June 10, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript
June 10, 2026 - Planning Board
Good evening. It's June the 10th, 2026 at 7.01 p.m.
And this is the planning board, the Weyland Planning Board.
Tonight's agenda is call to order and public comment.
Then we have a continued public hearing on PB2601 Hobbs Road
for Oak Street Management Supportive Living Residence Site Plan Approval.
Then discussion and possible vote to appoint Ann Gordon to the Design Review Advisory Board.
Then we have a permitting discussion with Graffito, WTP Partner, LLC,
and owner of the Town Center Development.
Then there is review and approve draft minutes of 5-13-26 and 6-1-26.
Then update from the Town Planner and Chair and any board comments and concerns.
I'm not aware of anything that wasn't reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
And then we'll adjourn.
I'd like to take attendance via roll call.
Bill Sterling?
Present.
Robin Borgestedt?
Here.
Ira Montague, unmute yourself, Ira.
Here.
Great. Annette Lewis here. Jesse Newberry will not be joining us this evening. Oh, and there is Robert Hummel. That's good. Thank you, Robert. We've called the meeting to order. I went over the agenda. And so are the people here from Hobbs Brook or Hobbs Road? If you're going to speak, just raise your hand so Robert can promote you guys.
Matt, do you not want to be promoted to speak? I know Matt was going to be on his phone, so I'm not sure if he is just having trouble getting on or just listening. He might just listen in and then speak if you need to. Okay. So, Robert, why don't you tell us where we are at this point? We know that we got comments from our peer reviewer, Greg Roy. And have we gotten anything from the applicant? We did, but it was sent at 4 or 3 p.m. Today? Yep. I just are now open my emails for this meeting. We've sent about three minutes after I left the office, so I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. Okay. What we should be doing for the applicant is that they should be getting us the materials. If we have a Wednesday meeting, we have to have the materials no later than five days in advance, but it would be best if we could have them a week in advance. Otherwise, I think that it doesn't make sense to continue and have hearings. It's wasting people's time and money. Correct. I did reach out to the applicant a few days ago. Yeah. I know, I'm just saying this for the applicant so that they hear it from us. Okay. So how would you like to proceed, Robert? Would you like Greg to start first? I would like Greg to start first. Okay. And to get it so he can answer your questions. We did have a site walk on, what was it, the 29th? 29th of May, where the board did walk the property. And with our peer reviewer and with the applicant. And we had a few comments at that time. And so we'll have Greg give us his report from the original report. And if he has anything to add from the site walk. And then we'll ask the applicant for their responses to Greg's report and things that we saw on site. Okay, Greg. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, Greg Roy with Dillson Roy. Good to see you all this evening. I'll try to be fairly brief here, but I'll go over, I'll highlight the comments that I issued in my letter. Just for reference, my letter was dated May 28th. And generally speaking, just in preface, I found the application fairly complete. I didn't have a lot of significant concerns, as you probably gathered from the letter. But I'll highlight a couple. And then as the chair suggested, at least one observation from the site walk as well, I'll add at the end. And so, again, I'm going to skip a few of the ones that really don't need to be highlighted. So one and two were real, excuse me, number one was really just, you know, reference for your board. Same thing with two relative to overlay districts.
Thank you, whoever posted that. So if I'm going too fast, please ask me to slow down. Number three was just to make sure that the, I didn't notice any exterior signage that the plans, identified on the plans. And I just wanted to make sure that that was indeed going to be the case. And if the applicant did want to have a sign, you know, to make sure that that's on the plan and conforms with that section 501 of your bylaw. Number four, Earth Movement, section 504.1 of your bylaw relates to this and has stipulates some requirements for whether or not special permits are required and things of the like based on the amount of earth work that's proposed on the site. And calls for earth work calculations to be prepared by either a registered engineer or a land surveyor. There's also a clause in that section, subsection of 504.1.2 that would allow an exemption. If the, if all of the earth work proposed is related to the construction of the foundation and the driveway and things like this. But in that case, it's, it also requires certification by a professional land surveyor or professional engineer. So we, we think that, that that should be provided by the applicant just to document compliance with the section or to document and support the wave or the exemption under section, subsection 1.2. So, um, number five, um, on the off street parking, um, the applicant, uh, is the plans are showing six parking spaces. They did in their narrative indicate, uh, that there'll be one staff member, that there's six units proposed, uh, in the, in the building and, uh, that there would be one, uh, full-time staff member, uh, and that, and actually on the site visit, the applicant indicated that a lot of the residents, uh, would not, uh, be driving to and from the site. Um, but we thought that, you know, just documenting that a little bit more, uh, robustly either on the plan or in narrative form would, would, would check the box on the parking requirement. Um, six parking design standards really don't have any objection to that, but we think that, you know, you should be our recommendation to just make sure that the police and fire are, uh, find that, um, you find it acceptable, uh, to, to, to be able to negotiate whatever vehicles they feel, uh, is required. To get in and out of that site.
Seven, um, we noted that the planting and mitigation plans sheet C3.1 didn't show any, um, any planting, um, or, you know, to, to, uh, check the screening box, so to speak, uh, that's required by that section. I will say though, that it's very small in the plan. I was just actually looking at it. There is an existing fence that I, that I identified that I saw when we were on the, on the site walk with the, with the planning board on the 29th, um, that exists today. Between that adjacent to that parking area. So I didn't see that in my initial review. It's, it's a little faint on the proposed plan. Um, so I, I will point that out to the board. Um, but that, uh, relates to just screening, uh, between a parking area and an adjacent residential use, um, which is number seven. Let's see. Um, number eight relates to, um, relates to the Dover amendment. And I'll, I'll just kind of leave it at that. I, I think, um, I think that the application is being proposed as an educational use, uh, pursuant to number 26 of the table of uses, um, which would be afforded, um, some relief, um, on, you know, only certain provisions of your, of your zoning bylaw and site plan approval regulations will apply. Um, I think there might be some questions over, uh, that, that, that, that the chair may, uh, may bring up, uh, relative to, uh, process and documentation, um, from the applicant as to whether or not that might be, uh, uh, whether or not we're able to check that box yet. Um, but I'll leave that up to the, um, um, number nine, um, again, despite the fact that this may be a Dover amendment, um, filing, um, we found that, you know, that, that, uh, um, most of the requirements in the application section, um, were met, um, and provided by the applicant. They are requesting a waiver to a traffic study, uh, which in this case appears to be, um, um, um, not out of line, uh, due to the, the minor volume that they're proposing. So we certainly have no objection to that waiver request, but we leave that up to the board, of course. Um, number 10, building height, uh, we, the architectural plans show the building height in a, in a few areas. Uh, and we believe that if the calculations were done, that, that you're going to, that the, the building height is going to be below, uh, the 35 foot that's defined by your bylaw. It's just that the calculations I think need to be done, um, to, to document that, um, an average grade calculation, essentially, since there's a multi, there's a walkout condition on this building. Um, so I think that just some additional documentation just to make sure that that, uh, the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. Number 11, um, again, um, just some additional dimensions, um, just for clarity on the plans, just to make sure we're dimensionally compliant with the, the proposed structure will be dimensionally compliant.
Uh, number 12, um, again, we found that the, the application of the plans and the submittal documents were generally in compliance with site plan review and approval regulations. Um, of course, um, of course, with the exception of the, of the waiver request for the traffic study, uh, which is, which is number 13. And I, I just said that, uh, earlier. So this is just a different section of your regulations. Um, we're into stormwater at this point, the stormwater and land disturbance bylaw number 14. Um, so just, uh, just going through the approval thresholds, um, we think that it would meet the, uh, requirements for a major, to be reviewed as a major project, um, just based on the amount of land disturbance that's proposed. Number 15, um, we noted that we didn't see any stockpile locations, material storage and lay down. So just to add those to the, uh, to the plans, uh, number 16, um, the, the applicant did use the, um, the, uh, appropriate rainfall depths from the NOAA atlases, but the rainfall distribution that was used, um, my letter indicates a type two. They used a type three distribution, which is, which is pretty standard, but it's an SCS distribution and, or an NRCS distribution and your regulations require a NOAA, uh, a distribution as published by NOAA. So that's just a modeling, uh, a modeling revision that needs to happen with the HydroCAD. Um, 17 relates to total suspended solids, TSS removal and nitrogen, uh, excuse me, phosphorus removal. Um, um, the TSS calculations, um, didn't, didn't show the 90% removal. So I, I think that, um, when I review the BMPs, better management practices, uh, that the, that the applicant is proposing on the plan, they are proposing proprietary, uh, storm scepter type, uh, uh, stormwater treatment units, and then underground infiltration and a rain garden. Uh, in one location. So I think that the TSS removal percentage will exceed 90%. They just need to document it. Um, and then we also just need to make sure we get the documented, uh, removal percentage, uh, of 44%, uh, which I think they've, their calculations actually document that, but not the overall, uh, percentage. So just for the benefit of the board, um, there's really two calculations we need for TSS in this case, because the soils are, are considered rapidly, uh, permeable soils. We need to document an overall TSS removal percentage of 90%, which can include the infiltration, um, better management practices. And then we need to document that there's 44% TSS removal prior to being discharged, uh, and infiltrated into the ground. So, um, again, I think that the plans doc, uh, show BMPs that will meet those requirements. We just need to clean up the TSS calculations that were submitted in the report.
Um, long-term pollution prevention plan. Um, I spoke to the applicant about this on, on, at the site walk. Um, it, it, it wasn't immediately clear that they had provided the requirements of the long-term pollution prevention plan. Um, so I, I have this comment in there. I think that they are combining it with the stormwater operation and maintenance plan. Um, so we just, we just ask that the applicant make that clear, uh, maybe in the title of the report, uh, and make sure that we're checking all the boxes on the requirements for the long-term pollution prevention plan.
Uh, let's see.
Uh, last is the, uh, wetlands and water resources bylaw. I'll just, I know this isn't necessarily under your purview, but I'll just go through this, just a couple of comments. Um, the, the, um, the stormwater pollution prevention plan, which again is a document that relates to on, um, construction period controls, uh, during construction or, um, offsite runoff and erosion. Um, they indicate that that that will be, uh, uh, uh, prepared, uh, in advance of construction. So either your board or the conservation commission, since this was a joint review, uh, may want to make sure that's a condition, uh, in one or both of the approval documents. Um, and then, uh, um, um, just to make sure that the O and M plan, um, includes, um, includes language and, and, uh, for snow storage, uh, coordination. Um, and then just generally speaking, I had five remaining comments. Um, again, just, just, just for the board's reference. Um, 21 is really just meant to kind of put context on the, on the stormwater design. Uh, the proposed impervious cover on the site is, is being reduced, um, from the existing conditions. So, uh, that means that more runoff will infiltrate into the ground and less runoff or runoff site. Um, just, just because of doing less, um, having less impervious, uh, area on the, on the site. So it's one of those unique redevelopment, uh, cases we don't see super often, but in this case, uh, you have that benefit. Uh, so, um, and then, um, in spite of the fact that it could be considered a redevelopment project, I wanted to just point out that the, the applicant to the board, that the applicant did not request any of the relief that could have been requested under the redevelopment provisions of the Massachusetts stormwater, uh, uh, policy. So they have documented compliance with the 10 standards and not asking for any, uh, redevelopment, uh, provisions. So they're treating it as if it were a, uh, new construction, so to speak.
