it looks like the box truck will encroach into the oncoming traffic when exiting the site. MDM is proposing modifications to the curb line to better accommodate these vehicles and any curb modification should be included in the final plan set. However, even with these modifications, box trucks will still need to encroach into oncoming travel lanes to make these movements. Rice Road does accommodate up to 2,350 vehicles per day during summer conditions, presumably even more traffic during the school year. So conflicts may exist between existing box trucks and oncoming traffic based on, can you please turn off your cell phones? Based on several comments in the letter, it appears that offsite parking is proposed to accommodate overflow demand during peak periods. The offsite lots were noted to be a school lot and a town lot. And she asked if use of these lots had been approved by the town. We're not aware of even what those lots are. So we're going to need to provide that information. Um, so she'll have a more detailed response. She just sent this today. It was her, uh, second day back in the office. Were there any other here? I think that was it for the peer review. Um, are there other things that you would like to talk about tonight? So we're seeing for the applicant. Um, I think as to the overflow parking, I'm not specifically familiar with that. But I do know that we satisfy the parking requirements and the bylaws. So that really shouldn't be an issue. Um, obviously we won't use parking areas that we're not allowed to use. So you're going to need to tell us where the overflow part areas are. There is no need for overflow parking because we comply with the bylaws. In your application, whether you comply with the bylaw or not, you said that there would be overflow parking. So we're just following what you've told us. And we're following up on those things. So if you're not going to do that, then you can please submit another document telling us that you're not doing it. Uh, as to the housing, I did submit a supplemental letter to address the, um, question that you put to me at the last year. I'm happy to speak to it or not, uh, as you deem appropriate. I think you should speak to it. And I would also, uh, request that you submit the SPSM senior housing policy and history so that we have it for the record. It was submitted. That was submitted. Madam chair. On Wednesday. Last Wednesday. Last Wednesday. Was it in a certain document? Uh, it was, uh, eight and a half by 11. Um, it was submitted with the responses. Uh, the peer review response. Was it submitted as an addendum? I have the peer review responses. Um, and there was a page that's, well, we have, none of us have seen it and it isn't available. It wasn't attached to the letter. It wasn't attached. It was not attached to my letter. No, it wasn't attached to anything that we've seen. If it hasn't been, then it will be. Um, but as represented in my letter, housing, uh, units will be limited to members of the church with an established history of church attendance. Um, regular ongoing attendance will be, uh, requirement of continued occupancy as well as regular attendance at, uh, Bible study, prayer meetings, and other spiritual activities. Um, residency will be limited to individuals for 55 years of age or older and who are unable to transport themselves to the property. So we've been church. And residents will not be allowed to park a vehicle in the church parking. Um, so addresses, uh, many of the questions that, uh, that you raised. Uh, at the last hearing session, again, the purpose of these units, um, as you've heard, I think very compelling testimony. That the last hearing is to allow, uh, elderly, uh, members of the church or difficulty attending church and church functions to be able to do show on a regular basis. Um, no, no, no, no, no. Does anybody on the board have, uh, questions for the applicant? I had some about the lighting. Are we ready to do that? Yeah, we can do that. And then I have some on the, uh, responses from OCG. Okay. The revised lighting plan, um, talks quite a bit about lighting on the face of the towers and on the, the, on the structure. Um, and I was curious because I, we were reviewing the minutes for the meeting that we had in November, on November 12th, I believe. Yes. And in that meeting, let me pull up my notes. Um, Mr. Kearns indicated that there would be, uh, no lights would be placed on the towers or facades. And there would be no lighting on areas facing rice road, except for security lighting. And the lighting plan is a very great departure from that statement. Um, because it shows lighting on the facade of the building of the, of the church building and on the towers. And it talks about no lighting on the east side of the buildings. But what Mr. Kearns stated in the meeting was that there would be no lighting on areas facing rights road, except for security lighting. And I know you're shaking your head, but that's what's in the minutes of the meeting. It's what was recorded by the recording. And so I'm curious how we're seeing a lighting plan that is such a great departure from what we were told would be the situation. So I can tell you very definitively what was represented was that we were not going to light the towers facing, uh, the residential areas behind us. We did not say that we weren't going to have lights on the towers facing rice road. That's what the minutes say respectfully is an error. Um, we've never taken it that way. No, meaning the lighting would not face the neighbors, but face rice road. I recall the comment being made that there would be no lighting on the facade of the towers or of the church. Um, what we've said, it's not been what we represented. In fact, originally we were going to have lighting on all sides and we removed the lighting on the three sides of the tower. Other than of this fires, other than rice road, um, as a concession. But, uh, we have always intended to light the, uh, towers facing rice road. Uh, that was my, my big, I guess. I also had a question in terms of the lighting plan. The light posts that are in the parking lots are 25 feet tall. And that seems to be something that's going to throw a lot of light, um, beyond where it needs to be. And I didn't know if using, uh, more fixtures that were on 10 foot poles or 15 foot poles would create less of a light spillage. I believe that the, uh, the lighting plans, um, had referenced, uh, lighting baffles to keep, because there was a comment about, um, lights spillage over the property line. And so our engineers, um, looked at light fixtures and baffles that would prevent the light from going outside of the boundary. I believe we need, um, you know, safe light fixtures for the parking area. Right. Um, as you know, there's, there is quite a bit of parking, um, on both sides. Um, so. I just didn't know if consideration was given to having more lower light full so that there would just be less spillage. Oh, there's less disturbance of the night sky and everything. If it's, if the light bowls are lower. If you look at the, the, the, the photometric plans, right? The photometric plans show a full candle level. Right. That we, that we're designing a system to meet those full candle levels. Right. And I can see that's quite slow actually. You can't hear. For the parking lots and for the facade as well. We're not having public comment now, but if you can't hear. Yes, of course. I'm happy. Certainly. Yes. My name is Megan Barso. I represent the ownership of the church. Oh, okay. Those are my comments. Sorry. You're going to have to move up, sir. If you can't hear. The ownership of the church. Ownership. That's correct. We represent the ownership of the church. Okay. I have nothing further. The banner that's on the front of your church now. The banner that's on the front of your church now shows a proposed building. And it's been there up there for a number of years. I think it looks quite different than what you are proposing now and the community. And we were wondering why you're not doing that design and why you switched to a new one. Yeah, so I wasn't really part of that development of that project, but I know that- Can you speak louder, too? I am. I was not personally involved with that proposal that you see on the side of the church. So I can only speak to it tangentially. At the end of the day, they don't meet the requirements of the church in terms of size. So perhaps you can stand up and face the audience or stand in a corner and face all of us. So I, like I said before, I was not personally involved in that development of that project that you see the banner on the side of the church. But ultimately, the church decided that this concept did not meet the requirements we had for the church. It was just the concept. It was just being shown to the community and it didn't meet our requirements. When you say we, who was we? The church community. The church community in Wayland or the church community for the Coptic church? Wayland for the most part. We've seen many different plans, not plans, many different facades of buildings from the Coptic church. I saw one in New York City that I found a while ago and haven't spoken about. And then from the public, we've received many different photos. And all of them are significantly not as grand as this one. And we were hoping and have been hoping that we might be able to work with you to find something that would fit in more with the community, not so large. Yes. So the design of the current church, the one that is proposed, the one that you have the plans for, is what we believe is an authentic Coptic Orthodox architecture that reflects the needs for the culture and the religious needs of the church. That's what we have there, right? So we're happy to work with the community. We added quite a bit of space. We reduced the life insignificantly, right? But at the end of the day, the church size is indicated by the size of the congregation we have. It's really very simple mathematics at the end of the day. Today we have approximately 300 people attending the church. I'm sorry, how many? Approximately 300 people attending the church. We fully expect that that number will double fairly quickly because we're a growing community and we need the size. So the size of the church is driven by approximately 570 people, you know, approximately double what we have at the moment. Once you've decided on that size, the size of the Sunday schools and other services also follow along with that, right? They're just very simple mathematics to be able to get to those numbers. Right, but that doesn't affect the height. It does affect the height because if you have a church with a certain footprint, you require a certain size height for it to go along with it, right? I can't speak to architecture, but if you can't have a church that's, let's say, 100 feet wide with a 20 foot height. It doesn't work. It doesn't look good. It doesn't affect orthodoxy. In the responses that we received from OCG, I guess I don't want to characterize them, but basically it was, we're not going to do that and we're not going to do that. And for some of the things I understand why you're saying it on the sidewalk that the planning board did, we were there. You had two individuals, you maybe, and your architect, and you had no idea where any of the buildings were. I mean, it was all conceptual and we couldn't figure out where the road was. In fact, you pointed out a place that was not where the fire road was going. And one of our people figured out that you were wrong and pointed out where it probably was going. Your response said you wouldn't stake the area unless the planning board were doing the sidewalk and you didn't think that that was necessary. And I'm going to ask the board now what they think. I personally think a sidewalk is necessary with staking so that we can see how it all lays out. How does the board feel about that? I would agree. I think our first sidewalk was disappointing, to say the least. Yeah, it was not a thing that we normally do. People show us where the edge of the tree line is, where the basic four pointers of the footprint are, where the roadway is, so that we can get a real sense of how the buildings are being laid out. It's true that you're a Dover amendment application, but that doesn't give you free reign. And we're trying to work with you and want to work with you, but you have to work with us, too. I agree. This is better to respect you guys. Excuse me. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. Ma'am, sit down. out of the meeting. Thank you. I will let you know. Respectfully, Madam Chair, there's been nothing but heckling while we've been bopping, laughing at us, derision. It has been non-stop. No, that is not true. And until my client got up, you didn't hear anything disrespectful. But respectfully, I've heard it non-stop since we've been here. And the dog whistles of you're not fitting in on our community, you're not respecting our community. I didn't hear anything like that. I've heard it non-stop since day one. Everyone, it's not a public argument. This is a public hearing. And if you have something to say, when it is time for public comment, I will call on you. If you have questions, you address them to me. That's the request of the board. The board was not happy at the last meeting that people were attacking the applicant. Okay? So let's continue. If you cannot keep quiet, go online and attend there and make all the noise you want in your living room. So if I could just speak through a couple things here, right? So first of all, we had a community meeting with about 30, some people attended. Some of the faces there. We went over the project. Okay? We've been leaving. A little louder so they can... So we had a community meeting with about 30 people there. We also joined the church. We showed you the project, what we're going to do and why we need to do it. Because it decides that the church. Okay? We're a growing community. We have 300 people in the church today. It's going to nearly double over the next few years. We know that. We know the numbers. We see the kids. Okay? So this is why this church is going to get built to meet those requirements. Okay? So in the period here, you ask for things that are really the balloons and other things that we don't think are necessary and we don't think they're required. Right? We have plans. The plans indicate quite accurately where the church will be located. We have accurate surveys. We've actually went and marked every tree on the lot. Every tree on the lot marked. Okay? We spent over $30,000 marking trees on the lot. Let me finish, please. Okay? So the idea that I have to go and go and put balloons up and demark these lots so I can figure out where the church is going to be, when at the end of the day, we're actually not asking for any zoning relief of any kind. Our application today stands as is. We're asking for zero zoning relief. Zero zoning relief from the way of it. Leaving aside the over amendment, which we all know what it means. We're asking for zero, zero zoning relief from you. And you're coming and telling me, no, I need to go and put balloons up to figure out how big the church is. I'm not even asking about. I hear you said no balloons. I'm talking about being able to do a site walk and I'm happy to host you to do as many site walks as you'd like to do. But we need to see if just walking around. I am not going to authorize spending money to help people visualize something that's completely entirely clear on the plans and it's not required. We're not asking for zoning relief, guys. We're just not asking for it. Under site plan, we always have the facilities staked out. Under site plan, we're not asking for bylaws and it's not required. And we're not asking for any zoning relief. So whether the church is 50 feet left or 50 feet right, we're actually entirely within our setback. 100% with our setback. Even the retaining wall that you went and came and said it's too high. It's in the setback. We cut it down. It's in now six feet and it's within the setback. We're asking for zero zoning relief. On the earthwork plan that was submitted. Can you describe or maybe we can put it up and you can explain it to us because there wasn't an explanation and it was very hard to understand. I'm happy to help. Thank you. Thank you. Can we do that, Anita? I should also say, madam, that as part of working with the community, aside from hosting people and displaying the project, we went and took away all lighting on all sides, except right short. We went and added 150 things around the whole perimeter. We're not required to do this. We don't need to do this. It's not required. We've complied with all the zoning bylaws, all of them, including the tree bylaws. And we went and added all of these things outside of that to great expense, trying to make people happy. It doesn't seem like we're able to make people happy. You're welcome to say that. Thanks. I was just commenting that you tell us that you're not seeking any relief, but you are asking for an exemption under the Dover Amendment as to the height of the towers. No, under the Bible. Okay, under the Bible. But it is still something that is obviously a difficult point for our community. You keep referencing the community, and you're generally referring to your congregation. No, no, no, no, no. That's not true, man. That's not true, man. Okay. I actually refer to the entire community. If I only cared for my congregation, I wouldn't go and spend $200,000 of putting trees around the property. My congregation doesn't live in Turkey Hill. Right. Okay, you guys live in Turkey Hill. I am putting these trees for your benefit, not for my benefit. I gain nothing from this. Okay.