Number 22, um, again, I, I, as I just said, I, I believe other than what I just said with some TSS calculation cleanup and things, uh, that I, I believe that, um, they've documented, uh, compliance with the, uh, Massachusetts stormwater management standards with no relief, uh, requested. For redevelopment, um, the rain garden, um, when I, I learned at the, uh, site walk in talking with the applicant that this was added sort of after the, uh, after the initial designs were prepared, um, and they're not really relying on it, uh, for the, to, to mitigate the flows. But, um, um, they may just want to take a look and, and tweak the bottom elevation if possible. It looked like, um, a couple of tenths might, um, might allow them to get compliant with the seasonal groundwater offset. Um, so that was just a general comment.
And then just for the, uh, more for the applicant's benefit, just to make sure that the, some of the septic systems under the pavement, uh, under the parking area. So just to make sure that they have, uh, you know, they got specifications for H20 loading on the septic plans just so they don't have any issues. And then 25 is, is again, mirroring, uh, the comment before just to make sure that the fire department is reviewed the, the site and has no concerns with emergency access vehicles. And, uh, and, uh, so that was the bulk of my letter. Um, I will say before I close that when we were on site, um, actually, Madam Chair, I think it was your, your comment, the, um, the lower, um, access entrance, um, which is a maintenance entrance, um, on the lower portion of the site off of, um, I guess that's Alden Road, if the plan's correct. Um, is a little bit tough on the site distance. Um, so if you, if you're looking, standing, looking, um, standing at the driveway, looking out of the site and you look to the left, the, the site distance up the hill and around the curve is pretty minimal. Um, so there was some discussions about, um, maybe looking to relocate the driveway a little bit further to the, um, it would be to the, to the West, uh, closer to the, uh, the intersection of loker street, um, maybe some vegetation, uh, clearing there might, might help too. I know that's a little bit of a double-edged sword because it's the vegetation acts to help, uh, screen things too. Um, so I did want to point that out. Um, uh, I don't have any issues with the site distance, the primary site distance, if you will, which will happen off of Hobbs Road. That, that seems to be, uh, acceptable and it's a pretty, it's a dead end street. Uh, so not a lot of through, certainly no through traffic in that location. Um, so I wanted to point that out too, but I think that's all. I happen to take any, answer any questions if the board has any.
Are there any questions from the board? When we were out there, um, I believe that, uh, several members saw things that they would like to bring to the attention of the applicant again, formally. Um, I know Bill did, Bill Sterling did. Did you, Robin, have anything you wanted to bring to the attention? No, I don't think so. Okay. Ira? No? Okay. Uh, Bill, why don't you mention? No, sure. It's actually, uh, picking up on, uh, uh, what Greg just, uh, discussed, which is the sight line distance, um, that is, um, walking the site. I think, um, my first suggestion had been to screen off the, um, uh, visibility of the service loading area with a fence. But, uh, as, uh, Jesse and I walked the site, he pointed out, out on the sidewalk, that, uh, the visibility for, um, drivers, uh, at the corner and the intersection was really cut off by the temporary fence that's on the site right now. Uh, and, uh, he suggested, uh, that we should do the opposite, that we should not have a fence along that road, um, but, uh, instead, uh, maybe some shrubs, but even though should be set back a certain distance. And that's the question I have, uh, for Greg, uh, what, what is the site distance requirement? Is it a specific number or is it just, uh, using judgment? Um, it's, yeah, there's a specific guidance based on the, um, the, the speed, the, and it, you know, it's, it's actually, it's not necessarily just the posted speed either. It's the, uh, it's the traveled speed on the road. Um, you look at sort of the mean 85th percentile, I think. Yeah. Thank you. Um, so, and that would be published in AASHTO, um, in the, the AASHTO, um, highway design guides or the design guide for rural. You know, small rural roads. So you could come up with a, the applicant could, could review that and come up with what the, what the required intersection distance and safe stopping distance would be and do, do an analysis on that. Um, I think we need, I'm not sure what that, I'm not sure what that is out of my head, but there is a definite, it's formulaic. It's formulaic, it's formulaic, it's formulaic, Bill. You can, uh, there's a table that you can look up to determine what that is. And it's under the jurisdiction of the, uh, Board of Public Works and or the DPW. They're the ones who give the permits for the curb cuts. Uh, I would say that's true. Although this one's a little bit of a unique case on the maintenance drive. I will just make sure I point out to the board, the applicant may as well, that they aren't proposing a new access there. They're, they're proposing to, um, to utilize the existing, uh, driveway curb cut that's there. So it's a little bit of a, I'm not sure exactly how they'll. Except that it's a different use that they're proposing on the site. That is very true. I, right. But I did just for reference. Thank you. Yeah. So I had, that was one point. The second one on this, I only had two. The second one was, uh, what Annette brought up at the walkthrough, uh, which I agree with. That, um, uh, you addressed it in the letter here, that the, um, visibility of the parking lot from, uh, residential abutters. Um, it's not really indicated on the current plan, uh, what the, uh, designer is intending to do to create that. But what we discussed, what I felt was the most important thing was block, or at least diminish the visibility of headlights of cars parking in that six car lot. Cause that's not a typical residential usage capacity. And even though there may not be many people with cars there, uh, it probably would be better served if they did screen that off. And we, at the site, we had discussed putting that picket fence that's there now over on the road, moving that over to screen off the parking lot from the residential property that abuts it. But I think we need to see, uh, what, um, the designer intends to do there.
Okay. Um, I guess at this point, I'd like to turn it over to the applicant and you can decide who on your team you would like to speak. Okay, thank you, thank you, uh, can you hear me now? Yep. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I would ask, uh, Brandon, I guess, to, uh, just comment on some of the, uh, changes that we've made since the, uh, site visit, uh, and some of the thoughts that we had, uh, to address, uh, the things that you're talking about, including the, uh, you know, site distances and, and, uh, screening and, and, uh, whatnot there. Do you need to use, um, any display on this? Do you need to display anything on the screen? This is Brandon Ducharme with David E. Ross. I think I can just run through most of these comments, um, without the plan, but if more detail is necessary, I can certainly bring that up. Um, I can just run through these comments in the order of, yeah. If I may, can you, um, share the screen with the, the PDF that you send with the responses? That'll be, or I can do that too. That, that way we can track easily. Let me know if everyone can see that.
So as, as mentioned, we, we did get a response letter back fully understanding that, you know, given the fact that the hearing was tonight, that you wouldn't have a chance to properly go through and review these responses. But, um, what I'll do is I'll kind of just run through the list that Greg had and give our feedback. Um, the first comment was comment three, which is pertaining to the signage. And again, what we stated in the letter is, is basically the idea with this development is to get it to blend into the neighborhood. And correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, there is no, uh, signage that'll be, uh, visible or out at the street at all. So it, it really is. The goal is to blend it in like a residential home. Correct. Just to, you know, address of the building for fire department to, to see from the road as is required. Yeah. Uh, the second item. Brandon was. Yep. Can you, uh, you're sharing the plan, but I think it would be helpful if you share that letter. That you have, it's a, with your responses below that way. Uh, yeah, that one. Okay. So kind of just running through these responses, as Greg said, some of these, there was no response. A lot of them were just comments addressing the submittal. Um, you know, we covered number three, which is, you know, since it's a proposed residence is assigned to blend in with the existing neighborhood, no additional signage is being proposed. Uh, comment number four has to do with the earth movement. Um, we've done a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we just wanted to specify that all of the proposed earth work on the plan, um, applies solely to the installation of the principal structure, the septic system driveway and walkways. Um, but we did run through and do some modeling of that in using, uh, software civil 3d and the cut fill analysis, um, results that we found was there's approximately 382 cubic yards of cut. Um, and 524 cubic yards of fill, which results in a net fill of approximately 142 cubic yards. Um, but again, as Greg was alluding to, given the fact that most of, or if not all of that earth work is relating to those items I addressed, we're looking at the exemption under, uh, 1.2. Uh, number five, just, again, just dealt with the, the parking and the number of spaces. And we kind of just reiterated what was in the initial letter, um, that there's a single handicap accessible van that will be stored onsite that provides transportation to the residents. Um, so consequently, it's unanticipated the residents will require onsite parking beyond the space designated for the staff members unit. Um, the additional parking that we show, which is the additional five spaces would be designated for guests of the residents as needed. And then again, just to point out in special circumstances, um, supplemental parking can be accommodated, um, off of the second access off of Alden street in that, uh, what we're calling more of the maintenance, uh, parking area. So again, we've talked a little bit about this one, but number seven, um, the intent is there's an existing solid wood fence that's located between the parking area and the residential property. Uh, that, uh, that, uh, that, uh, that it abuts, um, I'll, I'll point out that, uh, the, the abutting property has parking that goes up against that fence as well. It's, it's, it's front load. So, you know, the headlight concern is probably, uh, for both properties and the intent is to continue to use that existing fence, um, to be a permanent, uh, screening between both parking areas. Is that fence shown on the plan presently? Yes. And as Greg said, it, it's not as bold because it's existing, um, but it is identified and labeled on the plan. Perhaps you can show us that when we're done with the letter. Sure. Yep. Um, comment number 10 had to do with the building height calculations. And I know we did discuss that initially at the opening hearing, and I, and I believe the architect was going to provide some additional information as to, um, how that was calculated. So in, in, in our response, we're, we're kind of just defaulting to the, the architect to, to provide that additional detail.
Section 11, uh, not section 11, uh, number 11 has to do with the dimensional offsets. Uh, our plan set included a, a zoning table on the cover sheet. And what we've done is we've actually revised sheet C 2.0 to show those dimensions on the plan view. In addition, we also have added a zoning setback line, um, just to show each of the setbacks, be it, uh, a front offset, the side, uh, lot line, as well as the rear lot line. Um, in regards to the traffic study, and again, just to support kind of what Greg was saying, um, you know, given the fact that there's minimal, um, vehicle trips anticipated here, it's essentially, um, probably closely tied to what a single family residence is, which is, is why we've requested that waiver to doing a traffic analysis. As we get into the stormwater and land disturbance, which is chapter 193, um, we've noted the comment, and I, I can provide that the project disturbance is greater than 10,000 square feet. So it would be considered a, a major project under, uh, chapter 193.