I'm going to put the community greatly if you put the balloon up for a couple of days, and they can see. We're not going to do it. There is no purpose for it. Because at the end of the day, the size of the church is the size of the church. It's allowed by zoning. It's allowed by Dover. Okay. So when the balloons say, is it too big or too small? If you feel it's too big, then you should deny the application. That's your prerogative. But we're not going to go and spend money on balloons, because at the end of the day, I'm going to put balloons off, and the question is, well, we can't tell because the trees are there. So we're not going to go cut the trees so we can see the balloons? That's crazy. Just a suggestion in terms of easing your relationship with our community. Can I just suggest something? We've tried really hard, spent a great amount of money in design and redesign and committing to putting trees and removing lighting and all sorts of things that we don't have to do to make the community happy. The reality is, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Nobody here came and said, thank you guys for putting these trees. It helps a lot. But if it doesn't help, maybe we should just take it out, because why spend the money on it? If it doesn't help, if nobody says it's okay, why just take it out? It's not required. So I suspect that most of the people who are here at this meeting don't know about the changes. They all do, because they actually went through those. All the people that are here have been at the last meeting. There is no new faces here. No, there are not there. Definitely are. Well, the people that are here that were not here last time, I presume they all went and reviewed all the documents, or they were online last time. So the case may be, okay, we went over those changes last time. This gentleman here went through the changes last time. Okay. I understand. I understand. I'm here. I'm arguing at 8 o'clock, we're going to be joining the Conservation Commission, and we have some more things that we want to deal with. Can somebody explain this earthwork? We have Sean Malone online. It's a key, Anima. If you can open the whole thing so that you can see the whole document. It's the key I really couldn't understand. Just to reopen it. Okay. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Good evening. For the record, Sean Malone, Oak Consulting Group, the civil engineer for the project. So we were asked for an earthwork analysis, and we prepared this plan. And what this plan shows is the different areas where we're going to have some fill and different areas where we're going to have cut. A majority of the front of the site is more of a fill area, and then we get into the cuts when we're working back into the hill. And so the... Can I stop you for a minute? Can you explain the table? Yeah, so that's the approximation of how deep the fill or the cut is. So the negative numbers would be a cut, an excavation, and the positive numbers would be a fill. And what is the unit of measurement? That is in feet. So 20 feet? Yes. You're excavating... Is that a minimum or a minimum? Minimum. Minimum excavation of 20 feet, and a maximum excavation... Again, I could not figure out what I was looking at. Yeah, it's kind of... It's worded differently. So the minimum elevation means, you know, as low as it goes. So to put it in a more easier understood way, it's a maximum excavation cut depth of 20 feet on the site. And then we have a maximum fill depth of 10, which is down in the purple. And so the minimum maximum in that table is just the color coding the different areas. So on number five, it's excavating the minimum elevation, not the excavation amount. It's the minimum elevation. Right. So what number five is telling you is that the areas of that color are going to see an excavation of a cut between eight to five feet or five to eight feet deep. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it doesn't say... No, it doesn't. Listen, I couldn't figure out what I was looking at. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. And perhaps you can then show us on the... Yeah. ...the diagram. You might have to make it smaller so we can see the whole thing. I mean... Yes. So this shows... You can see those red and orange, the yellow area. That's the deepest cut areas. And that's within the building that's being kind of cut into the hillside. And then it's using the building wall as a retaining wall. That's why the colors kind of drop off suddenly there. And then towards the front of the site where you have the more blues and purple, that's more fill area. And then the light blue is more or less, you know, close to what it is now. I think that was like a one or zero to one foot. Is it? Yeah. So for the fill area where you've got the purple in the front, I recall that there's a drop off to the road on the other side of that. I believe it's on the other side. And how much fill is that? We have about... For the field is being raised about six feet, I believe. What about... I don't know if you can see this, but what about here? It's that blue. Which area was that? The purple area... The purple area at the very front along Rice Road. Purple is all seven to ten feet. Of fill. Of fill. Yes. And that also figures in an excavation of the existing loam and subgrade to get to the subgrade base materials. So the realization of the difference of the grade is approximately five feet. So we've got a grade change... So... Yeah. If you want to... You're probably easier to look at the grading plan to look at grade changes. I think that's for your... Yeah. Yeah. Okay. It would be helpful for your future plans if you put the unit of measurement on so that people could figure out what they were looking at. Sure. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. In reading the responses, I just want to make sure on the light fixtures. You've actually selected your light fixtures or you're estimating based on what might be selected. We have selected... We have specified the parameters for the light fixtures, right? So the parameters are they emit certain light power and they have certain angles. Obviously, when the time this project is filled, these fixtures will be different. But the fixtures are representative of what we would be using, including the foot candles, as well as the dark sky lights. Just so you know, normally we require the real lighting, not just the estimation so that we can understand what really is going to happen. Thank you. In the timing of the phases, I have looked at... You had a one-sheeter that you gave us at one point. And I went through that one-sheeter and tried to figure out how long it would take at a minimum to do the construction. And what is submitted here in your November the 24th OCG document on page nine in response to SW-8 is different. It's longer even than what you had submitted before. So overall, what is your estimate of the length of time from the time that we issue a decision until you finish through your building C? So this is our best estimation. Of course, things change all the time for various reasons, right? We expect about 12 months period to meet construction drawings and permitting and that sort of hit, right? And then we estimate another 18 months-ish for the building A, followed by about 18 months-ish for building B. And then there will probably be a bit of a- maybe a year pass and then- Yes. So we expect- In that it would take about 12 months period to meet construction documents, permitting, etc. Okay? And then it would take about 15 months-ish for the building A, which is the funding school and that sort of thing. And then there will probably be a minor year pass, right? I hope so. And then there will be a single time here around, you know, 18 months ago. Approximately in the timeline as you see that there. Thank you. Any reason. We don't- we don't want to make this difficult on the community. We understand it's a big project, right? We want to work with you. We want to make you as happy as I possibly can, but we are need to build a church because we're a growing community. We're not arguing- No, I understand that. So we want to work with you, but the church size is the church size that we need. We're going to have to go to conservation, so I'd like to just finish this quickly. Okay. In the response, I want to just read the part that I'm having trouble with. Design of building C is expected to start approximately 18 months after the completion of building B. That's a design. It wouldn't start until 18 months after B is completed and will last for 12 months. Is that 12 months to design? And then it goes on, and then it says construction would begin shortly after receiving a building permit, and it's expected to last 18 months. Right. So this is, this is specifically with what I said earlier. It's- No. Okay. That's what I'm trying to clarify. Building C will start 18 months after the design. You'll start to design it 18 months after building B is built. Tonight you said that from the time building B is completed, there'll be a 12 month gap before you start building building C. Yes. It may be 18 months. We don't even have it at the exact time. No, but we're, we're just, we're just trying to follow what's in the record. Right. And so perhaps you could go with your council back and look at what you've submitted and just try again to make sure that it fits and makes sense and we can determine what the length of time, minimum length of time would be. When I take this and as it's written and I don't know if it's meant to be written that way, I get to at least 10 years. And the, and what I just said comes to. Pardon me? I think what I just said comes to nine years. I don't know. I believe so. I did the math. Okay. But anyway, okay. This is a SW eight. Yes. We will reconcile the mathematics and get back to you. Um, and you also just need to make sure that, um, nothing leaves the site and flows onto rice road. Well, that's not what it says in one of the responses. It sounds like some will. I'm looking at SW 10 and you can check that yourselves. Okay. Um, are they ready for us yet? Conservation commission. Are they? Okay. Um, at what point are you planning to remove the access road off of Turkey Hill? I don't know if that's been, uh, specified in the basic plan that's proposed. I'll have to go back and look at that. Okay. Cause we don't really have that kind of detail in the phasing plan. What would be very helpful is if particularly for phase one, uh, you can show us a site plan of phase one and what all the, um, utilities and other things are that you'll be doing in phase one. Right. So we anticipate in terms of utilities to answer that question is that the majority of the utilities will all be done in fairly early on because we don't want to be thinking the stuff up again. Right. So you would be doing all of the stormwater and the road in the rear for fire and changing the access roads or not? Possibly. We have, we have to go back and look at that. We kind of need to know that. So what, so just to be easy, so I can make sure I get you the information, exactly what you need. So the question that is open is, will the access road be there or not be there or when will it cease to exist, correct? That was the first question. And what I'm asking is in general, if you can just give us a site plan that shows what phase one is, then we'll understand. We'll have, we'll have to do so. That would be great. Yes. Are you ready to come over? Yeah. We're all in the attendees section. We're going to add a Zoom link. So if I can move this little word for you then. How does the board feel about whether we should do another site walk? Maybe at a stage. Right. I agree. I agree. Without stage. Yeah. With stage. Well, we're happy to come again and do another site walk. But not just walking around, going around and not knowing what we're looking at. So if you want to even just take cones and measure it yourself, traffic cones and put them at the corners so that we can determine where the buildings are and where the road is and where the access entryways are. Because the DPW is going to have to deal with that. We don't permit those. That comes from the DPW. I'm happy to show you access the entry and the exits. Right? We'll mark those. Right? I think to mark the location of the buildings is difficult. I have to get a surveyor there. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of expense. Right? And I don't really know what it shows more than what the plan shows. Right? So I'm happy to mark the location of the entrance where it's going to move. Right? One of the kinds of things that we're concerned about for the community are where the trees will come down. We know that. Is that in phase one? Is that in phase two? Is that in phase three? And if you're going to take all the trees down just in phase one, we'd like to know that that's what you're planning on doing. And that would make a big difference. We owe you a phasing plan that has more detail on it. So we can provide that. Correct? So we can provide that. That's not an issue. We can provide that. Let's assume we have that. Okay. If you could, at minimum, stake the entry and exits. And I will work with our DPW to come out at the same time so that they can assess, and maybe our traffic engineer, they can assess what the sight lines are. And if there are any issues. We're happy to host you with anybody else. We don't need coffee. So we're happy to do so, right? But they did the operation of the sight lines specifically. Right? So the plans have the sight lines on them. I think these were actually. But what they didn't have, I thought, was the triangle. So that when you're coming out and you're looking for the signs, you couldn't necessarily tell. Yeah. Yeah. I thought these were there, but yeah. I recall, but maybe you have resubmitted it, and it's in the new stuff. Yeah. I know this was added because we had a . Right. And also, we have trees to worry about. They're not your trees. They're the towns. No, I understand. You need to have hearings for that. And it's not just the scenic road hearing thing. It's state law. You have to remove them. And if I may, in the November 24th letter, you indicated that the application relating to the trees that are in the right of way wouldn't be done until you were submitting the necessary paperwork for your building permit. But if approval to remove those trees is denied, then that affects your whole access and the driveways and perhaps the parking. So I don't think that's something that we can have wait until you're applying for your building permit. So I'll speak to that. We can, in my experience, a more ministerial permit or approval like that waits until after the larger permitting procedures such as this are completed because the board is going to be looking at the entrance points. We've got traffic to reviewers and it makes less sense to us to go through a shade tree and scenic road approach process now before we have confirmation that the proposed entrance is acceptable to the board. So the DP, just so you know, in Wayland, the DPW issues those curb cuts and they're the ones who also deal with removal of trees. So, and it had to go to a public hearing. Public hearing. Right. Going public hearing. No, well, for scenic roads, yes, but for... Just as we don't... I mean, I've never seen someone go and get a curb cut before their site plan approval. I mean, it makes no sense. I've never seen it happen. I'm not talking about necessarily having it in hand, but I think it needs to be discussed, which is why I'm suggesting that we coordinate and get the Board of Public Works or the department, whoever is going to issue... That's fine. I thought I heard you say that you're going to require us to get that approval before you... We need to understand that it's approvable. I mean, we don't want to approve something that isn't going to be okay with the DPW. I mean, that doesn't make sense for you or for us. Because if, for example, that curb cut and the removal of those trees is not approved, then that affects... You may have to leave your driveway over on Turkeyville Road. You may have to change that egress point from your parking plan. Yeah, I mean, we can take that risk. I mean, I don't think... If there is a safety egress that has been peer reviewed and approved as part of a site plan and we go in, it's not a valid reason for denying the curb cut, then we would deal with that. If there is a valid reason, then we would come back to you and ask to amend the special permit. But there's no... And we're not pushing back on the notion of getting DPW involved now. I think that makes great sense. I think that that's required. But I thought I had heard the suggestion that this board would not render a decision until we had that permit in hand. And that's not something that... I don't think that this board said anything. Ms. Borgstad just commented on her own behalf. And when the board makes a statement, you'll know it's the board making a statement. Otherwise, it's just each of us as individuals sitting as a member. I didn't say that the board said that. I said I heard a statement that the board would not. Are we ready? Okay. Okay. We might need to... Oh, there's my husband. Where's everybody else? There's other members. Is the Conservation Commission here to join us? Or is it just one member? I think we're all on. I'm not sure about Barbara yet. Yeah, it looks like you have... Yes, I see Barbara's there. I think you've got us on. Okay. Okay. And Sean is here too? Sean is not here this evening. Oh, okay. This is the Conservation Commission of Wayland joining the planning board. Now it's 8-12. And we're going to begin on those issues for the Coptic Church that are things that we share in common. And I'm going to let the Conservation Commission take over here. Who is running the meeting? Well, I'm happy to step in. I was frankly expecting that you all would be taking the lead. I mean, we're... Well, we're happy to... We're happy to accept that... Okay. Okay. If you have an application that's before you, it looked to me from the agenda that you put together that it was only the local wetlands bylaw and the wetlands statute. Do you have jurisdiction under 193 here? Yes, we would. Do you need an application for 193? We certainly will if we don't have one already. And Linda, I'm forgetting off the top of my head. Linda Hanson maybe could chime in and remind us if they've filed that as part of the NOI or not. It was. Yes. Yes. It was filed under 193. Okay. And... Well and Protection Act. Okay. That is in your agenda, just so you know. Have you had a chance to look at the stormwater information that was received previously and then the information that we just received? What do you mean by, I guess I'm not sure what you mean, what was just received. We received, we saw, we reviewed those in our packets ahead of our meeting this evening. But if something came in more recently. Today. Today. Did you share that with them? Or did it go to them as well? It has to go. Just send it over to them. Okay. Okay. So then the answer would be no. I don't think any of us saw anything submitted today. Okay. For the things that you've had before, our peer reviewer had made comments and they were responding to them. And have you had any sessions yet on this project? Do you want to hear from the peer reviewer? Have you heard from the peer reviewer already? I would like to hear from the peer reviewer. We have not heard directly from the peer reviewer. No. Sounds good to me. Yeah. I don't know if the folks can see me, but Dirk Corey would teach you to me. There you go. Yeah. I want to hear it too. Can you, you can hear us? Okay. This. All right. So I, in the original peer review, I went through the chapter 193 application as well as the chapter 194 application. Uh, and I highlighted those in the peer review. Uh, the, the 193 were numbered SW1, SW2, SW3, so on and so forth. Just to try to split that out. I wasn't trying to review everything under the wetland protection act. I'm not that person. I was reviewing it under the looking at the things that involve stormwater because of the relationship between the regulations of the planning board and the regulations of conservation. Um, the air, uh, the OCG has responded back, uh, to those items. And if you're hearing this for the first time, I'm going to try to get through these, uh, these items, uh, fairly quickly, but I'm going to go through the items. Um, SW1 talks about the scale of the plans. Uh, I mentioned that, you know, you may, the applicant may want to, um, you know, that, you know, you may, the applicant may want to request a waiver for that. Uh, there has been no waivers requested. The, your regulation actually asks for one inch equals 20. And then no other plans could be smaller than that. Um, it just so happens that the scale of these plans is one inch equals 30. So that is smaller than the one inch equals 20. Um, it worked. Everything fits on the one page. I would highly suggest that, uh, this waiver would be accepted. Uh, simply because having everything on one page, rather than splitting it into several pages and putting in a match line and all that, a lot harder to see. But regardless, it still may require, uh, a waiver. Rental conservation. Rental conservation for 190. Uh, SW2, identify the lawn areas. Uh, and that was, it's in the regulation to identify those. Those have not been identified on the existing conditions planned from this point. The, the, the response was to that. The, the applicant couldn't find the regulations when you got to chapter 302 or chapter 193. They're in there. Uh, I can, I can give you, and I'll put it in my, my response letter. The actual section that that falls under. Uh, SW3, one of two, uh, it was one foot contours on the plans. There's two foot contours shown in the plans. Again, the plans are, they're all shown on one page. Pretty busy. Uh, the two foot contours. Still easy to see what's going on with stormwater. Uh, but nevertheless, it would most likely require a waiver, uh, for the conservation for that requirement. Uh, the locations of the stockpile areas. Uh, several of these items go back to phasing, uh, construction, construction-related erosion and sediment controls. Things that have to be in place during construction so that when there's a lot of exposed soil, you don't get a lot of sediment running off the site and into other stormwater management and things like that, clocking up the works. Uh, the applicant has stated that they will be preparing a, uh, I feel, uh, I think, I don't want to put words in the mouth, but they were going to be providing a, uh, a more robust, uh, type of phasing plan, construction management plan. And they're also required to, to file with the EPA. You know, it's a tent that people work because it's more than an acre of disturbance. That requires a stormwater pollution prevention plan, uh, SWIFT. And in that SWIFT, there's a lot more detail that goes into all of those erosion and sediment controls. They will be required to do that. So when they state that they're going to be providing, uh, that information later on, me personally, I'm okay with that. So, because I know they have to do that. They're required to do that. That's the law. Uh, let's see. Lost my check. Sorry. So, uh, construction phasing. Uh, there was, that has already brought up, uh, the, the issue about the, the estimated timeframe with the phasing. Uh, there's an O and M plant that, uh, has to be implemented as part of the regulation. Uh, without the, as I mentioned earlier, without a stress test on this, this, uh, infiltration basin, if it's not maintained and it gets clogged, there's going to be water that comes out of this basin. It will overflow through the, the, the catch basin rims. It will flow out into the right road and into that drainage infrastructure. Uh, I asked for some additional information on that just so that we have an idea of what are the flows going to be if it does. Uh, as part of that O and M though, it will require the church to maintain this system. They'll, they're, they need to sign that document and they need to do, uh, that would have to be part of the decision. Um, and I, and I have, uh, uh, the, the applicant has provided an O and M, uh, to do. And going back into the overflow, uh, I'm on SW 11 right now. Um, there's a portion of the property from Turkey Hill that flows onto this company. And on our sidewalk, it was pretty evident. Uh, there's a part of Turkey Hill that goes up, uh, up slow. Um, the people that live in Turkey Hill, you know, because you see this, uh, this riprap on the sides of it. Well, there's a portion that doesn't flow onto the site. I've asked the applicant or the engineer to, to take a look at, is that water going to flow onto the property and flow into this stormwater management system? Because that's something that not, is not in the hydrologic model as it is right now. If we added some additional in there, that can overwhelm the system. So I wanted the applicant to at least take a look at it, you know, what was happening with it. Um, the response back was that this, this grading associated with the proposed plan that prevents that water from coming onto the site and entering the, the stormwater management system that's being proposed. Uh, I've looked at the plans. Uh, it's not really clear to me actually, uh, that, uh, there is grading associated with that, that that will divert that water around the site and prevent that water from coming in. It comes in, I don't remember which side was the, no one's going to use, but the, the, there's a, uh, emergency access road that travels around the building. Yeah. And part of that emergency access road, there's a retaining wall. Uh, the retaining wall of that portion of the property that could contribute stormwater runoff onto the church property. It looks to me based on what I see for the grading plan that that water will come over the top of that wall run down onto that emergency access road and ultimately hands into either leaching catch bases or further down into the pocket area into the other catch bases. So by response back, we'll be just to continue looking at that so that we can be assured that that that water is not going to come on and overwhelm. Uh, this is, uh, stormwater, uh, number 12. The applicant has addressed that, uh, it was just a, a timing event in the hydrologic model. Uh, the, uh, the original plan did not provide the 44% pretreatment as required by the Massachusetts, uh, stormwater regulations, uh, because the soils are rapidly draining. They're great soils. That's okay. Uh, but because of that, it needs to have retreat. The applicant has addressed that issue by incorporating two water quality units in, in the, in the, in the system. They essentially clean up the water that's being caught by these catch bases before it goes into the recharge infiltrations. That's great. And that's what we want because again, going back to are these infiltration galleries going to overflow if they're not maintained, at least with the water quality units that are in front of them, that's pulling out a lot of the sediment. That's going to keep these, these infiltration bases clean. It's a good system that they have. Uh, and, uh, the mass DEP only, uh, allows us to use a 50% TSS removal for them or, or total suspended solids. So the, the particles that are pulling out of the water, uh, in fact, in real life, it usually pulls out a lot more, more like 80 to 90%. Uh, so great to see that they've addressed that by incorporating those water quality units into the system. Uh, it, it's certainly going to help the, uh, the longevity of the infiltration system. Uh, the SW 16 is, is where I was referring to. Uh, even though at that time, the, the recharge did not require mounting analysis, the septic system upstream of that, or a gradient of, did require mounting analysis through the board of health regulations that have, I'm not reviewing. Um, and my comment on that was after that hydrogeological study of that mounding analysis, if there's any interaction or, or any, anything that would occur from that mound that would, uh, maneuver towards this infiltration galley, you know, accept this. Uh, the, the applicant has, has stated that they have submitted the mounting analysis through the board of health under their review. Uh, I don't know where that stands. Uh, but there is, they did meet the separation requirements between the recharger and the septic system. Uh, so yeah, it meets the, the requirements. So, of both title five state environmental code, the septic system, as well as the message of the CDC. They're corrected. Uh, based on the new testing though, that they just performed recently, uh, and where the selection of the estimated seasonal high ground water is, it requires a mounting analysis now of, of recharging or infiltration basin number two. Uh, it's, but Sean can, can speak more to that. But it was the fact that the estimated seasonal high ground water is within the four feet required that. Sorry, I might be running hard a little bit, but, uh, people are pretty attentive. Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. Uh, capture volume. Uh, capture volume. Also, as part of the, as part of the 193, by providing one inch of water quality volume, um, the, meet the 90% PSS removal, as well as the, uh, the possible. Um, they are doing that. There's certainly more than one inch of going into these recharges. Uh, in the, in the treatment train that I was talking about, the pre-treatment removal, uh, that's providing the 90% PSS in itself. And that those one and four units are the functions. So they're meeting that, uh, which is, which is good. They're meeting the regulations. Uh, the, the O and M they're, they're, they're, like I said, they're, they've submitted the O and M, O and M stormwater operation. Which is a breakdown of all of the stormwater components in there, what the functions are, how they have to be inspected and how they have to be cleaned. And the, the frequency of it. Uh, I've never even gone so far as to provide some budget for the church. So that they, they had a hundred. That's right. Encouraged. Uh, let's see. We're moving on that quickly. Um, there's, there's also a long-term pollution prevention plan, uh, which really goes into source controls of, of pollutants. It's part of mass in the DVP requirements under standard form. Um, they've, they've lumped the, the long-term pollution prevention plan and O and M together. Uh, one part that I have referenced in my review was that they need to add, uh, the operation and management of the septic system into that long-term pollution prevention plan. If they misunderstood what I was asking for. I'm just going to read address that or re-ask that, that question. Um, it needs to be part of that. It's, it's, it's shown in the standard form. And it's also shown on the, you know, the method you've taken from a checklist as a requirement. Right. So that needs to be incorporated in there. Easy, easy thing to do. Uh, the, the, the ask in the original one to, for the applicant to explore, um, LID opportunity, such as permeable pavement for us as well. In order to reduce the amount of impervious cover, you know, with the site that they have, you know, I think they've, they've done a decent job as far as managing the stormwater that comes off of that. There still needs to be some narrative that put forth, you know, that addresses why they can't do any, incorporate any of these LIDs. There's two infiltration bases, which are somewhat. Uh, they, then on to, uh, chapter 194, um, again, going back to a logistics plan, uh, construction management plan, how they're going to manage the site during construction. They will be, evidently, they'll be submitting, uh, some, some more robust information. Uh, actually, get a question on W2. Uh, I mentioned, uh, that the, that the date of the wetlands flagging should be identified on the existing conditions, but very simple thing. Uh, I noticed that the updated plan, though, says Billis and Roy delineated the wetlands and located the wetland flags on such and such a date. I don't think Billis and Roy, and maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was going to sell things, but anyways, uh, simple thing to be added to the plan. It's time to get into the weeds here. So, uh, you asked for it, so. Uh, let's see. Again, going to stabilize construction entrances. The logistics plan is, it's going to further to the dominant. Uh, they address some of the erosion control, uh, the storage areas, understanding that the storage areas on the site, not a lot, uh, the fairly good sized parking lot, uh, not that much snow storage. So, the snow will be pushed to the sides of the, the drive, or, or the parking lot. I guess, uh, just like everybody would typically see. Uh, but if there needs to be snow storage, uh, a little bit low on that. Um, so that means that if they need additional storage, it has to be, uh, gathered up and removed off site properly. Uh, there's an expense associated with that, but they, again, they don't have a lot of snow storage area. Uh, let's see. And then the last, the last one. Sorry. Yeah. Excuse me for one minute. Linda has her hands raised. Linda Hanson. Yep. You're muted, Linda. There you go. I can wait. I just, I, all I want to do is confirm what, what the document was that, that Bert was reading off was. Is that, is that the November 4th, 2025 document that you submitted? November 24th. November 24th. November 24th. Oh. Oh, I have that one, but I, uh, but do you have another document, your peer review? You only have the one, which is November 4th. No, I have not issued a, uh, a, uh, a response letter to this. Uh, but again, the original one is November 4th, right? The one that I issued? Yes. Yeah. I don't remember. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Okay. No, I felt, I did find that on the website. So, okay. Thank you. Yeah. Uh, and the last one was, uh, it's really a breakdown of the pre and post construction lot coverage summary, which is under the chapter 194. There needs to be a breakdown, uh, so a lot area, the impervious area, the landscape slash lawn area, and the total disturbed area within the buffer zone and riverfront area. And, uh, you know, further into conservation, which I'm not going to get into, but there is riverfront area that extends into this property. Yeah. And the riverfront area is considered a resource area. So it's protected. Yeah. I think I've spoken much. Yeah. Going through all of the items that kind of overlap between the planning board and conservation. And we would like you to ask your questions, conservation commission and, um, the applicant is here and tell them what else you need. Sure. Thank you. Um, maybe Linda, do you have any comments, questions, thoughts to kick us off? No, not at this time. Like I said, I don't, I only saw, um, DGT's initial, um, peer review just now. That wasn't, that wasn't received in our office. So, um, I think I'm just a little bit behind. So. The initial one wasn't? Cause I checked with Robert and he said that he had made sure that you got it as well. No, it's, it's not on my, it's not on my stack of deliverables. So, um, no, so that's, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm just, I guess I'm a little bit behind on this. So, um, it sounds like we all are on the concoma end of things here. So, um, the things that we overlap on, uh, the stormwater control, and we want to make sure that you're comfortable with what they're proposing so that we can, then, if we need to approve that, uh, with our decision, um, and trees, if that is something that you're going to be dealing with, not in the right of way, but trees on the site. Uh, we need to know that too. Uh, and how to deal with that in our decision. Yeah. So the stormwater, we, we tend to rely on the peer reviewer to come up with, you know, to provide all the, the, um, responses and the, the input, because that's not, not necessarily our expertise, but I think the commission does have an opinion about the tree removal for this, for this project. So I'll let, I'll let other people weigh in on that other commission members. Okay. Yeah. Thanks Lynn. And I would just echo Linda's comment. And as I alluded to earlier, I think on the stormwater piece, uh, we, we really don't have, we haven't had an opportunity to review these materials. So we're, it was, I appreciate very much Mr. Corey's presentation. I think that was helpful, uh, at a fairly high level, but speaking for myself, I certainly needed an opportunity to be able to dig into the papers a little bit more before I'm going to be in a position to really tell the planning board I'm comfortable or I'm not, or what types of changes I personally would want to be seeing. So that's just, that's me speaking for myself on the stormwater piece. Um, but commission members, uh, I invite any of you to, uh, weigh in on stormwater or trees, I think are the two issues or topics in front of us this evening. Uh, yeah, Luke, I'm with you. Although we, we do have those comments, um, in our packet, I was sort of reading along as he went, um, having more analyses. I mean, if nothing else, we also need that groundwater analysis, things like that are missing. We need to see more about the limits of the lawn, the impervious. Um, I will say that regarding the trees, I, you know, I, I think we're all pretty appalled at the apparent, the plan to remove something like 500 trees. If that's an enormous change in the hydrology there. Um, you know, even with all of, all of these plans in place, that's a dramatic change. And, um, you know, I, I think that the state stormwater management standards, you know, do specify that, you know, the, the sort of sites should be using, um, environmentally sensitive site design and low impact site design. Um, the peer reviewer did speak a bit to wanting to see more of that in the narrative as to why that isn't an option. But, uh, I don't think a plan that takes down 500 trees is, is really looking at, um, is, is really offering itself as an environmentally sensitive design. And I don't get the sense that there was a lot of alternative consideration for something that could save the mature trees, which again, is something also that the state stormwater handbook does say that mature trees should be, you know, saved, um, whenever possible. And, you know, I, I'd like to see a narrative that points out why all 500 trees need to come down, you know, for something, what, what are alternatives is, you know, parking off site. I don't like, why is all this parking necessary? Why is paving five acres a requirement? So I, I think I'm very uncomfortable with the loss of 500 trees here. And it does not strike me as environmentally sensitive design. It's my piece. Anyone else on the commission want to weigh in on that? Well, I, I, I will say that I agree entirely with what Shannon just said. Um, it strikes me that based on what I've seen there, there really hasn't been much thought, at least that I've heard based on the hearings we've had and the questions we've asked given to alternative designs that could save some of these trees. This appears to me to be, to call it a maximum build seems like an understatement. I, I don't know how you could shoehorn any more into this site and take down any more trees. Um, it, yeah. So the idea that this is environmentally sensitive in any way is, you know, to me, just, just, uh, not, not realistic. Um, I, I don't know, I guess I, you know, could they stack if they need this much parking to Shannon's point, I'd like to understand why. Um, and have they looked at a parking garage? Have they looked at stacking the parking? Um, there have to be some other alternatives. It would seem to me to designing this proposal, if indeed they do need as much parking as they're proposing that would allow them to do that, um, and save some of these trees. It, it's just, to me, it's, it's shocking. The, the amount of, of tree, the trees that are coming down, um, what's being proposed here. So I, I don't know if that helps the planning board, but that's where I'm at at the moment. So certainly from my perspective, uh, as the concom process plays out, I expect that I'll be asking the applicant to explain those things to us and to demonstrate to us why it is, uh, there are no alternatives to either reduce the parking and, or design it differently, uh, to be able to save some trees and just reduce the overall footprint of this proposal on the site. The parking is dictated by zoning, uh, and the zoning bylaw. And for the number of, um, occupants of the site, uh, that's what they need. It's a point of clarification. I feel like I read somewhere in here that the residents will not be having cars on site. So none of those 55 plus residents who are going to be in the housing are going to have their cars. Is that factored into that? Yes. Um, the way that they've described it to us is it's a three phase process. And for, um, the church itself, which is the first phase, um, they're expecting to have 570 parishioners. And that, uh, that includes the people who would be living in the apartments. So that they've planned the parking for the overall, um, ability of the site for all of the people. Sorry, go ahead, Linda. You, you, right, right when we joined on, you, you asked a question about whether all the trees are coming down in the first phase of this project. I was, and I'm not sure I heard the answer to that. It wasn't one. They're going to submit, um, a plan for what happens in phase one so that we can start understanding what's really going to happen immediately. And what is phase one? The, the church, just the construction? The church. And there's a building that comes off of the church. That's on the community center. Okay. Um, and they've said that they've said that they're doing most of the utilities at that time, all of the stormwater and the fire road. Um, and so we asked for more detail. Okay. I think the commission would appreciate that detail also. Okay. And just out of curiosity, I appreciate your pointing out that zoning essentially requires this many parking spaces. Um, has there been any discussion or exploration of alternative types of designs? Like, you know, I'm just thinking, I don't know that anybody necessarily wants a massive parking garage out there, but some way to stack the parking or do something other than what's proposed to just try to reduce the footprint on the site. Okay. I don't know if this is something that can be asked, but it's 570 parishioners and like a, like an optimistic goal. Is, is that the site currently pulling anywhere near that in now? Um, it's taking in 300 and their projection is 570. Um, they, because of this, I think they think it'll be a magnet, but you can, I can let the applicants speak for themselves as well. But I'm sharing a question. Um, what is the 570 parishioners based on? Um, it's based on projections of the current population of the church and the growth that we've seen over the last 10 years. Did you hear that Shannon? Yeah. And, um, Madam Chair, but commission Jonathan Silverstein on council for the applicant, a couple of things have come up. First of all, um, we were required to build the amount of parking that we're proposing by zoning. We had not originally proposed the fire access road around the back, but we were required to install that with the retaining wall. Um, that resulted in more clearing by the fire department, by the fire department, of course, the fire access road. Um, so much of the clearing that's being proposed is because of the requirements, uh, either of public safety or the existing zoning bylaws. Um, I have not seen a single one of my clients proposing structured parking within the past several years, except for extremely high profit, um, luxury apartment buildings and things like that. This is not that. And so, um, you know, Luke is seeing different, um, results with his clients, development clients, but, uh, I'm not seeing structured parking being proposed. It's extremely expensive. It also has its own environmental impact. Um, it's simply not an option here. Um, and so in terms of reduction, oh, and I should mention in terms of LID, uh, the fire access road is in fact proposed as permeable pavement, um, which is an LID, uh, technique. Um, we proposed, um, I think a couple hundred trees above and beyond the commission's policy to be planted, uh, what's required under the policy. So I, I take issue with the notion that, you know, this is, uh, that this, this proposal is not considering or incorporating, um, environmental mitigation techniques. The fact is, it is a large development, um, and large developments are going to involve more clearing. Uh, and, um, most of what is being cleared is being dictated by the requirements imposed on us by, um, bylaws and found departments to have the project that we're proposing. Um, so, which is fully zoning compliant and will meet all the requirements of mass stormwater handbook, the wetlands protection act. Um, yes, we have some river front at the front of the site. Most of it is already disturbed area and it's across the street from, uh, you know, it's separated from the actual river from by rice road. So, uh, we don't, we're, we're confident that we're not adversely impacting that resource area. Uh, and we're confident that, um, we can fully work with, uh, the peer reviewer and address all of the peer review comments for complying with the, um, tree policy. We're complying with the zoning bylaw. We're not, uh, seeking any waivers. And so, um, we're hopeful that notwithstanding the fact we, we appreciate you'd like to see a smaller church. You'd like to see a smaller development, which would obviously involve, um, fewer trees being taken down. That's not the project that we're proposing. It's not the project that we need. Um, and so, uh, we're happy to work with everyone to try within the requirements of our development plan. As we have been by incorporating pervious pavement, hundreds of extra trees beyond what we're required under the policy. We're happy to keep doing that. But this is the project that we need to pursue. I have a question. If you could reduce the amount of parking on site, let's say the CPA gives you, gave you whatever, you know, what would you be asking for? I think it's, it's difficult for us, for me to answer that, frankly, because I hear people saying, well, you have to address overflow parking. But if we reduce on site parking, then are we going to get questions, putting pressure on a story for overfoot parking? If we stack parking or valet parking, are we going to get complaints about on site? I mean, we respectfully were concerned about doing anything that would require any zoning relief, because the reception of our proposal, which is fully zoning compliant, has been quite full. And so we're not asking for zoning relief. If someone wants to propose a reduction in parking to us as a condition of approval, we're happy to consider it, but we're not going to be asking for zoning. So we need to be able to continue our portion of the hearing to a future date. And we'd kind of like to keep working with you so that it's there for the community, the residents, and it's also fair for the applicant. And so when is your next meeting? Our next meeting is two weeks from today, December 17th. Okay. Okay. Is there a special time that works for you on the 7-2? I would defer to Linda on that. She has a better grasp, I think, of exactly what might be coming at us. No, I don't. But yeah, it's no crystal ball here. But this going back and forth is hard for us, because I know it's going to be hard for us to join our meeting again, because I think the link doesn't work anymore. So if we can do it like either in the beginning, you know, like right away. I mean, but we start at 630. Okay, it would be best if we could do it in person so that we don't have to deal with this. I think we've been meeting in person because the community asked for it. Is that something that you guys can do? I'm happy to come in person, but I think, yeah, depends on the other. I'm happy to come in person. Let me check with Sean, the chairman, who's not here today. So. I mean, for what it's worth, I'm willing to come in person as well. So you've heard, I think, from at least a few of us that we'd be willing. So. Can we start on the 17th earlier, fellows? Let's do it. 630. 630 or even earlier. What? That's short.