Comment 15 has to do with the stockpile, uh, material storage and lay down areas. Um, again, I can show you on the plan. It's actually pretty easy to bounce back and forth, but there's an area over here just off the intersection of Alden Street and Hobbs Road that's outside of the 100-foot buffer zone and the riverfront area. So we've, we've designated this area, uh, for, for stockpiling and storage lay down area. Um, there is also a detail on the stormwater, um, erosion control. Um, that has to do with, uh, erosion controls that would be necessary if the stockpiling is to happen in that area. As we get into the drainage design, the comment, uh, was pertaining to using the NOAA, uh, distributions. Um, I haven't had a chance to send that over, but I, as of five o'clock today, I, I've got revised calculations, um, that model, uh, based upon your regulations. And based on our findings, uh, it does not impact the drainage design, but we will certainly send that to you and to, um, Greg to have a review of that. Uh, and again, in regards to the TSS removal, um, the TSS removal loads have been achieved by meeting method B, and then we've provided some additional calculations, um, demonstrating that we, we meet those requirements. Um, within the operation and maintenance plan, um, it's, it's including the long-term maintenance of the site, uh, all necessary information has been provided within this document. In regard to the stormwater pollution prevention plan, we just note that it will be submitted prior to construction and I just kind of echo, um, that, that could be a condition of the approval that that would be done prior to construction. The operation and maintenance plan will be updated to add, uh, uh, snow storage, uh, that, that's certainly something we can add, um, comment number 23, just again, the, the initial filing with conservation, we, we designed the drainage system. Um, and at that point we had proposed an overflow into the, um, the, the town municipal drainage system, um, and in our meetings with DPW, the comment was made that they would not like that to be connected in. So at that point, our overflow, uh, was being released on site, um, and in discussions with the conservation commission, one of the things that we added to, to kind of help mitigate, uh, mitigate, uh, any runoff and kind of control some of that overflow, uh, we, we proposed that rain garden. And one of the reasons why the, it isn't incorporated into the treatment is because of the, we have a high groundwater condition in the back of the site there. And we weren't, we weren't able to meet the, the groundwater offset and we're kind of dictated by the, the elevation of the slab. Foundation in the back and the road, uh, basically there's, there's not a lot of pitch there for us to be able to, um, sink that rain garden any further as it stands. We've got a one, it's basically a little over a foot and a half, 1.66 feet from the estimated seasonal high groundwater with regard to the septic design. The septic design was done by Gala, um, and I, I went through that plan again today. Um, the leaching field is, is specifying all schedule 40 PVC piping. Uh, there's notes on the septic design, um, stating that both the distribution box and the septic tank, which are either below the parking area or within close proximity to it, um, will be H20 loading. Um, and then the last comment here is with regard to access to the site for the fire department. Um, one of the things that, um, we, we have done on this is, is we've done a turning movement sketch showing access from both Alden Street and Hobbs Road. Uh, we, we, we, we modeled, um, an aerial fire truck just to show that the, the fire truck can get on and off the site. Um, Matt has sent this, um, for comment and to date we have, we have not received any comments back. Am I correct in that, Matt? Yes, that's correct. So, lastly, as, as we look at this plan here, you can see it says stockade fence, right? As it stands today, the fence begins right about here, wraps all the way down the side. There's a jog of the fence and it, it goes, extends all the way up to this point. And as you can see, um, the existing property here has parking along that goes up to the fence. And this, this fence would be between our parking area and the parking area that's on the abutting property. If you look at the sign, um, in that area that says van accessible aisle, that property isn't yours up there. I see. This is your property line. Got it. Yep. So, okay. So all, all the trees and every, lot three isn't yours, but. Lot three is our lot. Yep. Oh, lot three is your lot. Yes.
Okay. So the last comment I just wanted to make was just regarding the site distance. And, and again, what we tried to do was utilize the existing curb cut. Um, we certainly acknowledge that, you know, give it, given the curvature of Alden street. Um, the site distance is, um, the site distance is a challenge. Um, and speaking with Matt, um, what we, what we are proposing is to remove some of that vegetation within the right-of-way. Um, which would, um, which would, would increase the amount of site distance that, um, would be for any vehicles traveling, uh, in this direction towards the intersection of Alden and Loker. Um, I quickly looked at, um, I quickly looked at, at the, the stopping distances. And if we were to remove, I think there's, there's three trees, um, that would get us a stopping distance of approximately 115 feet, which would, would meet the, the guidance in terms of stopping distance. But we would, it would not meet the required, uh, distance for site distance. Well, I think site distance is what governs it, isn't it? Yeah. And that's a school zone speed limit there. Yeah. When the school's in session.
So with the trees that you'd have to remove, were they in the right-of-way or are they on your property? They, they, they would be within the right-of-way. And then you'd need a tree here. Essentially. It's, it's these three trees here, which would, would need to be removed. Okay. Have you spoken with the DPW yet? I have spoken to them, not about this specific issue. Um, one of the things that we did, um, I think Bill and actually, I kind of looked at was there's an immense amount of, of bittersweet, uh, you know, which is invasive in that specific area. Um, so, I mean, I, I'd like to, you know, remove that anyway. Um, but again, that, you know, when removing the trees, to your point, we would have to kind of go through the process, uh, and that wouldn't, that would also involve the DPW board. So, Robert, um, have you spoken with the DPW since our site walk? Yes, I have. And what did they have to say? I'm just waiting for, I'm waiting for the current, but then to review the plans. I've worked to, I've worked to review the plan. Okay. They haven't come back to me yet. Okay. Before the next meeting, we need to know what that is, because if they need to have a tree hearing, we should try and see if there's a way to do that so that we don't, um, hold everything up. Uh, and can I ask a question? The, uh, the tree hearing is for seven trees. Is that our number in Wayland? No, it's for any tree. Any tree in the right of way, Matt. Yep. Oh, in the right of way. That's what it was. Okay. Yeah. Oh, the seven trees is the, uh, conservation commission. That's, I get, I apologize. No, it's easy to get confused. So I would add, uh, what, um, we noticed though was the trees right at the corner, um, are also blocking view of potential children crossing at that point to get over to the school. Oh, it, it looks to me like a hazard, hazardous intersection that really needs to be fixed.
On the, on the Hobbs Road intersection or the lower? Yeah, the Hobbs Road intersection with Alden. That, that corner, no, go back to the other plan that has the trees on it. Um, there's a lot of vegetation right on that corner, right tight to the property line. And, um, I, if you could limit up, I don't think the trees necessarily have to be cut down, but they should be limbed up so that, uh, there's some visibility of, um, people trying to cross that street. Um, so if we propose to limb up, what, six or seven feet, if I, if I make an assumption. Somebody's sitting in the car is about four feet. Their eyes are about four feet off the ground. You got to get above that so they can see straight ahead and a couple feet above for. Five or six feet. Yep. Is that a, like a, kind of a known. So if we limb up the, would we then need to cut any of those trees? I don't know the answer to that. You really have to judge it by, um, um, your, your, maybe we would add that into kind of the scope of work for that area to remove the ones that are imperative to remove, but then coming up all the way. But again, you know, it's, it's, um, happen to do either, but I think we had also, uh, discussed at one time, um, putting an additional buffer, uh, you know, in that area. So. We did it. I'm retracting that. I was the one that was pushing for it. Okay. Okay.
15 feet of clear visibility from the curb. Well, it doesn't mean you don't still have a buffer. It's just that the buffer's pulled back. Pulled back 15 feet. Yeah. In limbing up, you also have to be cognizant of the fact that as Alden Road goes to the east, it goes up a hill. So you might have to go up a little further than you think you do. Yeah, that's right. And anything that's in the right of way off of your property line requires a tree hearing with the planning board and the board of public works. We do a combined one. Um, and on your own property, you just have to worry about the conservation commission. And is there a separate, um, application for that? For tree hearing? Yes, there is. So I can get that from. Um, it's, uh, available online. I think Robert, can you send it to them? Where am I sending? I can just go down there and pick it up. Um, the tree hearing request. From Anita, I think has it down there must. I don't have a form. Oh, okay. I thought there was a form. No? No. No. Request? It's mostly when someone emails and says, I need to do a tree hearing. Yeah. I think my, my suggestion would be that you have someone from the DPW. I think it's usually Joe Doucette. Yeah. Out with you and walk that area for the two things. One to make sure of, you know, trees and what has to be done. And the other, uh, for the site distance. Because they're gonna, if you move, you'll have to see if you have to move the, the opening, the curb cut on Alden, but you still might need to move it. Okay. Can we, can I ask for that? Or, or Robert, is that something that we can set up to, you know, to walk with Joe or, uh, make an appointment with him or how would I? Yeah. Just send an email to him, me and Joe. And when you try to set something up, say walk for that. Is there anything else that we need to go over with what we've already spoken about? Um, okay. Moving on. Um, at this point, your application, um, is, although it's for congregate living, it doesn't fit any of the congregate living requirements because there's nothing that shows us that it is either being done in conjunction with the housing authority or in conjunction with anyone else. Um, and. I'm sure we did get, I did get a letter today from the APKIN with agreement with, with, with, uh, um, Miniman Ark. Miniman Ark has signed. There is an agreement, a written agreement? Yes. And I think the APKIN was, was, was finalizing it. He was signing it today. So it wasn't. I, I apologize. I just, I saw, I, we've received it. I had forwarded it. Um, but I wet signatured it today. Um, so that's on me. I, you know. Okay. So, but there isn't, you have Robert, you have the agreement in hand. I got it today. Okay. So we'll look at, at that. Um, and I'm assuming that it'll be fine. Cause otherwise I was going to say that, um, if you wanted to continue, it would have to be a special permit in front of the zoning board because it's in a residential district and all you can do here is a single family dwelling. Yeah. That it's, it highlights the role of response barrier of Oak Tree Management Inc. The role of Miniman Ark for Human Services Inc. Uh, education of charity purposes, the terms and future agreements, convention, good faith, non-binding nature, operation, operation, and then assigned by the CEO of, uh, Miniman Ark. And it will be, it was, it has been also, what is the non-binding nature say? Um, except for the vision related to the convention and the party's obligation to act in good faith during the terms of this letter, this engagement letter is non-binding and intended solely as expressed of the party's perfect present good faith intend to explore potential correlation which we regard in the project. Nothing contains here shall obligate any party to receive out with consuming aid or finance or otherwise participate in this project or a transaction related, therefore, unless, until definitive agreements are negotiated, executed, and delivered by the applicant parties. Pretty much just saying that, that they are on board and this, that they're not, this is not like surprise to them that they, they have been working towards an agreement. Well, it's a little less than that. Um, when do you anticipate having a real agreement, not just an agreement to agree?
From a financial standpoint, you mean to put the numbers in there? I don't know. But what you've got now, what Robert just read, to me is an agreement to agree in the future. It is not a binding commitment. So I'm at, I'll explain why in a minute, but I'm asking when you think we'll be, what timeframe will, will we be dealing with for a final agreement with the art? I think that's, um, Andy, um, I can ask you to comment, but my comment would be it's financially based. We don't know how much money we're going to get from, you know, the different sources, the town, but, uh, yeah, Sinith or Andy? Yeah, I can, I can answer. So where we are is we are moving several, uh, balls in the air. So this is one part of the, uh, again, uh, identify myself to new John development consultant. So having a site plan approval or, um, is one action that we require then go to DDS, Department of Development Services to, for them to support for funding that we require. We will parallelly go to the housing authorities in Wayland to get, so, so we are doing this in parallel. So for them to fully come on board that their board is also saying that is, uh, Andy, you can step in is that we need to have the project to a certain stage for them to fully say that we will sign an agreement operating agreement. So we could say that we can have it in three months, but several other things have to fall in place. I hear you. I just want to say that under our regulations and by law, you have to, once we issue a decision, you have to start construction within two years and you have to complete it within a total of five. I think it's five. Is it five or three, Robert? Five. So, I mean, we can, we can, we can have it as a potential condition. No, we can have it as a condition, but it will stop. I mean, once the other condition, as Annette said, as the chair said that the clock's kind of starts. So it's not like, oh, it will, the clock will stop when you have building from it. Like once a decision is issued and signed the clock for the two years starts. So, I mean, I think, I think from this point of view, I think this is the best you're gonna get at this point because there's so much in the air and, but I think they are committing. They just, we have, they just have no written agreement with numbers that, that would make sense quite yet, but, but it has been signed by the CEO. So they did sign it. So it's not just someone just writing a letter or something. So, um, I would, but I would let the board, once the board, we'd be able to let the board decide into any other comments on it. And if I, and if I can add, we had asked, um, some different town departments and again, it's, and it's almost like, uh, you know, simultaneous or in parallel, like Xenius is, uh, identifying, uh, something from the town that we could bring to the state to the DDS and say, yes, the town of Wayland has acknowledged. They do want more group homes. They do want this. So, um, well, if you want that, we can get that from the, um, the town manager, because that is something that the town wants. Because I had, okay. I'll ask Mike again. Oh, very good. I do think that, uh, from the perspective of men and men are too, uh, if the, uh, and a lot of this, our boss is DDS. And so Cindy said, we're looking for support from DDS. And support from Wayland is, uh, very influential. I think when they see that local support and they see that, that we've gone before the planning board that helps to, to move DDS. And it actually is my personal opinion, but starting that clock might not be the worst thing to get DDS moving on it too, because they want this to happen as well. They recognize the need for more creative models like this, and they've shown great interest in it, but it's almost like nobody wants to be the first one to make a commitment. Um, and that's what we struggle with. And Andy, you have a letter from DDS, um, showing that. We do have a letter of support. Yes. From DDS and supporting the model. And Andy and Matt has been in front of several town boards for about a year now, or more than a year. So the Minutemen Arc has publicly recognized coming and Matt going to project for this project together. So there's this commitment through action. It's not been papered yet in a more defined form because of all the reasons we just mentioned. Right. But whatever you do have in writing, you should submit to us so that we can reference it. Because I hear what you're saying, and I certainly understand, but we don't like to approve something that is, um, not real. Absolutely. Yeah. I understand.
Um, Robert, do you have anything else that you think we need to go over? Um, I think we did mention last time that, I don't know if they, we haven't seen updated site plans yet, but I believe we wanted to see setbacks for the, for the building. So I thought that they submitted them today. They didn't, they just submitted comments. Just the comments. There's no, I don't, I don't have any update plans, which I think they're just waiting. Yeah. There was a link in there, Robert to down the, the plan sets was too large. Yeah. So yeah, you can download those. Yep. Yep. No problem. Um, um, yeah, I think there's, I think there's a few asking questions, but I think I would like to look at the plans before I, cause I have, I don't know what's, what's on there yet. Okay. Um, currently, um, we have, um, a letter from you agreeing to an extension of time to June, the 26th. There's no way we're going to make June, the 26th, because we haven't even looked at what you've gone to do already and submitted. Um, and, um, we can put you, if you think you can get to the plans, uh, and anything else that you need to complete by June, the 24th and have talked to the, um, whatchamacallit, the DPW and have that under control. We can either have the next hearing on the 24th, or we can have it at the next meeting after that. And, uh, we would ask you for an extension of time to render the decision as well. I don't want to rush you, but I don't want to run out of time. If the, uh, and I believe, uh, you know, uh, DPW has been pretty, you know, accessible. I don't know, Robert, do you think that that's, we could get a walk through with, uh, Joe and have a comment back from him to, uh, you know, give the board, uh, you know, ample time to review any comments that he has? Yeah. If you, if you put, pull up more pressure on him and say that the board is looking to get answered by the 20, by the next meeting and so that they can actually vote and then we can run a decision, you know, in a few, for the few weeks. Well, yeah, I mean, we need it before, we need it by the 17th so that we knew what was happening and that the applicant would know if they had to revise their plans. Right? Yes. I mean, I can certainly, I, you know, I'm going to intend on going down tomorrow. Right. But I'm going to, I'm going to leave it to you, Matt. If you want to have the time to get all of your ducks in a row, because you still have a bunch of stuff that we don't have, um, we can go. Our next meeting, as I said, is June the 24th and the meeting after that is July the 8th. 9th. The 9th? 8th is what I have on what you gave us. Oh, so I can fix it. But if we pushed it to the 9th, we would have to sign another extension form. Yeah, we have to do another extension no matter what. Oh, we do. Yeah. Yep. Right. It is the 8th. It's not the 9th, Robert. July 8th. Oh, I put out the, I put out lashes. I'm looking, I'm sorry. I'm looking at lashes. Calendar. Yes, you're on the 8th. So Matt, what's your pleasure? I mean, I don't want to have to have two more hearings is what I'm saying. I mean, I'd like to just do what we need to do. Um, I think, um, Brandon, can I, uh, ask you, I, uh, we've submitted the plans. Do you think we need more time to, to address some of the, uh, consultants, uh, items or dot the I's and cross the T's or, um, um, yeah, the, the plants that's been revised and, and sent back, obviously they need time to, to go through that. The only, the two, yeah, sorry. They have two outstanding items. Yep. Yeah. We, so we had, we would have to revise this again. And then if Joe Doucette has some comment, we would have to revise again. Correct. It would, it would only be if DPW had comments or the fire chief. And we will, we should do the fire chief, um, as well. There were, Robert, did you send them the comments that we got from Rich Ripley? Uh, I thought I did. I can send them again. Was that, that was recently? We got it on May the 14th. Matt, I think those were the initial ones that prompted us to do the sketch. That we responded to. They were? And that's why we did the drawing. Okay. Well, there, there's another thing about, um, the hot, the nearest hydrant. Yeah. On the, it's shown on the, uh. Okay. And then the fully, the, the building is fully sprinkler. Yes. Okay. And no, no, uh, solar arrays or EV charging stations. No. Okay. Great. Sorry. Well, Madam Chair, regardless, regardless, because the deadline is the 26th. So even if the, even the board issued, issued or approved a decision on the 24th, it's going to take more than two days to finalize the decision, most likely, just because it's, there's a few moving parts. So. No, absolutely. The deadline most likely has to be moved anyways, unless as it can, you know, the lesson decision is very clean and we can, it can turn around in two days, which. Yeah, no, we don't, we're not going to do that. But. Right. So it's pushed to the 8th then, if that's. Okay. So we would have a hearing on the 8th. We would skip our meeting on the 24th. And we would, um, vote to extend, uh, to, uh, continue the hearing until July the 8th. Okay. Okay. Um. Is that, that sounds terrific. Okay. But then we need an extension of time to issue a decision. Okay. If you, if you got us everything and we had everything and we could close the hearing on July the 8th, then hold on. I'm out, I'm out the 10th, 10th, the 9th we're here and 10th we have, we have summer vacation. So we're not, I know we're actually here on Friday. Okay. And then I'm also out on Monday, so. Okay. From my point of view, I can't, I wouldn't be a turnaround. Until maybe, until. The 13th or the 14th probably. Well, more like the 17th. I would say at 16th, because we don't, we don't actually have, um, we have, we have four day work week and summer. So I would say the 16th. Um, but we wouldn't have seen the decision where we're just, either they'd have to rely on you and me or. Then you have to push it back. Or we'd have to have it until like the 22nd or 23rd. Well, unless if by pushing it back to July 8th, maybe we have enough there that we can have a draft decision ready for July 8th to talk about. I started working on it today, so. Okay. So Robert, for your schedule, um, what would you like? I, I, I don't want them to have to keep expecting. Um, well, there's a board. If, if it gets a draft decision by the 8th for the board to at least kind of have their eyes on it, then, then I should be able to turn, turn around and be afraid to be signing by the 16th, which should be about a week after. Okay. Yeah. And the wild card will be whether we have to have a joint meeting with the DPW about trees. Well, that would require two week hearings and everything. Right. I'm just saying that's the wild card. No, it is the wild card. But we would know that by July 8th. Yeah. Okay. So, um, Matt, can we get an, um, Robert will send you a form and just ask you to sign it. Sure. Is that okay, Robert? Yeah. Uh, extending, uh, the time for a decision until July the 16th. Is that what you said, Robert? Yep. And that can still have like, um, conditional decision, right? Yes. I mean, it will be conditional, but, um, there's only so far that I think we'll want to be able to condition. I mean, we're having a lot of stuff, but we want to make sure that the site lines are okay, where the main plan is. Um, you know, that sort of thing. Okay. What time on July 8th? Or do you? No, he doesn't. What time on July 8th? If we're going to have a motion? Um, Um, how about, um, how about, um, not seven? I don't want to do a seven. Uh, how about, um, 715?
Okay. And that's a zoom meeting as well. You don't want to have an in person. Pardon me. So can I have a motion to continue this hearing on one Hobbs road, uh, until July the 8th, 2026 at 7 15 PM? So moved. Second, anyone? I second. All in favor. Um, Bill Sterling. Aye. Robin Borgestedt. Aye. Annette Lewis. Aye. Uh, Ira Montague? Ira? Are you here? Ira? Ira, are you? It'd be helpful if somebody stopped screen sharing so we can see each other. Oh, Brandon, want to bring that print down.
Ira? Ira, you're muted. Oh, there. You can't figure out how to unmute. Is there a way to unmute him, Robert? There it is. There it is. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Um, so, uh, the hearing motion approved and the hearing is, uh, continued until July 8th at 7 15 PM. Thank you. And please do try and get all that stuff under control so we can issue a decision. You need to mute yourself again. You need to mute yourself again.
What is that? It's because I resigned on twice. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very, very much. Have a good night. All right. Yep. Bye-bye.
Robbie, can you promote Ann Gordon, please? I think she's in the audience. Hi, Ann. Thank you for joining us. Um, perhaps you'd like to just introduce yourself to the board. Well, we'll introduce ourselves to you and then you can introduce yourself to us and tell us why, um, you want to be on the design review board. Um, so going across the top, we have Robin Borgestedt. I obviously am Robin Borgestedt. Um, been on the planning board for a few years. I'm also on the design review board for now. Um, I don't know. I'm a lawyer and I live in Wayland. I don't know what else to say. Right. And I'm Annette Lewis, but I think you know that. Um, I do. And then we have Ira. Can you say hello?
Bill, can you say hello? Yeah, I know. I do know Ira. I mean, I've, I've, I've sat with him in meetings. Okay, great. Yeah. And you know Bill. I know Ann as well, having worked for the COA for a number of years. So tell us why the design review board? So, um, thank you for having me and thank you for considering me for the position. I, uh, have lived in Wayland for 30 years and I think probably like all of you, uh, long time Wayland resident, then I care a lot about the town. I care about, um, how it develops and how it grows. And, um, my professional background is in communications. I, um, started my career working in what was then Harvard community health plan, now Harvard Pilgrim, um, doing communications and marketing, um, materials. So I've had a lot of years of working with graphic design. Um, I'm not a graphic designer. I am, uh, a writer, an editor. Um, and then I spent about 30 years as a consultant doing writing and editing for healthcare organizations, um, both in Boston and in New York and in Washington, DC. Um, so, and those were the early days of the internet when, um, organizations were more apt to create printed materials. So I did, uh, spend a lot of time working and collaborating with graphic artists and, uh, feel like I developed, uh, a sense of, um, design that, um, that, um, that I would like to bring to this position. Um, I, um, wound down my consulting career and decided that I wanted to take a part-time job at the council on aging here in Wayland. Um, and I worked there for 10 years and, um, in that role, I was the communications and community relations specialist. So again, working on written communications, the newsletter, I revamped it from both of content and design point of view, um, electronic communications, um, as, uh, more and more people began using email. Um, and, um, I'm also just ending eight years on the Wayland historical commission. And that, um, um, as you probably know, is the town's body that is charged with protecting and preserving the town's historical assets. Um, and so that's another way in which I've tried to contribute to the town and, and in terms of protecting the character, um, and the beauty of Wayland and its history. Um, I've, uh, talked with Bill a little bit about what the, how the design review board works and, and what the content of the work is. I've watched some meetings. Um, I've read the design, um, guidelines and, um, I would really like to continue contributing to the town. And I think this is a way that I could contribute. I, I feel like I could bring some new, uh, new, a new voice, if you will, to the, to the design review board. So, um, that's why I'd like to be considered. Great. Does any, we'll go around Robin. Do you want to ask any questions? Not right now. I, it sounds like she knows what she's in for and having served on the historical commission. I think, you know, the sensitivity to preservation of the feeling of the town is there. So Ira, I can't, we can't hear you if you're, while you're trying to figure out how to speak, I'm going to go to Bill. Bill. Um, I, I really don't have, uh, any, um, questions. I just want to say that, um, the board is, um, has a capacity of five people and we only have three right now. So, uh, uh, I really welcome your interest and I look forward to working with you.