630 is the earliest for you guys? Yeah, I think so. Okay. Without Sean being here, I can't answer that 100%, but typically that's always where we've been. We've been meeting at 630. Is that something that you people can do? If we have a joint meeting on December the 17th, will you be? Our people will have been ready. And when is your response going? I'll get it up this week. Okay. And then the other, the traffic consultant said you get it by Monday or Tuesday. Does that work for you? The 17th? Yeah. And Madam Chair, we didn't have a chance before the commission's joined us, but I do think it would be helpful. We have our traffic consultant Bobby show here to respond to some of the traffic issues that have come up. I think we're going to have to save it for the next meeting because we have another project that comes at. We'll pass the time for it. And I do need to allow some public comment. Okay. I'm available on the 17th. Okay. 17th at 630. So we will schedule it, but I want to allow, if you want to stay on the spine, I want to allow public comment on, and there'll be hidden things other than just stormwater. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and some other folks first, ma'am. Is there any public comment? Can you state your name? My name is Matt Langweber. I live in 802 Mysterio Way. Okay. And I'm going to ask you guys to stick to no more than two minutes and then direct your questions to the board. I don't have any questions. Okay. Let's start. Hi, my name is Matt Langweber. I live in 802 Mysterio Way. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm proud with it as a Wayland. I'm equally proud of the religious diversity that our town has embraced. Our religious institutions are a testament to the spirit of cooperation and respect of our community. Each and every one is added to our well-being. And while embracing facilities that complement our landscape and respect their geographic neighbors. It's my sincere hope that the project under discussion would subscribe to these same tenets that have served us well. The proposed facility on Rice Road has various rights of protection regarding this construction under the Dover Amendment. Specifically, as we know, the Dover Amendment provides specific protections for religious and educational institutions in Massachusetts. While the amendment does offer significant protections, valid objections can still be raised based on specific criteria. Grounds for objections, many of which have been upheld in case law, include reasonable restrictions. Specifically, local authorities can impose reasonable regulations about the bulk, height, and dimensional requirements. Neighborhood character. Objections can be based on how the proposed use may alter the character of the neighborhood. To this end is over the amendment to protect both the religious and educational uses that create balance by allowing citizens and towns to impose reasonable regulations on them. While the municipality may not deny or excessively burden the protected use, they impose reasonable requirements in the eight categories that I believe the dead mentioned. While we're stuck. It is my sincere hope that the planning board would take these factors into consideration as it vets the church to focus. It is clear that many aspects of this plan have been in conflict with the criteria that this nation allows reasonable authority over. One specific example would be the two hundred foot spires that propose. It is hard to imagine limiting the height of these spires with the religious free use of the facility. There are many more aspects of the project that would be subject to the scrutiny of the end categories previously mentioned. I also want to say that there is case law on the spires that took place in Belmont where the court did rule that there is authority and there was a compromise to reduce the size of spires in a case that happened in Belmont. So that is the conclusion is my sincere hope that the leaders of the church evaluate the product and address the concerns of the abunders of the community. I applaud the planning board to balance the concerns of the community with permissible parameters of reasonable objections codified in the Dover amendment. Thank you. Thank you. I thank you. One more second. Yeah. It is my hope that reasonable compromises that can be reached that will not inhibit the religious use of the facility, but preserving the spirit of neighborly cooperation that all the other religious institutions in Belmont have embraced. Thank you for letting me speak. Oh, thank you. Yes. Jane Plummer. 409. Jane Field Lane board chair at the field. I'm going to again ask our attorney who has written a letter to speak for you online. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. What's it? Sorry. We have to, I don't want to cut you all short. We're going to have another hearing, but we know what many of the concerns are. Again, we understand what the requirements are under the law, and I'm going to ask you to keep your comments very short, because we have another hearing that we're already late for. Where is it? Murphy. Murphy. Sam? I don't know. Can we ask him to raise his hand? Mr. Murphy, if you're here, raise your hand. I got it. There we go. Okay. Mr. Murphy. Yes. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Yeah. Thank you for the chance to address the board remotely. I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person. We've had a lot of good comments today. I think that my hope is that many of these things will be addressed in the future process. You'll see that I submitted a letter where I attempted to try to situate the scope of this project compared to others. And someone pointed out to me today that this church as proposed would actually be larger than all other churches in the town of Wayland. So I realize that you're in a limited capacity under site plan review, but I appreciate that we have moved beyond, I hope, the initial proposal that would, in Attorney Legere's words, completely maximize the site. So my hope is that after tonight, we might see further revisions, not just efforts to persuade and cajole into the project that's been proposed, but actual meaningful efforts at trying to meet in a compromise. And I promise to do my part on behalf of my clients in that effort. So the only additional point I wanted to make, unless people have questions about what I mentioned in my letter, there are, by my count, a couple of dozen unresolved technical issues that were mentioned during the course of the peer review. So that include the parking, the number of trees, the need for the public hearings for the scenic road and shade tree. So my hope is that we will be back and considering a project that will fit more on the site and not have everybody at loggerheads like we started an hour and a half ago. And with that, I'm happy to take questions if there are specifics about the letter that I submitted. Thank you. Um, I have just, uh, two, and they're not necessarily questions. I'm hoping that with regard to what you pointed out in the 1977 agreement, um, about, uh, keeping an area in predominantly natural state and not being allowed to have fences. Um, and, um, the easement over the shell oil easement. Um, I'm hoping that you will work with, uh, the applicant's attorney and discuss those things because, um, we want to make sure that they have the rights to do what they need to do. Uh, before we say, yep, that's great. Yes. And I, I know attorney Silverstein a long time. He's, uh, very knowledgeable in this area of law, and I'd be happy to try to reach an accommodation. Uh, of course, the Turkey Hill folks are concerned because there's only one way in, in and out of that hill. And that, that shell oil easement was actually meant as a fire lane for their benefit. And it, it, it goes through other properties. So we'll find a way to work those kinds of things out, uh, and, uh, report back to the board. Thank you very much. Um, I'm just going to take two more public comments. For this reason. Sylvia Diaz on Brandywine. Uh, I just want to make a comment about the senior house. And that's making me very nervous because now they're saying that there'll be no cars. So how do these people get food? Who's going to get, take care of them? Is this going to be turning into a nursing home? I don't know. Uh, but it, and I also think it's a slippery slope because it's really not a religious need. It's because it's bringing them from wherever they are. I think they're an hour away or something like that. Um, it's unsustainable. Well, that's great, but it's not a religious need. Uh, my church provides a video camera. And, uh, or a video stream to, to, to look at the, uh, at the services. And also what happens after, as they pass, uh, you know, they want to turn us into a diocese. Right. So I'm afraid that they're going to be using those apartments for trainees or future priests or whatever. So that's my concern. Thank you very much. Um, Wes. Thank you. I'm in the offices in Westerland. I live at 702 the steering way. And, um, my concern is in the lighting that hasn't been really addressed today. I live right across the street from the, uh, Coptic church. And, uh, there's a, the church is lit up with a red, large red neon lit cross. And from my living room, my dining room, and my family room, and my decks, I can see right, uh, on either side of the main doorway, there are, um, big orange lit up, um, bushes, I guess, with lights. So, um, the lighting is, uh, we've had a consolatory attitude in, uh, the meadows from, um, several, several reasons. But the lighting of the church, uh, as it has been in the old church, uh, is lighting. Thank you. I have just a part of this information. Excuse me. I have a question about how many members of the Coptic church reside in the Wayland area? I'm not sure that's an appropriate question. I'm not sure that's an appropriate question. Okay. I was just a point of information. I mean, if the church wants to answer it, that's fine, but we are quick. And I'm going to cut you off. If you're. Okay. Okay. Nice to meet you. Okay. Three minutes. Two. Two. Marshall Goldberg, 401 Dahlia Drive. Uh, I am the chair of the board. We have community, the meadows. It's been there for 22 years. Uh, since I'm going to be cut off, I think it's really quick. Density. The things, these are things that are bothering concerning to meadows, uh, residents, the density of the project, meaning the density is going to be larger, total six other churches combined in the town. That's egregious. Um, in recent traffic on Rice Road, we've talked about that a lot. Um, Rice Road is a very narrow road. 22 years that I've been living there, the traffic has increased significantly. There have been a number of major accidents on that road, including the brutality. Um, police sit in the parking lot of the church now and go out and chase down speeders on that road. Uh, it's not going to get any better. Can you imagine 200, 300 cars leading in that parking lot same time? Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. Um, the, the, uh, I guess the other thing that I'd like to mention is that, um, as fun as meadows will be severely negatively impacted by this project. Therefore, we will explore all options available and all remedies available to us, including joining our neighbors, who are also being impacted by this project. In closing, I want to thank everyone. Excuse me. I want everyone to understand that the church is proposing massive project. This is probably a $50 million project, maybe more. The Meadows appreciates the planning board's thoroughness and its review of the church's request. We encourage the board to take into account. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're done. Thank you. And I get an impact and supporting the entire community. Hi everybody. My name is Mariette Borsum. I am a Sunday school teacher at the church. Um, and I am not going to talk. Your address. Your address. At Um, Cumberland Framingham. So I am not going to address any of the different palaces or anything like that. I'm just going to say I have attended all of the meetings and it hurts my heart listening listening to some of these comments that you guys are doing it is very disrespectful to all of us and i sometimes wonder is it the product is it the color of my skin what it is i heard it in the other meeting and the meeting before maybe not from the people here so please let me finish another thing too we are in need of this product i have 30 kids at sunday school and these kids grow i have 30 teenagers you imagine the bodies of boys and girls at that age 30 kids in one room i cannot have these kids we are blessed that we have teenagers coming to church and the name of the church st flubertier and st mina they're both are soldiers that give their life to christ and they give miracles till now and i am pretty sure they are going to do an amazing miracle so you should ask for them another comment that really upset me in a couple of other hearings before we are sitting away from chair madam chair here maybe 20 feet and we cannot hear them somebody commented from their yard they are upset and the kids laughing at the soccer games any of you here have teenagers or have grandkids or have anybody instead of having these kids sitting down on a phone on an iphone or doing drugs or any of that stuff like that i am having these kids in church respecting christ so much excuse me thank you i'm done okay but that tells you what's happening here if you do not believe in god not believe in god but respect me next time when you are having this meeting i ask nothing of you but respect i am sitting here listening to all of you please respect you all the ages of my parents i cannot not respect you i cannot thank you very much i should just say that uh some of the comments came was from i don't know the address specifically somebody who is actually 1750 feet away from the church complaining about noise right that's like what three people feel so seriously okay really i can't hear okay exactly my point i rest my kids i'm sorry i'm sorry that i i can't take any more comments if there is something that is totally different from anything that we have before time otherwise i'm just going to move on because we have another hearing um so um what i'd like to do with this hearing is um i'd like to continue it until um december the 17th uh at six o'clock in conjunction i moved to continue this hearing to december 17th at 6 30 p.m okay thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you luke we need to make a continuation too yeah i will sorry i just there's a lot of noise when i was just get out of here before 11 o'clock tonight that would be great i'm just gonna go folks we need to make a continuation and a vote could could uh could we could you allow us to do that can we just do it let's just do it we'll just try to do it we'll try to do it all right uh i would take a motion to continue this hearing under chapter 194 and the act to december 17th uh at 6 30 p.m or thereafter thank you cliff do i have a second please second sorry thank you shannon roll call vote please shannon fisher yes lisa obin yes cliford lewis yes jenny bratt yeah barbara hall she's muted she's muted okay um i also vote yes that's enough to carry the motion is there a link gonna work to get back on we still have the carol we're not done yet yeah i know so we gotta go back to our original email no no we're not done here shannon oh right linda we have one more to go here carol here yeah i believe yeah uh and then we have to back or i feel like we should but robbie can you hear me robbie um our our link doesn't work anymore you're gonna have to open the the the um the meeting again the zoom meeting for conservation no don't don't do it yet barbara not yet how do i get back to conservation we're not doing it yet we have to stay on here for the joint meeting on carol school right correct yes okay i don't know this is going to go on for a while i think i think we just i think we just all right that's the most i could open the door the other door i think is alarmed so oh yeah it's worked out very smoothly for us sorry i have a little longer on that than i was hoping um right now we're moving on to the uh hearing combined hearing uh uh joint session with the conservation commission on pb 2503 and they can say whatever their number is uh 3745 lost am road carol school site plan approvals they're dealing with stormwater drainage and rain can i breathe out there anina's asking them she's out there yeah can you hear us yes you're right um how would you like to proceed on this one um most of the things are things that are within your jurisdiction on the carol school do you i think you've met with them already there has been a meeting or a couple now with the carol squad it might be easier i mean my two cents with you being there physically and us remotely if you want to sort of take the lead sort of the same thing we did last time um might might be a little bit easier to manage i don't want to usurp your your authority yeah not not at all uh feel free yeah you usurp away please no i mean if i can just chime in um stormwater is probably the most important factor for us there's very little work in the wetlands very little alteration in the wetlands but it's it's the stormwater that i think i think i've had the most concerns with making sure um that it's uh it's it's going to work better than than the previous um situation that's been out there okay yeah um and our consultant i believe is here online yeah um would you like to hear from our consultant or would you like to hear from the applicant what's your jason i'd like to hear them both personally um in whatever order you see fit okay is michelle um one of the consultants oh she's our landscape architect sorry thank you i knew it was familiar our engineering team is it is online okay so we let the two in yes i did terrific sean's sean as well as part of this project okay so okay so again i'm sorry would you like to hear from the applicant first and then the peer reviewer i think that makes sense that's certainly fine with me if that works for you so uh for the record i'm bill so sean we want to focus on taking linda's comment focus on stormwater i would think we can have sean do a a summary of his response to your initial peer review and then we can kick off the conversation that way i think that would be terrific yeah okay uh thanks bill uh again for the record sean malone of consulting group i'm the civil engineer for the project um and can i share my screen yeah okay okay um so uh we had a uh our initial submission was reviewed by ect and they uh gave us a number of comments um some with just the general site design some with the stormwater uh some with the septic system um we've gone through and revised the plans um some with the uh some with just the general site design some with the stormwater uh some with the septic system um we've gone through and revised the plans uh the stormwater management system we did some additional soil testing out there in the field uh and submitted revised plans um in stormwater study uh i think it was just before thanksgiving um and i believe that we did just um and um um dressage um um the s and i believe that we did just get a uh a second round of comments um so there were some original things or somthings that we we we need to take a a a another look at a little closer look at um and a couple little things that we missed but all in all i think that was But all in all, I think that we're we're pretty close to there on the on the stormwater management system and just some fine tuning and tweaking. And I don't know if ECT is going to speak. I'll stop speaking for them. But generally, in the last month after the first round of comments, we were asked to go get some more test pits, particularly in the surface basin here and this underground infiltration basin here. And so we went out and did that. And what we found up in this area was there was actually a fair amount of fill there. And because of the grade change, this area is three or four feet higher than this area. We weren't able to dig down as deep as we were for this. So long story short, the bottom of the hole that we have to assume is seasonal high groundwater was too high for this to function as an infiltration system. So we converted this to a solid wall pipe detention system. So this accepts the stormwater and I apologize if I hadn't. I believe I went through the overall system with both the boards previous, but please ask any questions as I'm going. So this pipe detention system takes the stormwater from this side of the site. It's routed through a water quality unit. This was another one of ECT's comments. We needed to provide some additional stormwater treatment to meet the minimum TSS removal prior to infiltration. So we added that, then flows into this pipe detention system, which then drains slowly into this surface infiltration basin. And this is the basin we did some additional test pits here. Soils on this basin were great. It was, you know, all the the coarse sands that we've seen all over the site. So that that will drain very well. So with the loss of this infiltration system up here, we expanded the infiltration system down here some to accommodate the the additional recharge need. We've also changed this basin to a stormwater quality unit again to meet the TSS removal requirements. And aside from that, the stormwater management system is is basically the same. We're still showing a reduction in the rate and volume of runoff. As I said, we did just get some comments on the revised plans and stormwater study. So we need to go back and tweak a couple of things.
Other than that, that that that's really the stormwater system in a nutshell. Um, so any questions, this, this might be related or might not, but, uh, storage for snow, but where are you going to put that? You got a lot of space here to clear off every winter and not very much space to put snow. It's likely to be plowed to the, uh, the edges. And then if it can't be accommodated in those areas, it'll just have to be removed from the site.
But it's plowed to the edges and you won't be able to park. Yeah, just, just beyond the, uh, the, the edge of the parking.
Does that affect the stormwater when it melts?
In what way? Well, you got a big pile of snow there and then you have a big rain and then you have a mess. Yes, and, and, and, and a snow melt contribution to, uh, uh, a rain, particularly with something like this, where it's designed for a hundred year storm event, um, would really be inconsequential to the whole stormwater system. But if you push the snow off the end of the parking lot, is it going to drain the right way or is it going to drain some other way?
No, it would still drain the right way. It will.
Yeah, and as part of the snow, snow removal operations, you know, they have to make sure that the catch basin grates are clear. That's pretty typical. To me, it doesn't look, I'm just looking at the contours, it doesn't look like if you push the snow off the side of the parking lot, when it melts it, it's going to come back under the parking lot into the catch basins. It looks like it's going to go somewhere else based on the contours. Well, these areas are all, all lower, and then we add this kind of berm here to create a higher point to contain any of the runoff there. And that's why we, and that's why we, we, we added this drain in here too. This was something that, that was a recent addition that I didn't, um, mention. And this was a little bit in response to some of the comments we received, I think, from, uh, the commission or, or maybe Linda herself about water overflowing from the existing system into Waltham Road. So we added some additional drainage and, uh, also berm to contain that. Okay.