Robert, do you have any? I do not have any questions this time. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes, you can. Let's see if I can stop this. Uh, I'm on my phone and obviously it's not working well. I guess my only comment is that if Bill, because he was emphasized the need for a graphic designer, I'm not sure if there's more leeway in that, that he needs, I, I kind of go by what he says. I do, um, echo other people's opinions that I think she has the background of the town, uh, the historical connections and all of those things, which I think are really important and would be a good basis for her participation. But, uh, Bill had mentioned the graphic design aspect. So I guess my, uh, only question is, does he feel comfortable with that aspect of it?
You're asking me or you're asking you? He was asking you, I think. Okay. Uh, I, I think that's a very important question, um, that, um, may or may not be aware of. The, um, uh, the reason I brought that up is that, uh, that the issues that deal with signage in particular, um, uh, come up on many of the commercial applications and it's really helpful to have someone who has dealt with, uh, the types of various types of fonts and, uh, size and scale of graphics and, and how, uh, effective they are, um, and how in, if you drive around some communities you'll find, uh, signage can be overdone. And I think that, uh, our mission in Wayland is, uh, about to be redone because we're thinking of re, uh, examining the signage bylaws for Route 20 at least if not the entire town. So, um, it would be great to bring you into those discussions as well as we develop, uh, new zoning guidelines for signage. I think that your, uh, communication experience with fonts and so forth would be helpful. Anne, have you read the, um, the bylaw that describes what the design review board does? Um, I don't know that I've read the bylaw. No. Okay. Um, it's, you, you should check it out. It's 198-508 and it sets up the design review board and technically it says that we need to have one person who's an architect, one who's a landscape architect, one who's a member of the planning board, uh, a business owner, a Wayland resident who's a business owner in Wayland, um, and or a graphic designer. Um, I'm not sure if you fit the graphic designer or the, um, uh, someone from the planning board that the planning board appoints just separately. Um, and I know that Bill, uh, would like to have another body and I sure would too, but I just want to make sure that you understand that the role is, um, advisory. I do. And that, um, one, after you have your meetings, you have to issue a report and you send it to, and you only have 30 days to do the review and then you send it to the planner. Uh, if it's a planning board member thing, it's a plan goes to the planning board, it goes to, um, the building department and on some things it goes to the zoning board. And, um, there's one other thing I wanted to say and I have to remember what it is because my brain is losing. Um, it's a three-year appointment and what else? I think that's probably about it. And also it's only for commercial things. You don't do anything with residential. That's how the bylaw was written. Okay. Thank you. So, um, would someone like to make a motion to appoint, uh, Ann Gordon as a new member of the design review board? I move that we appoint Ann Gordon as a new member of the design review board. Um, I have questions. Should we specify which position she's taking or just do it? I would just do it because we do have two vacant seats and I can stay on if I, you know, until I'm appointed to the housing. Okay. One. So, okay. That sounds fine. Um, so, um, all in favor, we didn't get a second yet. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay, Bill. Um, uh, all in favor, Robin Borg said. Yes. Uh, Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Ira Montague. Here I am. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we will, um, Robert, do you think you could prepare a letter? I actually think that the, I can send a letter. Yeah, because it's, I don't remember it was me or the town manager's office. Cause I know they do, they do those too, but I can. Yeah, but it's, this one is our appointment. It has nothing to do with the, the, um, yeah, it's a direct appointment from the planning board. All right. Okay. And then, um, you have to, when you get the letter, you'll go to, uh, the town clerk, get sworn in, and then you can go to the meetings. Great. Well, thank you all. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your confidence in me. Okay. Much appreciated. Thanks. Okay. Robert, moving on.
Robbie, can you promote Jesse and AJ in the audience? Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Sorry. We're a little late. Hello. No problem. Okay. We received your materials. And, um, I guess I should just say where we are now. This is a permitting discussion with Graffito WTC partner, LLC and owner of the town center development. Um, and we received materials from you folks. Uh, and I think we've all reviewed them and we're ready to talk. That's great. Well, thank you, Madam chair, uh, members of the board. Hello. Nice to see you again, Ira. We can see your name and that will do. Um, but I know I can hear you now and Robert, so nice to see you. Um, so I think it might make sense for me to also pull up the document and share as, as I speak, you know, our goal for today is really, um, and we're quite thankful for the additional time here before we file, but to create some space for comments and guidance from you all, um, on what we've been working on. We've been working really hard since we last spoke, we thought it'd be productive to share some actual plans and materials and also provide kind of some rationale and some commentary behind them. Um, as you'll see from the pre-read, we really focused on just three really critical moves, which I'll walk you through. Um, so let me just pull up the screen here and, um, you know, we view this as a conversation, so please, please stop me as I go. Um, and can you all see my screen? Yes. Okay, great. So, um, first thing I would just say is, you know, it's interesting listening in the conversation with Ann before this about history and graphic design and visuals and, and the importance of signage, which we'll talk about a little bit tonight. But, um, we agree with all that, you know, at Grafito, we have our own in-house creative team. So we have eight full-time employees, two of which are graphic designers. It's just that important to our work and the places we are creating. What you're seeing here on this cover page is actually, um, the new brand. It's not a new name, it's a new brand. We've integrated as you'll start to see into the site. Um, it, it came out of a bunch of research in terms of, um, the history of the place, uh, that it was inspired by this pattern that brings together these, you know, four W's, um, which some people see right away, others don't. And when put together, it kind of appears as a bit of a quilt. Um, just understanding the history of quilting in Weyland, um, as an old New England town, some of what's on display in the historical society, as well as thinking about what we're trying to do here, which is kind of quilt together, um, a community. And I say that not as cliche, but like, we really think that there are elements that we want to pull together in our work with you all in Weyland town center. So we hope you like it. This is new brand. There's a lot of thought that went into it. We just rolled out a new website on June 1st. Um, and you'll see some beautifications around the site, which leverage this. And again, all of this is really important. So, um, just a real quick primer, um, prior to today, you know, we've been before you all once, uh, the select board once, but we've had many, many meetings with stakeholders in the community. We've done some of our own team building, which, you know, you'll see the result of some of that team building materials tonight. We've done a lot of planning, a lot of listening. And as I mentioned, we've been working on preliminary site beautification and rebranding. We've got a ways to go. Um, but we're excited so far about some of the baby steps we've taken over the last six months since we closed on the property at the end of last year. The goal for tonight is really to have, as I mentioned, this pre-filed discussion, uh, to share some preliminary plans, talk through our approach. And then coming out of tonight, we have a, um, as you know, we have a bit of a timeline at the end to finalize these plans, incorporate some of your comments, um, and move forward working with you all, uh, on the master special permit amendments and related application. So we anticipate the next time before you all will be an official hearing. Um, and I'll just pause there, uh, as I kind of walked you all through, um, uh, the, sorry, my screens. Can you guys still see this? Okay, great. Uh, I'll pause there as I kind of walked you through, Madam Chair, kind of how we were thinking about the path ahead, um, for any comments, uh, but if not, we can kind of dive into the deck. Yep. Nope. Okay. Great. So I mentioned three really threshold moves. Um, so they're kind of three groupings versus three moves. The first one we're going to discuss is how do we improve the gateway signage? Um, really, really critical to the success of the site from a retailer and restaurateur perspective, something I think everyone in the community understands and knows. Um, second, we'll talk through the, the long time plans from the community around kind of pedestrianizing humanizing and making Alyssa more usable. And we've also clustered into that move, uh, how we think about an improved rail trail entry. And as you see, you know, this importance of this zone that kind of connects the town green to the rail trail, um, we kind of talk about internally path to park, um, it's perhaps a little bit too cute to use out in the community, but that's the way we've been thinking about it. And then the third kind of grouping of moves are how can we really take advantage of all this underutilized green space, uh, that is currently inactive at Wayland town center. And I think facilitates the feeling of things just not happening. We feel like that's an asset. It's been a real liability for the last decade plus, but we feel that's an asset. So I'll start with the signage, um, existing conditions. You all know them. Uh, these signs are very, very difficult to read. Um, we frankly do not think they serve much of a purpose. Um, and we think there's tremendous room for improvement. We agree with many of the folks at the town and some of the prior owners, the design review board went through some studies previously, uh, and came up with something like this, the prior owner, uh, came up with something like this, which, you know, we liked the use of stone, you know, their approach, I think overlooked some issues with where they were citing it, but we appreciated the prior moves. Uh, it was instructive as we thought about, um, updated signage and where we ended up after a lot of work and working with a really trusted, uh, environmental graphics firm, Whitney Vegas, who some of you may know we've done, we've been major admirers of their work over the years. Um, they've got a national footprint. They're based here, their local firm, they're really thoughtful. Uh, you know, so they integrated some thinking around natural materials, um, thinking about the brand and the name of the place. And then also, and we have some work to do on this, making sure we have room for signage. Some of this is quite small. Uh, we have not shared this with tenants, just so you all know, right? Where you're, you're kind of getting a first look at this, these preliminary concepts, but we feel like it's something very similar to this that we feel is, is a huge improvement. And while a lot of this is subjective, we feel that it fits the context quite a bit more than what was the, some of the previous studies. Furthermore, we think that there is a language we are developing with the brand and at the place, which can be utilized in various different contexts in and around the site. Um, this would be a great replacement for the 20 or 27 signage. Uh, and furthermore, we're thinking a lot about iconography and ways in which we can make this site more legible for humans. You've all been there. The existing wayfinding and signage is illegible. It is impossible to see. It is not at a scale that works particularly well. So this is the work we've done, um, to date. So I can either pause here and go through the next two items, or we can kind of hold for a conversation around signage. Madam Chair, I'd look to you for guidance or members of the board how you want to do it. Um, but we're prepared to do either, either charge through or hold after each section. Um, what's the board's preference? I think we should do while we're, you know, on the subject. Okay. Can I just give a little background information about, um, why the signs are what we have today? Is that okay? Yep. So that's, so we have them in the, in the zoning bylaw, we have dimensions for wall signs and that translated to the decision. However, in the decision for the master of special permit for the overlay, um, issued by the planning board, it cites a, a diagram of a sign that was a, I figured it was attachment B or C in the decision. So what they proposed to dimensions and what it looked like was, was granted by the planning board. And that sign plan is, was from 2007. So almost 20 years later, the current applicants and the owners are still stuck with that old sign. So in my opinion, you, the board would need to amend the master special, special permit to, and to, and to issue a new amendment and attach the new signage, um, plan into that fold to, to allow the app and to actually do this. So with the approval that was given, was it, I know it was in the master special permit, but was it a special permit in the master special permit, or was it part of the main master special? I think it's part of the main main. Okay. Thank you. So this is, this is, it's a big change, but also a change that the plan board can also may, um, and has the ability to thoughtfully look at it and go, okay, what works today? What does not work today? Um, there was a few things on that, the regional plan where it said you can have, I think six tenants names listed, which is not today we have today, there was just a little bit of restrictions that made it, didn't make it, didn't even give the new applicant any flexibility to, to change it. Um, and 20 years later, I think it's, it's, it's a point for the board and the town to look at it and see what, what worked and what doesn't work to move forward. Okay. Robert, how high is the current sign from the ground, including what it's the, uh, platform that it's on? I would have to back to the, I'll have to look at the, the decision. I don't, I'm not sure. Okay. It will be on the plan. Do you know, Jesse? I do. I'm pulling it up right now. It's going to be 15 feet. So to Robert's point, what we would propose is, is just replacing that exhibit with a new signage exhibit with a corresponding, you know, master special permit amendment. I can tell you the current signage, which in our opinion is far too small. Um, it's just, it's very difficult to see from the street. Um, let me just pull it up right now. Currently it is, um, to the top, just under 10 feet and we were proposing 15. And so you would add, be adding another five feet. Yeah. So this is from this side, 10 feet. There's a little bit of a grade change here. You can kind of see it, but this is 10 feet. We propose adding an additional five feet. That is correct. Um, so from that to this and you know, the dimensions of this, this was quite a bit higher. The prior applicant was also closer to 20 feet. So we haven't quite gone to 20 feet. Like some of the signs that have been showed previously. Um, we think we can get it done. And we tried to come back to you all with something that felt contextual and not too aggressive. We would love more signage and candidly. So would our tight, our tenants, we'd love bigger, more of a signage. Um, we also showed some restraint for good reason. One of the things we would keep, as you can see on the existing, they're lit, but not internally, they're not self illuminated. They're, they're lit by lights on the exterior. That would be the approach here as well. These are not backlit signs or electrified signs. Um, so they won't have the appearance like many signs you see that are backlit. And, and we think at times can be quite distasteful and out of context. Um, so that's just a little bit more history on kind of how we got to here from certainly here. And then from here and Robert, thanks for the background as well. Bill, Robin? Um, I think a change is good. I think I'd like to see, there's a lot of blank space on this sign. And I think it would be great to get more of the tenants names on there and perhaps lose some of that blank space. Um, but, um, we, we agree. And we're looking at a couple of different schemes for that. We couldn't get in time. Um, as Bill will know from his architecture days, negotiating at times with signage consultants and folks who are doing environmental graphics there at times, um, proportions matter quite a bit, but, but we'll, we'll show some mock-ups that actually move. We've already been looking at that would move the yellow, sorry, what looks on my screen a little bit yellowish, but call it beige up to here to provide some more space for tenant signage. We also know that tenants are going to push for that. So we were, we were preparing it, Robin, knowing that tenants were going to say, this is too small. We want more signage. Um, but heard that's a great comment. Yeah. Because you know, like Joe banks, I know, even though they're long gone, I, you know, I know what their logo looks like, so I don't have to see great detail to, to know what that is. And, you know, X golf or Panera, if I know what their logo looks like, that's easy, but for a smaller tenant, having their name up there, it makes a big difference. So, um, otherwise, you know, conceptually I'm not opposed at those two locations to having a bigger sign. Um, I, I find this to be a little bit cold. I don't mind modern. It seems a little cold to me, but this is just a design concept. So, you know, I, I would wait until there's something more definite that we're really kind of looking at, but. Great. I, I think it's exquisite. Uh, frankly, I, I, I like the space. I think that's a sort of a fundamental of Swiss topography topography, topography where, um, the space allows the text to become more sculptural. Instead of just jamming the sign full of text, I think it gives you some relief. It gives more emphasis to the Whelan part above. Um, and I think the composition and proportion is beautiful. Very nicely done. Thanks, Bill. Well, I think it's also important to look at this is also thinking about who, who are you also trying to attract to the center. If you are saying, Hey, let's, let's meet at the local, at the Whelan town center. It's important to have the word Whelan town center big. Cause then you're like, Oh, there it is. Oh, I know exactly where it is. But if you put all your tenants in there, it kind of distracts a little bit too. So I can see both ways, having a lot of the company names, some sharpies, hardware, and having all these different, um, business names, but then also having the brand name on there. So someone says, let's meet at the, you know, Takara at the Whelan town center, you know, I'm looking for the local Whelan town center and the wards. Yeah. And that's an interesting point too, Robert, because right now there's very little wayfinding. Once you're in there, if you're looking for a shot, that's not right on kind of the main drag as you're going through, it's not always easy to find it if you don't know where it is. Um, so if this is, um, you know, I, I don't mind the smaller names for the tenants, if there's more improved wayfinding within the site. So I guess at this point, I would defer to the, to the owners and the, to figure out what best works for them. If it's more of focusing on the Whelan town center or is it focusing on putting as many tenants as possible, filling the blank space. I think they have a better idea of what they have. I think putting too many tenants is going to clutter it up a little bit, but I honestly, I would just defer to the app again, if it looks, you know, clean and sleek and they know what they're trying to do, or you can take two different, get two different diagrams and pick between them. And then from there, then that's, we go with. Yep. With the, um, arbor wood thermally modified ash, are you concerned at all that over time that will disintegrate and look bad? You know, it's a, Annette, it's a great question. Um, it will age and it will actually get a bit more gray, which is interesting. The ash, um, we're not super concerned about it, but it's something we'll raise with the signage consultants. We felt pretty strongly that having, they felt, and we were on board, let me be clear that, you know, having some natural materials and we'll play around with what this base is as well is really important. We, we really, really did not like this at all. Um, to be honest. And, you know, what we liked about this was the natural kind of stonework at the bottom. That's how they kind of got here, but that's something we'll certainly ask them. Um, and you know, I think this feedback is exactly what we're looking for. Um, we don't expect many tenants are going to be, um, are watching right now, but we also wanted to make sure before we went back to tenants who are major stakeholders, it has to work to Robin's point for the tenants. We want to make sure people know they're there, that we have something that we all feel really comfortable at between this board and ourselves. So we'll do some additional studies on just the sizing of this, but you know, it sounds like directionally, um, there aren't any major objections yet, although we haven't heard from the chair. Um, but we feel we've looked at a lot. Um, we feel really good about this. We also feel that this translates really well to this. It's logical. It works. Um, we like some of the sloping and then we really like some of the preliminary studies. We start to think about how this translates to the rest of the site to Robin's point for directional science and wayfinding within. So we feel good about this direction and we'll, we're going to keep going on it. Ira, do you have any comments? I don't know if you can hear me or not. Can you? Yes, we can. We can hear you. God, this is horrible. Um, my question is, is there an established...
What? We could hear you. We can't now. ...distance either from you or in the, um, in the development. So the smallest, um, tenet there would be able to be seen from, uh, the road as it comes into the development. At what point do you say this is okay or this is too small?
You just, um, unmuted. I mean, muted rather.
I think that study needs to be done. We probably don't, but then it depends on the height of the font and the travel, uh, speed that you're traveling. Um, but you could, you could deliver that answer with a study, I think.
Yeah, I think we caught some of that and we're, we're looking at it. The other thing, just to let the board know, we've had a series of excellent meetings with our neighbors at Russell's about how we can just beautify the entry. We think a lot of it is, I mean, from a, from a scale perspective, this is not a very inviting entry sequence. Signage aside, right? So we're thinking a lot about that. Um, in, you know, I, I think it's a combination of creating more visual beauty, um, creating a little bit of a sense of compression, but I choose through, potentially through vegetation at the entry combined with new signage that I think, you know, while most people can't articulate it, it will feel good to enter this place, right? It doesn't right now. You kind of feel like you're entering something that you don't really know what's happening and, and all those things taken together kind of what we're looking at. And again, signage is big. And if we understood IRA correctly, you know, we will be looking at kind of how these signs are experienced and how we make sure they're legible. We don't want to spend, uh, these are expensive signs. We don't want to spend a ton of money on signs that don't, that aren't actually functional. And you know that that area has, um, an easement on it from some state, I think it's the highway department for. Okay. Yeah. And so we're looking at more as you come into the site versus actually on some of the zones, um, at the mouth of the site, which are, which are quite complicated. And I think a prior applicant owner got tripped up on that. Yes. Okay. I don't have any comments. Okay, great. Well, this was, this was excellent. Thank you. Um, so transitioning similar format, as you saw transitioning to Alyssa, we're kind of looking at the current condition right now. Um, it is not a very well utilized street from a vehicular perspective, right? Um, it just is not for those of you who spent time in the site. There's very, very little throughput here. Um, I think it's one of the reasons that the town from even the earliest days started to think about how to pedestrianize this street. Um, this was one of the plans from some point in the last 10 years, which was shared in some of the master planning work that beta did for the town. Um, there are a lot of challenges with this plan. This is not something that we would attempt to execute for a multitude of reasons, but there are certain elements we really liked. For example, like creating some decking structure here. We love the utilization of tables and chairs and vegetation. Um, and you know, there is a real sense, I'll use the word again of compression on this street where this certainly would feel for humans. And that's what we're designing this place for much more inviting and comfortable than this. So, so we applaud the prior efforts. Um, you know, the EDC has been working with the town manager and we in turn have been doing the same to try to deploy some of the shared streets funding to buy, uh, planters, tables, and chairs. This was an EDC plan, which had some very interesting play elements in it, like cornhole. Um, and, you know, looked at a series of, um, planters and potentially bollards and other objects to kind of make the streets safe, as well as some of these dividers. Um, there were some of that we certainly like, and we were working with the town to make sure that we're leveraging the $92,000 that, that the town of Weyland has from the state as part of their shared street grants. But what we've done is taken it a bit of a, a bit further with our landscape team. Um, and, you know, also have met with public safety, police, and fire. And, you know, we, we really do believe that, um, maintaining a, um, fire lane, a fire lane here and having a 20 foot clear lane that provides a fire department access to one of the residential units above here is advisable. Um, they were advising it. We are okay with it. Uh, we still think we can pedestrianize the street and this can be available for temporary programming. Um, and for only movable things with a bollard system, we'd work with public safety on police and fire, um, that will be operable. Fire department would have keys for, so they could operate it. They'd have instructions prior to, and then within the street, um, in addition to having this canvas for activations, we would deploy some of the decking that was on the earliest plan, but we do it for the entire street. And essentially what we're doing is we're doing it flush with the curb and we're creating just far more common area. So not only common area for folks to gather and sit, um, with things like wifi, for example, we want to do things to encourage people to be here. But for example, we're working on a cafe deal in this corner right now, we're at least with to provide cafe seating outside for them. Right. Um, you know, Giacomo's currently has some seating outside, which we think is great. We've actually been exploring with a restaurant we're at least with to replace Takara, putting some of the similar decking here to actually allow them to maintain the front entry on Alyssa, which we like, but then have a secondary door that has seating over here with a similar deck. So this is where we are at. Um, you know, it really is not nearly as, um, it's quite a bit less in some ways than these other schemes, but admittedly we're putting in more structure here by way of this decking, which we feel like it's going to make the street much more usable. So again, like with the signs, we've gone through a lot of different schemes. We feel really excited about this. It has changed quite a bit. You know, Robert was at several of the meetings we had with, um, uh, with police, fire and public safety. And this has evolved, but this is where we ended up. Um, and we're really excited to execute on it. So we'd love to get comments, answer questions to the extent you all have them. Uh, Bill, you want to start first? We'll go in reverse. Sure. Um, I, I like the idea of inviting, uh, outdoor restaurant seating, uh, that otherwise if you just put the decking there, I don't, I don't, you wouldn't have the cornhole or the other attractions that bring people to want to sit there. So I think, uh, that's probably a more effective way to get people to want to gather outside. I think it's a good idea. Yeah. And Bill, to your point, like we, we think, and there are just some renderings you all saw, we think there are a lot of things we can do in these zones to facilitate gathering. Um, and you know, we think this, this area, which again, we want to make sure there's is fire lane here, but you know, this can be a great place. We had a great event last weekend and running through this month, we have a pop-up gallery in the space at this corner up here. Um, and we've been talking with arts Wayland about if this was a closed street, there could be all sorts of, you know, I wouldn't call them regular daily or even weekly, but monthly activities, um, around food and arts and entertainment and programming that we can do on a temporal basis. Um, but again, we feel like, you know, it provides us a great canvas without being super prescriptive right now with what goes on in the middle. Um, but you know, it could be quite lovely. Sounds good. Robin? Um, I was going to say, I like this plan versus the, what was sort of on that other drawing. You know, if there's cornhole and more physical