Okay.
Yeah. Could you just, could you speak to that a little bit more, please, Mr. Malone? Because I did, I did recall having seen or heard somewhere previously that there were issues with, uh, you know, drainage issues, water getting out onto Waltham Road. Uh, so I, I'm curious to just understand a little bit better exactly how that issue is going to be resolved. Right. So my understanding is, is that during some storm events, some of these, um, rain gardens that were installed 10 years ago, um, will fill up. And overflow kind of come out this entrance and into Waltham Road and then drain down. And I think there's a puddle area somewhere down here. Um, so we're adding more of a berm along these, that, that low point to prevent that overflow, as well as an additional basin here. So that when the water wells up, uh, you know, uh, it's about a foot or so off the ground, it'll go into that basin prior to flowing off the site into Waltham Road. And did I just see our, our, is that basin a rain garden? Is, did I see that? Yes. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Sean, what I see is a lot of the stormwater is sort of in one skew to one corner of this property. And that's, you know, that's always been my concern, like trying to concentrate in one area. Um, I also, the, the, all the wetlands is on the Western side there. I mean, that tends to be where the water wants to go anywhere, anyway. I mean, I, I would rather see the water go in that direction than heading towards, you know, Waltham Road and having all the, um, your, your system, you know, kind of parked up along there. I mean, is it, where's the roof runoff going? Is that going back into the same, is these same systems then? Yes. So two things. Um, so we have three different roof drains for the three different kind of pods here. Um, these two roof drains are draining to this detention system and then this infiltration basin. This building, this portion of the building drains with a separate roof drain to this infiltration system. Um, one thing that I, I will mention, um, with respect to your comment is these are actually kind of daisy chained. So everything works its way down to this area. This is kind of the final, um, infiltration point, if you would. And this is where the system overflow is. Um, so everything's being pulled away from Waltham Road and, and kind of more towards the wetland area.
Does Jason Creel want to, want to, um, chime in?
Do you want to, Jason? I am. Sorry, I apologize. I'm trying to get off of mute. Um, still challenged with that after five years. Um, of doing online meetings. Um, uh, Linda may I ask, uh, can, can you repeat the concern that it was regarding the roof runoff going into the ground directly as opposed to being maybe directed off to, to the rear of the site? No, no, I just, I just felt that there's most of the stormwater is really centered in one corner of the property. And, and, uh, it seems like there could be a better system. I mean, there's no reason for a lot of the stormwater to necessarily go through the roof runoff to go through an infiltration system. Maybe there's a different way of handling some of the roof runoff and taking, uh, leaving a little bit of the pressure off, you know, the, the infiltration systems. Um, but I guess that's, that's up to, you know, I, I'm not a designer, so I'll leave that up to you. Yeah, I mean, we can certainly work with, with, uh, Sean on that to try and come up with some other ideas, but, um, uh, you know, obviously reuse, uh, potential reuse or capture would be, would be options. Um, I'm not sure on how much, how much leeway you have on the backside of that with the existing, uh, patio areas. Um, uh, right behind the building. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. To, to address Linda's question of trying to reroute that away from, but away from putting sort of clean water right into, to those treatment devices. Yeah. Um, yeah, maybe something with those first two, the, the, the third building that goes directly into an infiltration. So I think that that's okay, but to detach those other two pods from the treatment train, we can, we can look at that. I'll have to look at some elevations, but I, I, I understand what you're saying. And again, you know, there's great low impact development options here too, for, um, again, what Jason said, capturing, reusing irrigation. I mean, I don't know if there's, there's any, any thoughts to that at all, you know, and that's something that does come up often. Um, the, where we've always kind of ended up on these projects when we talk about these things is with, with, with an irrigation system, you need a significant amount of, you know, storage. Um, and with our climate, um, and with our climate, you tend to have this, you know, June to August where you don't really get a lot of rainfall and that's where you need all the water. So it's, it's sometimes hard to, to justify, um, kind of the, the expense cost benefit of that. Um, but with this, I mean, again, we, we are recharging to the groundwater when we're not discharging a bunch of surface water.
Do you have other questions or, um, has, has we heard enough? And do you want to hear from Jason?
Have you heard everything that you mean to from Sean and Sean, are you done? Um, yes, I have nothing further to add, but certainly, um, any more questions, be, be happy to discuss. Jason, do you want to go over your most recent? Um, update. Um, sure. I can certainly do that, um, for both boards. Uh, I do have one question, uh, if I can direct it to Sean, Sean, have you seen my, our most recent comments from, I admit that we got the, everything in just before the weekend, before Thanksgiving. And I think we turned it around pretty quick back to you, but you probably didn't see it until Thanksgiving or slightly thereafter. So I, I understand if you may or may not have seen these. Yeah. Yeah, no, I, and, and I did, uh, and I appreciate your, your efforts in getting the comments back. Um, I did see the comments. I haven't really gone through them in depth and started, um, formulating the response. But, uh, overall, I, I think I get the gist and I know what we need to do. I just got to sit down and do it. Okay. Uh, Mr. Chair, for the board, I can, I can go through some of the, the, the highlights. I can give you the highlights. Um, uh, I know, uh, previously you asked, um, at the previous meeting about compliance. Uh, I would say we're, we're not quite there yet, um, specifically on, uh, some of the discharge into the ground. Um, so let me kind of take a step through that. Um, and, and I, I am going to start with mounding for septic, uh, Sean, simply that, uh, we have not seen that that's currently with the health department. Um, however, there, there were some questions regarding, and it does apply to stormwater also, hydraulic conductivity, specific yield and thickness of the saturated zone. Yes, I, I didn't know that comment. Yep. And we did supply a memo defining those to the, um, health department with respect to the septic system. This was right before the holiday and, um, and I can do the same for the, the stormwater as well. Okay. So I know our reviewer had some concerns about the horizontal conductivity. Um, and, and I saw that when we did get the, the stormwater mounting analysis, that that was a little bit higher than it had been. And he was already a little bit concerned about that. So, um, but we can certainly go through that, um, uh, as far as the stormwater, uh, there were a number of items I've pulled a few off of here, uh, rather than read every one to you, um, but the, uh, pre and post impervious area and hydrocatch on for area one C, uh, was, was, uh, we were not seeing, uh, we were seeing a smite improvement, but there was no indication of what that, what that improvement was. It looks like that area is generally untouched. So I think we just need a clarification on that. Um, the second item was that there is a 15, it appears to be a 15 inch perforated pipe shown on a number of drawings that follow the, on the, uh, I apologize on the Eastern side of the site, the playing field, uh, behind the school, uh, that, that are on some of the drawings. I wasn't sure if that is, if you could clarify, if that's existing drainage for the field, or if that's in any way, shape or form connected to what you're, what you guys are, are looking to change under this. Yeah. So, so that's part of the field drainage system that's existing. It's nothing proposed. So we'll, uh, clarify the plans on that. Okay. And are, I know you do have, I think you do have a flow line in hydro CAD going into that area. Is that, is there going to be any kind of an impact on that field drainage? Nope. Nope. Cause that, uh, this was all, as you kind of noted, it's basically unchanged. So all of that is just staying the same basically. Okay.
Um, uh, similar to the first comment. Uh, I think you guys just need to recheck area to a, it looks like there's a 2000 square foot difference between your pre and your post. So it may just be artificially bumping up your pre, um, on the TSS calculations. Um, I'll, I'll use infiltration basin one as a, as an example. Um, infiltration basin one has three separate inlets. Uh, and thank you for clarifying the, the, the change from the infiltration basin to, to the detention basin. Um, I don't know that was, uh, entirely clear to us the, uh, other than the, the name change. Um, but obviously in the infiltration basin one, you have flow coming from the eastern side of the site through the water quality unit. Um, and then a catch base in a four bay, um, that obviously that, that meets, generally meets the treatment and is just as represented in your calculation for TSS. Um, you do have two other entrances into that, into that infiltration basin that are not necessarily represented by that calculation. Mm-hmm. Um, uh, and certainly the swale on the western side, which takes a large portion of the parking lot, um, that swale is not giving you the treatment, the TSS treatment you're, you're needing. Yeah. No, understood. And I, I see the two, two points that you're talking about and probably what we'll do is just change those to deep, some catch basins and then into the four bay. Um, but yeah, understood. Okay. Um, so, you know, that was, that was that issue on the TSS. Um, I will say on the, on the water quality unit that you go to catch basin that you converted to a water quality unit on the western side of the site. Um, you have that as a drop in, um, you've changed that to a drop in unit. Uh, we would, we would need to see a detail on that. Um, that that doesn't need to be sort of an offline. Or an inline unit, excuse me, an inline unit versus, um, a straight in unit, the way it's shown.
Uh, yeah. Maybe some more information on that. The, it's just in general, the, uh, it looks like you're using the nylaplast from ADS, uh, with that's only a two foot, uh, two foot sump, which doesn't meet the, that's also not going to meet the TSS requirements. Yeah. Um, okay. To, to sort of step off of TSS, uh, appreciate the additional test pits, um, to meet the stormwater handbook. Uh, there were some form 11s, uh, that I believe we did not see, which are 210 through 215. So we would like to see those, um, uh, those, I think are generally the ones under infiltration basin one, which you indicated was the, the sort of the better area with, with more, with better soils. So we'd like to see those. Yes. And, and, and I apologize for that. We just discovered that today that those were accidentally omitted from the, um, the storm, the last stormwater report. Those are the new test pits and I just failed to, uh, have those, I have those logs, so we'll certainly provide that. Okay. Yeah. We will want to take a look at those. Um, I'll get to the mounting in a second here. Um, on test pit 201, um, there was a, uh, a comment regarding the redoxomorphic features that were not considered modeling. Um, I'm going to say that you can turn this one over to your, your soils guy and let him kind of clarify how he's designating it, uh, redoxomorphic area, but it, that it's not seasonal high groundwater because that's pretty shallow in that test pit. So it makes a pretty significant difference. Yeah. Um, so 213 and 214 test pits, 213, 214 are both less than one foot to separation for groundwater. Um, that just seems very close. Uh, and then on the mounting analysis, um, I think there was some question on if those were the most up-to-date analysis that the dimensions weren't kind of matching up with the labels. And I think one didn't have a label. So obviously the mounting analysis is probably, as Linda pointed out, you're moving a lot of water into this area. So I think the mound on what we saw was, was six feet. And even if it's a four foot separation, um, that's either going to be a wet bottom basin or you're going to be sort of scavenging your own storage capacity in that infiltration basin. So, um, that one I think is pretty critical that we, we get that understood and clear where that one's going. Um, I think I did have a question about whether they were intended to be wet bottom basins or not. Um, the rain gardens on the Eastern side of the site, are they remaining in addition to the rain garden that you mentioned earlier in your presentation? Yes. Those will just kind of remain as is. And then we're just adding that additional, um, basin to catch overflow. So, okay. And on that basin, will that basin also, that basin also falls into the TSS issue. Um, obviously if you're looking at snow storage on that location, that would, we'd also want to, we want you to take a look at that to make sure that if you are using that for snow storage and melt, uh, you may end up pushing, um, debris, sand, other detrius into that, into that rain garden. Um, so that, that would, that would negatively affect that rain garden.
Um, I know, I appreciate the, the changes you guys made in infiltration basin three, uh, on the Western side of the site. Um, and it seems like they're still with them chained together hydraulically, that there's still potential for there to be, uh, standing water in the parking lot in that corner. Uh, I appreciate that, that the, the level that you, you guys have estimated does not go over the curb. So it is contained to the parking lot, but I, I think that's, uh, I'll defer to the, to the commission and to Linda on, on their, if they think it's appropriate for standing water storage in the parking lot. Um, the other item with that is with you using that water quality unit at that location, uh, does that water quality unit continue to function as pre-treatment if it is surcharged? Mm-hmm. Um, and I think finally was the, the, the question that I did throw out a little bit earlier about the hydraulic conductivity specific yield and saturated zone. Sounds like those, you have a, you have the backup for those, uh, and you'll get that over to, to the commission and to the board. Yes. Yeah. All right. Uh, Madam Chair, that's generally my comments on, on, on the new updated stormwater review. Um, I know the only other item you had, uh, indicated, uh, to be prepared to discuss this evening was, uh, trees. We only had one previous comment regarding, uh, trees on the site. Um, and that was in regard to a tree within, um, a tree near the Presby septic system. Uh, it is outside, uh, I believe it's 25 feet away. Uh, Sean, you make, you can correct me on that if I have that incorrect. Um, so it, it should generally not interfere. And it appears that that was a tree that they were looking to, to maintain. Um, generally we try to avoid any trees in the vicinity of a septic system, but, uh, that is a fair distance away. Um, I know one other item, I think in looking just this morning, uh, preparing for this call this evening was that there, uh, obviously there are a number of, uh, uh, uh, shrubs and trees to be replaced for screening on the parking lot, which is a requirement of the parking, uh, bylaw. Um, Sean, it does seem that there is a bit of a gap. Where the old driveway was at one time. And I, and I believe the, uh, our site visit with the, with the planning board, uh, I believe you, you may have addressed that with the members directly. Yes. And I'd like to, uh, ask, I believe, uh, um, Michelle Crowley is, um, here tonight. She's a landscape architect. And, um, um, I think she may have some more information on that. Um, I do. So, um, I've got, I, I can share my screen. Um, hold on.
Michelle, just state your name and the company that you're with. Um, good evening all. I am Michelle Crowley from Crowley Cottrell, uh, landscape architects. Um, excuse me, are you, are you working for the Carroll school? I am. Okay. Thank you. Uh, so, um, as far as the trees, um, I was prepared to talk about the chapter 193 replacements, which we've, you guys have had all of these drawings. Um, so, but we, we are looking at, uh, but this isn't, we haven't submitted this yet because, um, we've been waiting for the, the comments, but we are adding, we've got lots of, uh, shrubs and as well as then evergreen trees going into these areas, uh, along the road. So this is, this is the, the hatched area is where there's shrubs. And then these are the new evergreen trees that we're going to be adding also along that to, for the screening.
Do you want me to go over anything else with the trees and the chapter 193 and the replacements, or are we all set on that? I'm going to ask a question and this goes to snow storage with, with those trees and where everything is, how can you push the snow into that area? And that's for Mr. Hello, Sean, I think we probably need to, um, discuss the, the snow storage and snow management strategy with, uh, the school a little bit and, and get back to you next time on that. Thank you. Uh, question on, um, when we were on site, one of the neighbors directly across from the entrance, uh, on, uh, Western side, um, did, are there trees there now or has that driveway moved? Do you know what I'm referencing? Um, so there are, there are trees, uh, so this is the existing driveway. Uh, yeah. Right here. Um, and so then next to the existing driveway are the red maples that are outside on the street. And then on the inside are the evergreens, which those are part, those are being removed because we've just, the, the parking is just so close to them. And so we're replacing that with shrubs as well as some evergreen trees, but the red maples are on the outside there. The red maples are on your property or the town property? The, the red maples are on the town property. I see. I see. Okay. Yeah. I think if you can see my cursor, it's probably tiny, but it's these three. And then these are two large evergreens. Those are staying. And so it's the, there's a, there's a row of smaller evergreens behind the wall, right behind the red maples. Those are the ones getting removed. And so we're going to be replacing that with shrubs and evergreens. Does the wall define the right of way? The wall is existing wall. Yeah. And, and the answer to that question is no, but it's very close. I see. Okay. Thank you. Is it still the same tree replacement plan that was submitted as part of, we had a September 24th CONCOM meeting with the package. Um, and I'm just, this one's in color and the other one I didn't have. So I'm just trying to reconcile how it might've changed. The only difference, um, of the, of the trees that, uh, this is, this is what we've, this is what we've sent, um, that shows, uh, the existing trees and all of the existing shrubs. So the only difference in this color one are the evergreens that have been added and they're in red. Got it. But otherwise, yes, this is the same as what was submitted. And it's dated December the 3rd. This plan that's up now. And with this, this plan, yes. This is for, this is for tonight's presentation. Um, make sure that you do submit them to the town planner so that he can post them on the website. Okay. The, the entrance, I think that's furthest west there, which was a gravel driveway. Was it not? Is that? To that barn. Yeah. To the barn. That is inside right here. And that's. Ah, all right. Good. Thank you. Yeah. So that's where the evergreens are and the shrubs. Thank you. Are there other questions? Anybody on the commission have any further questions? It sounds like there's a little more back and forth between, uh, the engineers that needs to happen here and some responses to the peer reviews comments. So be interested to hear and see those. Uh, but I don't, I myself don't have any more questions. It doesn't, I'm not seeing or hearing any from anybody else on the commission. Okay. So at this point, Sean owes some comments back to Jason. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. And when do you think you'll be getting those back? Um, I would, I would hope to be able to get that back next week, but I'm hesitant to commit to commit to that with the, the season and everything. Um, so either, either next week or the week after before Christmas. Give me dates. Give me dates. Give me dates. Please. Because, um, we were going to do, um, hopefully almost wrap up here in which it won't be on December the 17th. Yeah. And if you get something in, in two weeks, that's not going to work. Mm. And. Yeah. In, in my understanding, I don't know if, um, Carrie DeLeo or Bill in the audience wants to speak to this, but my understanding is the next meeting, the 17th was going to focus on the other planning board issues other than stormwater. Yeah. If that's unless, I mean, if we could, it's up to you. If we could move it along and do both, that's great. And if we can't, then that's fine. So thanks, Sean. Um, again, I'm so sorry for the applicant. We are meeting with the neighbors tomorrow to talk about conditions. Our hope is that we'll have a draft to the board a week or so before the 17th. So we can have that discussion. Okay. I can't force Sean to meet that schedule, but we'll put some pressure on tomorrow. Well, but I can try. Yeah. We should keep the 17th. I think just so we can check other issues off that the board might have that we haven't addressed for. Okay. Um, and then I'm also asking, because if we need to meet with the conservation condition again, we need to set that up now and they need to be able to set it up. Yes. No, I, I totally understand that. So it's up to you how you want to do this. Well, does CONCOM think they need to meet with us? Yeah. I'm hearing the 17th might be difficult to have another review of stormwater. Okay. Is what I think. Okay. So, um, they will, they'll need to decide and maybe Sean, you can come up with a date for them. When is your next meeting after the 17th conservation commission? It is January 7th, I believe. See first. Oh, and we're January 7th too. Okay. But we'll have another meeting in between. So, um, if you wanted to continue yours to January the 7th, you could probably do. And I don't know what your timeframes are and how you deal with those. They're just better. I, well, I think the, in terms of timeframes, we're not necessarily under the same restrictions that you would be. So, um, I think as long as the applicant's willing, and from what I'm hearing, it sounds like the applicant would maybe prefer that we continue this particular piece of the discussion on the 7th to ensure that they have time, uh, then as long, unless Linda's, uh, got any issues with that date, then that would be fine. No, I think we should take a vote to continue to January 7th. Okay. Okay. So yeah, it sounds like, uh, the seventh works for the commission. We will, um, we, we won't set that up now, but we will at our December the 17th meeting. And again, um, I know you would like to do that early in the evening, but we're going to have a tree here in that same night. Uh, so we'll figure out how to do that. How much time do you think we should allow for these things? Um, I would say probably 30 to 45 minutes at least. I would expect, I suppose that might depend a little bit on, uh, how, how much substance there's left to discuss after, uh, the engineers have gone back and forth. And I, um, I'm also not sure about public comment. Um, I think there was some interest in this project from the public as well. So that's a, always a factor also. Right. Just writing myself a note. So I don't get confused. Okay. Um, just writing myself a note so I don't get confused. Okay. So, um, you might want to continue until January the 7th and make motion and do that now. And, um, we will continue our hearing, uh, when we're done talking to them, uh, for December the 17th. Okay. Uh, sure. Um, then if the timing is right, I would take a motion from someone on the commission to continue this hearing under chapter 194 and the act, uh, to, excuse me. Excuse me. Just a couple of things. I'm sorry. There's Harry has her hand up. Okay. And I think there's public comment, right? Oh, there. Yes. There's a lot. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um, sorry. Wait a minute. No problem. Do you carry the Leo first? She's on the project team. She's already on. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Yes. I'm all set. The owner's project manager. I just wanted to ask if it would be acceptable to the, to both, uh, the planning board and the conservation commission that because January 7th is a decent amount of time for now that maybe, um, Sean and Jason would be, uh, able to connect offline to talk about the technical details so that maybe when we get to the 7th, Jason can say, yes, we've met Sean submitted and everything's uploaded and, and kind of be at a closure point. Um, I I've seen that done in other towns. I don't know if that's something you guys do as a matter of habit. Um, but because it seems like most of the comments, uh, in the peer review are now, uh, very technical that maybe we could do that in, in the interim. Um, generally we don't do it because we like the public to hear the discussion. Okay. Well, I am not opposed to that if it's done by email and that's that Robert and I are CC'd on that, you know, if there's some back and forth because it needs to be part of the public record. Okay. Yep. That that's fine. I just, I thought, you know, again, just, I, I would love to be at a point where, where there is that back and forth. And when we get to the 7th, that both Jason and Sean feel good from a technical perspective that the engineering works. Um, and, and then we can go through and, and recap, you know, any of the changes that were made as part of that. Um, but that would be really helpful, I think to both sides. So if. Okay, great. Thank you. Is it okay with this board too, if they just communicate by emailing coffee, Robert on what's going on? Yes. And Linda. Copy Robert and Linda. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Um, Elizabeth file. Hello. Can you hear me? Yep. Please state your name and address. Yes. My name is Elizabeth pile. I'm an attorney at Hill law. I don't see myself on the screen. Is it voice only right now? It is. Um, we want to be. Elevated. Yes, please. Yes. Yes, please. If you're going to do speak. I mean, it's good. I didn't know who you were. It would be helpful to know in advance so that we could do that for you. Sure. Thank you very much. My name is Elizabeth pile. I'm an attorney at Hill law. I represent neighbors and abutters to the project that we've identified in prior comment letters to the board. And I'd like to speak with you tonight because we're concerned about the impacts of this project's stormwater management system. And I'm joined here this evening by our consulting engineer, John Chessia of Chessia Consulting Services and our water resources consultant, Scott Horsley. Um, I believe they would also like to be elevated as panelists and I've been communicating with them and I know that they are waiting on the zoom as well. Um, Mr. Chessia and Mr. Horsley have previously provided written comments explaining the project's deficiencies with the proposed stormwater management design. Um, as you know, since their last comments, there have been some recent revisions that were submitted just before the Thanksgiving break. Mr. Horsley and Mr. Chessia have reviewed those changes and they would like to comment on them tonight. And then we plan on following up with some written submissions from them. Uh, just in a nutshell, uh, we have a different view of how far along this is than the development team. Um, and we agree with, uh, what your peer reviewer has been saying. And we have a lot of those same concerns. Um, we're concerned that the drainage design does not meet the state standards. Um, Mr. Chessia has found that the revised plans only include modest changes and don't address a lot of the issues that he raised in his prior comments to you. Um, Mr. Horsley is then going to talk about the groundwater mounding analysis. Your peer reviewer did raise those same concerns about the six foot mound in the pro in the, uh, the systems and that that is a problem as well. Uh, now I'd like to, uh, turn the floor over if I may to Mr. Chessia. I think that we will accept written comments from your consultants. Yes. And, but we would like to explain it a little bit tonight too. So, uh, just briefly. How long do you think it will take? Not very long. Um, what would you say? For me, it's probably going to be like a minute. Great. And same thing for Mr. Horsley, but they've been waiting here for public comment. And we, we would just like to. We'll be about a minute as well. Yes, I believe so. I'm going to take you at your word. Um, Mr. Chessia. Thank you for the time. And, uh, thank you, Mr. Creel. You took pretty much most of my time by answering all the questions or asking all the questions. John Chessia, Chessia Consulting Services. Thank you. Okay. Uh, couple of things. And I brought this up last time, but it still hasn't been on put on the plan is the location of all of the infiltration systems for the site, which include nine dry wells for the house. And include drainage for the, uh, playing fields that includes infiltration systems based on the plans. It appears to me that one of those infiltration systems is for the field is within 15 feet of the septic system, which would violate DEP setbacks where a 50 foot setback is required. I brought this up at the last hearing, but nothing has changed on the plans. Nothing's been added. I think that's a really critical component because it has to comply with setbacks and it doesn't appear that it does. The other, um, issue I'd like to talk about briefly is that the proposed subsurface detention system is designed to drain into the open infiltration basin, except that at the bottom of it's lower and it's a sealed system. So how's that going to work? It doesn't make any sense. That overestimates how much storage volume you have, et cetera. And I think that's a fairly significant issue. Um, most of the other comments that I had to talk about tonight, like I said, have been addressed by Mr. Creel. I will touch base on one thing for the mounding analysis. And I agree that the, um, specific yield is off. And I actually spoke or emailed the developer of the program that everyone uses the hasted method thing from the USGS. And I can tell you that he indicates that in New England, it should be 0.15 and I can provide you with that information in the email that he sent me. If that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Horsley. Robert. Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. Yep. Okay. Wonderful. Great. Thank you. Thank you for adding me. I'll be very brief. Again, several comments were already made by the peer reviewer, but, uh, just to clarify the two infiltration systems have a 2.0. 2.0 foot separation between the bottom of the leaching facilities and the estimated seasonal high groundwater. The groundwater mounting analyses for those two systems are plus five and a half feet and plus six feet. So both of them are in it will be inundated. Uh, those groundwater mounting analyses are included in the stormwater report, but I don't see any, and I speak with John Chessie as well, any discussion about that. But clearly, if you have five and a half or six feet of mounting and you have two feet of separation, uh, these systems are flooded and that doesn't work. That's not, that doesn't comply. The second and last comment I will add is the proposal here is to add 9,000 cubic feet of storage and infiltration with the recharge system. The existing condition is 2,000 cubic feet. So that means there's four times as much infiltration recharge under current conditions. That means groundwater levels are going to rise. The estimated seasonal high groundwater will be higher than it is now. And that's before the groundwater mounting analyses. I will submit an analysis to show you that they don't even have 2.0 feet, which is the minimum vertical separation before the groundwater mounting. And again, the applicant's own analysis is the groundwater mounting is five and a half to six feet. So both systems are inundated, uh, significantly. So again, um, this doesn't meet stormwater standards. Um, hopefully we're going to see some revisions and I would suggest these would have to be significant revisions, not minor revisions to comply with the vertical separation and happy. I'll submit detailed comments on that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, do you have anything else? I do not. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but otherwise, thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Is there any other? Do you have? I don't want to stop the conservation commission. Do any of you have questions for any of those folks? Okay. Um, are there any other public comments? Um, thank you. Thank you. Howdy. Okay. You can, you can continue your hearing, um, to the, uh, 7th of January. Yes, I would take. Yeah. Thank you. I would take a motion to continue our hearing under chapter 194 and the act to, uh, January 7th, 6.30 PM or sometime thereafter. This is for the Carroll school. Correct. Yeah. So moved. Thank you, Cliff. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Lisa. Our roll call vote, please. Shannon Fisher. Yes. Lisa Aubin. Yes. Cliff Lewis. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes. Barbara Howell. Yes. And I am a yes as well. Sean. All right. Luke, I think we have a technical issue about going back to our original meeting. I don't have a zoom link that works. Um, so I think we're going to have to adjourn him for technical reasons. Okay. Um, then I. Uh, sorry, sorry, sorry, madam chair. We'll just, we'll be brief here. Then I think we're going to have to, uh, move to close, uh, adjourn our meeting for the evening. Uh, do I have a motion to that effect, please? Uh, can you tell me what we have not covered on our agenda? 2.30. 2.30. We covered everything. Cliff. Really? The only thing that didn't come, uh, you recall that the 2.30 conquered road request for determination of applicability, uh, there was nobody there for that. So, um, we'll, we'll pick that up, I suppose, at our next, next meeting. Um, so yeah, with that said, I would take a motion to adjourn for the evening. No more. Thank you, Cliff. And thank you. Roll call vote. Thank you, Lisa. Roll call vote. Uh, Shannon Fisher. Yes. Lisa Alvin. Yes. Clifford Lewis. Yes. Jenny Brown. Yes.