activity, you're now setting aside some of the green space for that kind of stuff. And I like this as a more, I don't know, I don't want to say elevated or adult space to gather, but a quieter space to sit and gather and, and meet. And if there's cornhole and who knows what else going on, it can happen, you know, over even just up that little walkway to where the hockey rink is going to be the skating rink and that in the summertime can have cornhole and things like that out. So I like the design of this much better. Um, you know, I think it's good to preserve the fire department access up the middle. Um, so yeah, looks nice. Ira? I don't know if you can hear me. This is a horrible setup, but I think it's, it's, it's a really great start. So I'll not speak that long because of this situation, but my vote is no cornhole. So actually you couldn't use, I did research for the town manager, uh, over a year ago, and you can't use these streets money for cornhole stuff for games. Um, is there anything? Oh, you're done. Okay. Um, I have a concern, which I've mentioned before. I know that the ballards are removable. The question is how fast can you remove them? If somebody is having a heart attack and you need to get an ambulance in, how fast can you do that? Um, so that's something to think about. Um, and in the master special permit, because the roadways are all laid out in the master special permit, this would need an amendment to be able to, uh, make this pedestrian. Yep. To the site plan, that means I'm going to say plan or both. Um, I think it's actually maybe the site plan too, but definitely the master special permit. Yep. Yeah. I think after we discussed previously a few weeks ago, that might, might be, might we need to include amendment to the site plan too. And the other thing is that, and I have a memo on it and I'll try and look for it. There are certain under the master special permit. Currently, there are certain places where you cannot have outdoor seating. Um, so we'd have to maybe have to amend that, or it might be that where you're thinking about doing it, you can do it. I also, I had that same information. I had to figure out where this place is. They, I don't, they call them building or zones. It was different zones. They're building areas. They're building areas. A, B, whatever. Right. I have that all the way down because I've done multiple times for different things. So, and I think this will be part of our due diligence coming out of this, both Madam chair, your point about the ballers, which we're going to work with and make sure it works for the town and the folks that actually are coming there to, um, provide safety and fight fires, etc. Um, and then secondarily, you know, just so you all understand our approach to outdoor seating generally, um, this is a big site. There's just a lot of space. We, we love the idea of a concentration of energy on this pedestrian stretch. And we actually think it would be worth looking at together how we ensure that we can have spill out up and down Alyssa with no limitations because you know, the, the, the places and spaces that typically work best, not just for restaurants, but for patrons and for residents and for visitors, you know, we all know them, we experienced them are where you have a lot of this stuff and there's a rhythm to it. Sometimes with space with, with sites that are as big as Wayland town center, you know, many, many acres, we've seen situations where you're permitting little pieces scattered throughout the site. And, you know, while that is effective and the local and Takara have nice outdoor areas, it, it just lacks in some ways, the energy that you get in a place when you bring a lot of these spaces together. And we think the potential for the town to do this and centralize that around Alyssa is quite exciting. Um, so that's part of what's motivating this. And I think I'd also just say to Robin's point, we think a lot about active and passive uses, a very active use would be throwing ping pong or cornhole or whatever it is here. A passive use would be just creating space for people to gather and move through and socialize and stop and sit. Right. And, and we very much view this as being active programmatically at times, but largely the identity of this space is somewhat passive, which we think is a nice balance. Uh, I think you should never lose track of the fact that, um, a walking distance away is a community center that is very often counsel on aging who will be providing functions. And even last year when they first opened, uh, a large number of people went to the function at the COA and then walked over to, uh, the nearest restaurant and filled it up to capacity. It was jammed with people. So I think that connection to the, um, really, we always thought the community center would be an anchor tenant to this development. So I think you should incorporate your thinking to making it an easy path from the COA as well. Yeah, we agree wholeheartedly. Good. Any more comments on this piece? Or shall we move on? We've got the second part of Alyssa, um, which we'll track back. Yes. Yeah. Um, we had, we had, you guys had mentioned, um, also potentially an amendment to the, um, to the site plan. When you guys think about that, cause I know that current site plan and the master special permit is probably even, um, older than what the existing as built is. Do you guys think, does it replace that site plan in your mind, or is it just like a, in a debt, you know, an, an, an additional site plan to that? I, in my mind, I think it has to be replacing it so that you can keep track of what the difference is from one time to another. Um, there are some things that when you start explaining what you're doing, I'm going to suggest a way of handling it where you won't necessarily need to review or redo that part of the site plan. Got it. And, and would you, whatever you think is going to be permanent. I mean, this to me is pretty permanent. Yeah. And, and, and so the way we would think about that, I just want to make sure I think about it right is we probably work off the, you know, the Alta survey, right. As the, as our, as our base, and then take the Alta survey and, and add anything that's permanent into it to suggest a, a amended site plan. Does that sound right? I can't even answer that. Cause I don't know which one the Alta survey is. Um, I would look at the, in the master special permit, there were, um, certain plans that were approved. I have, we have them in our files at the town hall, I believe. And I have my own leftover. Um, and, um, I would do those, um, because I can't even keep track of the phase one and the phase two and all that kind of stuff. So I would just work off the master special permit ones. I think, unless you have the phase one or phase two approvals, um, and whichever one you're going to work from will go with as being the replacement in the master special permit. Does that make sense? Yeah, totally. Totally. Thank you for the clarification.
Sorry, Jesse. Go ahead. No, that's great. So, um, the, the second part of Alyssa is we just feel to be, um, responsive to what we're hearing and responsible as we think about this site, you know, to Bill's point about how do you connect to the center on aging? You know, we believe this move to connect to the rail trail is really hypercritical. Um, the striping there is just an existing condition disregard kind of the material shown here. This is really just meant to highlight what we think is a very, very critical connection from the park to the path, but we've already been talking to DCR about improving the connection to the rail trail. We think this is a source of tremendous value for the town, for us as owners of the site, and we really want to lean into it. Currently, the rail trail entry is next to a transformer further down towards route 20 in a very awkward location that is right where all the cars turn. I would not feel comfortable with my two 12 year olds getting off their bicycles there in front of the local. So part of this is also around safety. Um, and we believe the most logical place to do this is actually where Alyssa Ave ends. Unfortunately, the prior plan had a dumpster located here, which is the absolute wrong place for the dumpster. Um, we are exploring right now. Um, instead of relocating this dumpster, potentially just eliminating this dumpster area and trying to make do with one of the other dumpster areas we have down closer to stop and shop. This involves tenant issues, operational issues, but we're looking at it. What we want to make sure is that we're not over dumpstered on the site, to be honest, because these are not particularly pretty things. Um, we're going to beautify them. We're going to manage them, but we think the best use here is for a better connection to the rail trail is a very, very preliminary scheme. Um, but it's something we are thinking about. It's something we believe will also require. We think, um, some reference, if not an amendment, or it probably would end up being an amendment in the master special permit that kind of makes this connection and allows for it. It's something we'll, we'll think about in the weeks prior to our, our pre-file later this month, but wanted to just make sure the board was aware that we're thinking about this. We think this is a great move. Um, this, I don't think these trees will actually grow here. Um, and this is a lot of, uh, wild grass, but I think you get the point, which is how do we make this a beautiful entry for, um, runners, cyclists, et cetera, so that they can bring them in and draw them up to the site this way versus what is currently the case. And, you know, just from an urban design perspective, we really, really like this move a lot. And we're gonna be spending some time studying it further. I think that's great. Anybody else want to comment? Just one question. What is the grade change from, uh, the rail trail up to your property? So, so it depends where you are, Bill, right here. We're actually at a similar grade, right? Um, the grading is challenging where the idea is that you're at a pretty similar grade here. Let's see if you can see in one of these renderings, the rail trail drops off here, right? And there is, um, what is essentially a six foot grade change that gradually comes up by stop and shop. Let me pull up the site plan for you. Um, so kind of at grade, at grade, it starts to rise here and rises pretty aggressively up through this section till you get right here. So one of the reasons we have the entry here is that this can be at grade. It is not at grade here. There's a major drop off. Um, that's one of the reasons we looked at it here and you can, you know, when you're on 20, you see the site, you see the grade change, right? This is quite a bit higher here. So the idea is, and you can see here, this is currently, this is the existing condition right now. It's very confused. Frankly, this is where you would get off your bicycle. Um, this is where I was talking with my children. This is the truck route into stop and shop in the site right here. I, I do not like having people get off their bicycles right here. And there's a transformer right here at all. So, you know, not only does it create just more synergy with Alyssa, um, we think it's just a safer solution. It also allows us to eliminate a pretty unbecoming dumpster here. It sounds like it works. I think, uh, six feet, you talked about almost the same here, not even six feet. Generally, um, the rule of thumb is if, um, the grade change is above eye level, then it's, um, it's, it's forbidding to people and they don't want to make it. So I think you're wise to go to the one that's less than six feet below five feet would be ideal. Yeah. And the grade change is gradual from here on up, but there's a significant grade change, um, for sure. And that's something, you know, the good news is like with signage, we have a great landscape architect MDLA out of Boston, and they have a Connecticut office. We have a lot of respect for them. AJ has worked with them quite a bit on other projects. Um, they've been really thoughtful in the way they've, we've, they've thought about this. This is one area we're gonna spend quite a bit of time in the next week studying, um, just to make sure when we come back to you all, we have something that we feel really comfortable with. Well, speaking of that, Jesse, I really liked the rendering that you showed of how that would look, uh, uh, but if the trees don't know the rendering, you know, if the trees, is there a way to do that, um, with trees that are native? We hope so. Um, some concerns about how trees have grown on site, um, but something we're studying actually. But you know, this is one of the reasons we feel like one of the assets is having, um, some of, uh, potentially the best home garden shop across the street in all of greater Boston. I would argue one of the best in New England. So, you know, we're really trying to leverage the knowledge that Russell's folks have around native plants. Um, you know, I think this is probably something more for a horticulturist versus, you know, um, something you'd buy at a, at a, at a Russell's, but like looking at tree varieties, indigenous tree varieties, where they grow, how they grow, what the care is, is part of this pursuit for us. You could also try talking to SVT. SVT? SVT, Sudbury Valley trustees. Nice. Huge quantities of, uh, land. Yeah. Great. Conservation land, but they, they seem to know what they're doing too, with trees. Great. Um, is there any thought to, so you've got, if you're coming from the bike trail, you've got to cross two, I'd call them roadways, but pathways through the parking area to get over to that pedestrian zone. Is there any thought? I know your truck entry is coming through here. Is there any thought to sort of making it so that only one of those goes through? If you want to drive from the local, the stop and shop, you would have to be on the one, let's say closer to the rail trail, which has to be your truck entrance and kind of close off the other one so that people weren't driving across your pedestrian area. I don't know. And that's making a face. She doesn't like that. Well, it's a parking area. I mean, there's all that parking stuff, so it would be... Yeah, but you can, you can get through on the, on the outside, just not on the inner lane. There aren't that many people who drive, who cut through like that. I don't, in my experience, being over there. That's how I go all the time. Okay. Well, I mean, I think a lot of people, if they're going from one end to the other, go out to Andrew Ave. Um, but you know, if you are by the local and you want to go to stop and shop, you'd still be able to cut through. You just do it on one side, as opposed to the other side of that kind of median that goes up the middle. Robin, it's an interesting point and something we'll look at. I mean, I think the idea would be once you pedestrianize this street, because if you're coming down this street, you're gonna take the first turn. It's just how humans behave, period, no matter what. Right. Um, it's, it's something we, we can look at actually. We, frankly, I don't think AJ correct me if I'm wrong. We have not even considered it, but it's an interesting point. Yeah. Yeah. It gives you more of that pedestrian area. Yeah. Um, and more visibility of the pedestrian area. Yeah. And it's not, it wouldn't be hard to do. And there's plenty of, there's plenty of parking on the local side and there's plenty of parking on the stop and shop side. Um, so I don't know that there's really a need to go through on both sides, but anyway, just a, just a thought. Yeah. Um, the other thing I thought about is, uh, I spent some time out in Cleveland and, uh, on a bike trail there, they have these, um, bike service that's a post and it has tools that are attached to it permanently. Uh, so if you need to do some quick repairs on your bike and they're really cool, I mean, if you just Google bike path, bike repair, you'll get, I think one company is Saris that makes them. We had one actually in another rendering. We didn't share with you. It's actually in this little show. Yeah. So that's pretty, that'd be fun. Yeah. We, we have electricity. You can have a compressor buried in there so that you can actually have an air pump. Yeah. We actually have electricity right there. Cause it's in the, it's in the trash enclosure. Yeah. So the ones with an air pump are really good, but anyway, those are my thoughts today. No, those are good. And it used to be, um,