And I'm a yes as well. Okay. Uh, thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the planning board and good night all. Good night. Thank you. Good night everyone. See you in person next time. Yeah. Okay. Um, getting back to our meeting. Um, we will meet with you. Um, do we have anything else that we need to do with them before we move? We don't think so much. Um, in December the 17th, um, we have the church again. Um, and I, do you think two hours is amounted for the church? Okay. I don't know. I, people stopped me when I was shooing them out saying they wanted more time for public comment. Yeah. You're gonna hear that. I say we should do it in two hours. We could take 12 hours. We could take 12 hours. We could take a week. I know. I know. We'll, we're bringing up the same things. Um, I know. And we heard them. They're not, not important, but they are the same thing. Well, it's not that they're not important. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But back to this. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm trying to ask that because the church, we did it for 630. Okay. So on the other hand, if we, if we give them two hours and then we say, we're stopping now and we're going to do this and then we'll go back to you if we need to. Yeah. That might fix the problem. Okay. You should be the chair. Yeah. You should be the chair. I agree. Um, so, how is, uh, 830 on December the 17th and we will not do stormwater. We'll do all the other stuff. We have traffic too. Yes. We are going to have our traffic. Okay. Yeah. So should we have our traffic person then? Yeah, we will. So we will. All right. Yeah. That's all set. Good. Um, yeah. Oh, God. Okay. So, um, can I have a motion to, uh, continue the hearing on the Carol school until December the 17th? Uh, 830. 830. So moved. Sorry. All in favor. Great. Thank you very much. Sorry. We were late again. We've been trying to do one of the projects on one night and another on another night. And it just hasn't. I thought about that after we had already done the other one for 630, but it was because we were doing it with. Oh, yeah. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . That's good. It's my book. It's my bio. Yeah. Yeah. What's his last name? Sorry. What's your ride? Okay. Okay. I'm getting fired. We just had too much on each night. What we haven't done is the zoning articles. Robert prepared drafts for us. I really only looked at one of them. The other ones I really haven't had a chance to look at. And he wanted to have a hearing on them on January the 7th. I know. We're going to have a tree hearing on the 7th, since the time later.
Is anyone really alert? I don't know. Thank you. But we're meeting next week. What's on the agenda next week? The 10th? I had it crossed off. I thought we weren't meeting. Okay. We can meet on the 10th. And do this stuff. Just zoning. Just zoning stuff. Okay. Would we rather keep going or come back next week and do the zoning stuff next week? There's one matter that I'd like in the zoning that I'd just like to discuss briefly. Because the person who's asked him for the change submitted stuff to Robert. Oh, no. And it's a request for the MBTA zone, it's closest to Sudbury, to increase the height and the density. The height right now is 35 feet. They'd like to go up to 50. I'll explain more. Right. And they'd like, Robert put together that the maximum units per acre should be 32, but it would have to be 33 to accommodate what they were proposing. And for us, for not having to go through all the modeling, yeah, I saw this, thank you, not having to go through all the modeling again. The adding 30, having 33 units instead of 20 is not a problem. Robert checked with the state already. So that's not an issue. And the maximum lot coverage is less. So we don't have to change that. Right now it's allowed to be 25. There's going to be 22. And it's the height. And so let me explain what the applicant, not the applicant, the proposer is, has sent in. They want to do 106 units on a 3.27 acre to 3.3 acre parcel. And that would be approximately 32.46 units per acre. That's why I was suggesting 33. The height of 50 is with full residential levels above structured parking and a lot coverage ratio of 0.22. And they sent in something today that compared it to the Oxbow complex and what you see from Route 20. The Oxbow complex is about 43 feet above grade off of Route 20. I think we allowed them to go up to 40. Well, I can tell them now. I think we allowed them to go up to 45 feet above grade. Do we know if 58 is a problem for the fire department? We'll check. But also with this project, because you'll recall that the building is way down, it would be at an elevation of just 33 feet above Route 20. So you wouldn't notice how big it was. If you looked at Google, it shows where we, I believe, zoned the marijuana building. Right. It's that area. Is it that building? Yes. Or is it where Candela is? Right now, we didn't, I don't know that we zoned. Candela is in Sudbury, I think. Yeah, Candela is in Sudbury. We didn't deal with that. But what we zoned was the marijuana, where the marijuana stuff was. We did? Yes. I thought it was when I got along, called it to the left. To the right. To the right. It's like an office building there. It's an office building. A multi-floor office building. It would be taken down the office building.
The marijuana place would be taken down the office. No. The marijuana place never opened and we're having trouble. And with the state requirements, they're in the process of changing. So they're probably not going to do the marijuana thing.
Yeah, it's too late. Visually, I was picturing the MBTA site right on the border, on the other side of Longfellow Road. No, it's on, it's Minuteman Road and it's on the eastern side of Minuteman Road. Ah. That's our MBTA street. Tucked in. Yes. Right, it is tucked in. And one of the things that they might do, if this, if we can make this happen, is they're thinking about if they can add to the Candela site, which is not in Wayland. And we don't have any jurisdiction, but do mixed-use stuff over there so that there would be stores and things like that. And it could become a hub.
So the question for us is, are we, would we be willing? And we don't have to, but would we be willing to propose an amendment just for the Route 20 West portion so that the maximum height that we would allow is 58 feet and that the maximum units per acre would be 33? I think we, so how many total units? 106.
I'd want to know what the fire chief says first. Okay, well, we can ask him. Yeah. Yeah. If that means, I'd want to know what the fire chief says. If he says, no, we have to have a new engine for that. That'd be the cost. We'd have to have a bigger ladder truck kind of thing. There's a larger, there's a little, all in France. I mean, sometimes in towns, if you're going to do that, you have to buy a new fire engine for the town. How many units that are for? Oh, 219, I believe. All right, so it would be about that size, but higher. Yeah, but you wouldn't see that it was higher. Yeah, because it's kind of low, too. Yeah. It's a little bit. Yeah. Here it's low, and the front it's flat. Oh, yeah. Come back down towards where Longfellow is. But then it's kind of behind you. Yeah. But it has a 50% higher density. At River's Edge, where the Oxbow is, it's a 32. River's Edge density is 32 units per acre. Oh, it is? Yeah. So it's the same. Right. But what we have now at Route 20 West is 20. And had we known that they needed this, we would have made it higher because we wanted to have a bigger zone over there. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. My only question is what the fire chief says. Yeah. If he's cool with it, then I think it's fine. Okay. Is there anybody online?
Okay. We have a big bar. Anybody want to comment? Does anybody want to, does anyone online have an answer to the question about the fire department? And if not, if yes, raise your hand. If not, can you go back so I can see who's online? Dave Watkins is one of them. Yeah, but he doesn't have his hand up. So we'll check with the fire department. So if that's okay, Robert can check. And if that's okay, then we don't have a problem. We don't have a problem. Okay. Just like to add to Robert, is Chris coming back on the 10th? On the 10th? Yes. So he's back on the 9th. He's back on the 9th. So he's back on the 10th. So if you want to meet on the 7th, I could reach out to fire department. I'm sorry. He's back January 10th or December 10th? No, no, no. Okay. But if you're not in Europe, you're... Oh, yeah, yeah. He is. Oh. Never mind. Okay. When is he coming back? The 9th, he's back. He's on vacation through the 8th of December. Let's call. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. He's actually, he's been on vacation. I've been getting his email. Yeah. Oh, my God. I think he's back on the 10th. Okay. But do we want to have... He said to us that he was coming in on the 9th or whatever. But do we want to have Anina reach out to the fire department? Yes. Reach out to the fire department. Doesn't need to wait. And it's not a super complex. It's a yes or no question. It's 58 to I.
And if they were sitting on Route 20, they could just shoot it. Right over there. No, seriously, I think you need to explain where the site is and ask the fire. Send them an email. Okay. To the fire. I think it's Rich Ripley. Okay. It's just on the other side of the solar field. It's a new truck. Do you make the development pay for that truck? Probably. It's normally what towns do. We need to make a bigger garage to put it in. Sure.
So everybody's too tired to go through the rest of this. Me too. I just, I'm really concerned about proposing all of these zoning changes this year. Because you're going to have to have a hearing. And then it has to be submitted. Robert was suggesting the hearing on January the 7th. And then they have to be filed by January the 15th. So any changes we need to be dealing with. We have to have the current length. The Carroll School decision by January the 30th. And right now, the Coptic Church is December the 31st. So it's just a lot of stuff to do. So when you look at the zoning stuff, look at what we need to do. I think the accessory dwelling unit thing we'd really like to do. And the housekeeping would be nice if we can do it. Because it's not a big, I mean, it's a lot of stuff, but not a big rip. We can do it remotely even. Yeah, we could. We could do that remotely. We could do it remotely on the 10th to do the zoning. Yeah. Okay, that's good. On the ADU one, I have the draft written and I sent it to Robert. And he sent back a response saying that there were lots of other things that had to be added. But for what he submitted today was just the changes from the Attorney General's office, which the changes are in effect, whether we amend them or not. So to me, those go in the housekeeping thing. But I think we should. But I can include them in what I've done so that if we're changing, I mean, we should basically pull the whole ADU thing and replace it. And lock, stock, and braille, because I've made some typographical fixes and things like that and whatever. We can decide. But I'll include them in. So instead of, I think it's confusing to people who say, well, we're changing that sentence and then this sentence and that sentence. And so they say, we're taking that whole thing and we're replacing with this. Most of it is, you know. We have to point out. We have to point out what the differences are. But anyway, but I will include what he's got here and then I'm going to send it to Anina and she can send it out to everybody and people can comment and send it back to her so that we're working on something we've all seen by next week, hopefully. Does that work? And if people are listening in, it's really helpful to have materials at minimum a week before the hearing. Stuff that comes in on the day of the hearing is just not, it's impossible. For people to think about on the ADU thing, there were two questions that we discussed when we discussed it months ago. One of them was whether we will require the property owner to live in one of the units or whether it can all get rented out. And we were like, I don't know. You're talking about if we allow them to be bigger. It doesn't even matter. If somebody builds an ADU, can they rent out both units? Can they rent out the principal dwelling and the ADU? Sure. So, right. There's a separate unit. Yeah. So we were originally our, so what I did is I pulled the old ADU law and said, is there anything in here we want to keep? And in there it said that the property owner had to live on the site. Right. I don't know if they're allowed to do that. Right. So that's out. And the other question was, did we want to allow larger than 900 square feet by right and put our special permit cutoff higher up? Like, do we allow 1,000 feet by right and we only have to address things over 1,000? So just things to think about. Yeah, right. But let me just, one of the things is if we do that, then we don't, won't have the case law to deal with stuff. It won't line up. It won't. But it was something we, yeah, when we discussed it before, we thought, do we want to or not? So we don't, we don't. But it was, it was a question we had before. I think we leave it alone. But, yeah, right. What, what would you say is the cause to an applicant to, if they wanted to go to 1,100 feet, to that extra 200 feet and file special?
I have no idea. I mean, the application is technically the same. They have to have all the same things to us that they have to provide to the building department. So I would think most people are going to want to hire somebody before they come before us. That would be, to me, one of the biggest costs. Yeah. And they don't want to come in here. I think most people are nervous to come before the planning board on their own without, I don't know. We have our key rules that clearly understand the conflict. Right. So that, that to me, I think would be a cost. Maybe it's a little slower, but I don't think that's a cost tomorrow. But that would be my, yeah. That doesn't seem unreasonable to go beyond 1,500 feet. No, it's not necessarily. But if you get up to, in my opinion, 2,000 feet, that's unreasonable. Well, if, if, because you should be, if you have the land to do it, you should be subsidizing and creating a separate house. Right. It's the size of a house. Right. And I think that the larger the special permit, the larger the unit is that they're coming for a special permit on, the more scrutiny they're going to get from us and the board of health and CONCOM. I mean, everybody, if it's taking up more of your lot, then you're going to get more scrutiny. It's going to be harder to satisfy everybody. You're going to have to have a much more involved septic system for a bigger unit and that kind of stuff. So the bigger the unit, I think you get more scrutiny because it's a bigger unit. Yeah. Unless you have a giant lot, then maybe they don't care. So.
Okay. Got it. Yeah. All right. All right. I move to adjourn. Sounds great. Great. Thanks.