it used to be a compactor there. So we're lucky to have, um, electricity. So I'm going to show you one thing quickly while we're on this. Well, you know what, why don't we keep going and then we can come back to it, but we, we have, um, took a lot of, um, so actually let me just show you this because I think it's really helpful. Hang on one sec. Um, I'm going to just switch views. Can you all see this? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So this is one of the drone shots we took recently. So Bill, to your point about the grade change, can't quite see a huge grade change from here to here. And it slowly starts to come up here to the point where finally you're at grade up here. And that's where the entry would be. You can actually see people have humans have organically used this. This was not a path. It just shows the way people want to move. Right. And it's just hard to fight that. So we're owning it. Um, this is the dumpster. Uh, so you're looking straight down to the rail trail and this is what you see. Um, what we are studying is, can we just increase pickups? So maybe this is the only dumpster. So we can kind of eliminate this one. We haven't quite completed that study. Um, but we're looking at it. And then the last point here is that this is the exit right now sequence right next to this transformer. And this is a pretty busy point on the site for cars. That's the point I was making earlier. So we just generally feel that if you can centralize entry and departure here with some of those bike amenities, soft seating, uh, or hard seating, frankly, um, and moving that dumpster, we feel really, really great improvement in connection with some of the other stuff we've been talking about. So I just wanted to show you that all that. Cause there's a good, and there's, it's a logical stop. There's a stop sign in the stop area right there where you don't have that on the other side. So people are kind of turning in and they're turning in to get to parking where here, it's like a logical, you have to cross and there's a stop. So I do think it's a kind of more logical break point. And then we can put signage there, um, to, and most, you know, a lot, a lot of that traffic, not all of that, a lot of that traffic is going to be going to parking or already had parked. Um, so I think that will help too, from like the, the crossover. Um, so I think, yeah, I think those are, that that's all relevant. Okay. The only other thing is that traditionally, when you have an LA like that, uh, a main axis and a plan, you usually have some kind of a major event of focal, but at the end of that focal point, uh, they usually have a park or they have a major gathering place or something, uh, that would draw people to go there at that intersection with the, uh, with the rail trail. So I think you probably want to have something there to announce that entry, almost a gateway celebration of some kind. Yeah. We didn't want to overwhelm you too much with more gateway signage, but it's something we've been looking at is, is treatments there as well. Um, we've got some work to do there, but we completely agree with you, Bill. Like it's got to feel like you're arriving somewhere. A place where teenagers might gather to hang out. Exactly. Exactly. Um, okay, let me switch back. Yeah, we, we have a, and we just haven't, I think we need another round on it, but we have like an enclosure there and a bike rack. So like, you know, we, we, we envision a place where you could sit, you could, you know, get off your bike, you could sit there, you could hang out there, you could wait for others. Um, but like you said, kind of like that visual moment of you've arrived, you know, at the entry of the, the rail trail or you're, you know, you're waiting for someone or you're getting your bike ready or, or you're fixing your tire and, and all that stuff. But to your point, there has to be kind of that moment where you're here, you've arrived. Um, so I couldn't agree more that that's a hundred percent intent. Okay. Um, this is slightly unrelated, but I've noticed the last couple of weeks, you've removed some of the color variation from building to building and everything's just gray. Is that going to stay that way? Yeah. We're, we're, we're trying to, we're trying to create a color palette. That's a little bit more consistent. We are bringing color back in, as you can see, like all the banners we're putting in are, um, you know, have more color. We were doing wayfinding. That's going to have color. We want to start adding art. Um, and so there's like a whole mural campaign and, and painting. So like, it's definitely like step one of the color palette, but for us, it's about creating a consistent brand and, and consistent palette throughout. And there's a lot of clashing going on with the current color scheme. Um, and didn't really have any sort of cohesion. So I think our, the efforts you're seeing right now are to kind of get back to a baseline and then start adding to it. Like you said, like what you see with the banners. Um, so it's, I think it, it may be tough to see it now as it's in motion, but I think, um, you know, with the signage, the wayfinding, um, us adding, you know, visual art pieces throughout and, and having opportunities to, um, to, to, you know, take that, that palette to the next level. Um, I think, I think you'll see it kind of come together, but, but yeah, it is part of the puzzle, but I would say, um, you know, maybe 20% of the whole story. The color palette is either in the master special permit or in the phase one site plan approval. So technically before you change it, we need to, you need to check that and make sure that you can change it without us making a change to the documents. Well, it's really, it's even based on like the design guidelines that we have in town, that you're supposed to be breaking up the faces of the building and colors. One way to do that. Bill, you want to stab at this? We will, um, we'll go back and look at that. I mean, our, our honest take, and I think every consultant as well as everybody on the ownership team looks at the vintage of these buildings and their roots and kind of what we would with all due respect, um, interpret as kind of this new urbanist move in a very suburban place with, you know, we see a lot of these color schemes, um, in suburban areas, largely in the Southeast, um, that are fabricated around the turn of the century, a lot of outlet malls. Um, we really, really don't like the colors. We will go back and look at it. We really, really like expression and personality and texture and variation between storefronts. It's something we're spending a lot of time with our tenants on. We believe that expression should come from the tenants in their unique identities and the way they think about these things versus the seven or eight different pastels that somehow made their way onto the site. Um, but we'll certainly go back and look at this and make sure we're, we're coming back to you all. Can you tell I'm passionate about this one? Yeah. Um, okay. So, um, just moving on the, the, the last bit we did want to share with you is around the open space. I know we're getting a time here. Um, so this was that last element and I, and I think we will also need a master special permit amendment and we'll work with you all in the language leading up to our filing that allows us to utilize these currently, uh, these, these green spaces that have no activity on them right now. So we're concentrated in these three zones. The, the A zone is where we're thinking about some sort of play, um, whether it's volleyball connected with the existing tenant there, whether it's, you know, small five aside type youth soccer fields, working with the local youth soccer academies, uh, dog park on B and then skating rink on C. You know, our goal here has been to find great local partners to do this versus us self executing. We actually feel that we found four of those groups already just through some of our due diligence. So, um, what we believe will have to happen though, is because the underlying zoning for all of these spaces is not for recreation or fields or courts, um, unless you are the town is to have some sort of language. We work, um, into the, into an amendment that gives us a right for ancillary. Meanwhile, um, you know, use of the open space for recreation and play elements, um, but does not actually change the underlying zoning and the intention that for example, you know, long-term there likely will be commercial buildings on these on a, and the intent is not to disrupt that long-term intended use. So we will need some guidance on that. We won't have some further conversations, but we wanted to be transparent with you all that that is something we are hoping to execute on. We've got operators that want to enliven and beautify these spaces. And we'd really like to be in a place this time next year where you go out there on a June night and you've got kids and families, um, out there using this green space. I think that we can work that out. And I think we can refer to it sort of as a temporary use, but not temporary, temporary, uh, because the bylaw as it was set up is set up for buildings. It's really not set up for anything else except for the open space that it already called out. But I think if you keep the underlying zoning and we give you permission to do temporary kinds of things, knowing that they're longer term than tomorrow, um, I think we can do it that way. Otherwise we'd need to amend the bylaw. Yeah, that, that works for us. And I mean, we're still going to keep them open space. We just want to have activities on those open spaces. Yeah. Yeah. Great. So from here, um, we've still got work to do continued engagement, um, with some of the groups we're talking to, you know, as, uh, and as you pointed out, we want to have conversations with public safety and fire around things like bollards and like, make sure we're on the same page with them. We, we do not want to work with you all to amend the master special permit, then be in a place where we have something that's not functionally sound. That's, that's the worst, uh, outcome, frankly. Um, so we will continue to kind of look at our plans. Um, we're going to start working on the drafting of our master special permit amendment and, you know, it would be our goal. And, you know, we think this is very doable, but also we have a lot of work to do to be back in front of you for a formal hearing sometime in July to discuss our master special permit, um, amendments. And, you know, we, we really want to be in a position, you know, a year after we close, so call it this fall, right? Where we're starting to invest some money to effectuate these changes. And by next spring, we want Whalen town center to be a place to show up at, and there's some great stuff happening. Um, and you know, it feels like a lot we're discussing today. Uh, there's a lot more that we are considering. Um, but we feel like just with these moves, right, you know, just with the updated signage, pedestrian, you know, kind of pedestrianizing a list and improving this connection. And some of these play elements, this place is going to feel really, really different to be more marketable for better local and regional tenants. And, you know, we think we'll attract far more people from the community. So, um, that's where we're at again. I know this was a lot. We, we so appreciate the opportunity to have what, what feels like, um, more of a discussion than a presentation with you all. And, and, you know, we've tracked all of this feedback and, um, it will certainly make our way into kind of future planning and thinking. In anything that you're doing, will you be creating more impervious surface? No, uh, it would, most of it would be. So just thinking through it, you know, one of the uses we're talking about is for volleyball, um, to extend like the indoor volleyball to outdoor volleyball courts, um, and activate that. So that, you know, I'm not sure if that, that would be considered, but it would be either like a grass or a sand material that they would be using. Um, and then the other side is, is the idea is to do a soccer field, um, for the U sports, Wayland and Weston have a, um, a program called war cats that's for, uh, eight to 14 year olds. And it's a Weston and Wayland program. And we're looking at building a field for them. So they have a home field right now. They don't have like a dedicated home, um, field. So that, that would just be a playing field. Okay. One other one would actually be the rink here, which is temporary and seasonal. It will just be November through February, maybe March that will be removed though. And that, so that will be something that's just in the winter. Um, but that will be right. That has water also associated with it. So you need to get rid of the water. Correct. And we have a great partner who's not only getting rid of the water, bringing the water in. Um, there will be some chilling elements, even though it is temporary rink. So it will be maintained, um, to the highest standards. And that's actually, we're not operating it. We had a conversation with them today. Like this needs to be executed really, really well. Um, and, and all in maintenance included. Okay. Annette, when you think of like the two uses for the back, does that, does that feel like an impervious change or does it? No, it's not, it's not, if you're, if you're going to be using a macadam cord or so, or a clay court, then you might have an issue. Um, and because there's drainage all over this site and it's really comprehensive drainage and it had to go through lots of permitting. Yeah. We're not looking to interrupt any of that. I will say, I will just say for the benefit of the board, and this is something we'll talk about in the future as well, as we think about potentially adding more commercial development. Um, we are actively working on improving and I wouldn't say improving. How do I say this? We recognize that this is a site that for certain uses will need approvals from Raytheon for. So it is something that we're not talking to this board about currently, but it's certainly something as we think about kind of how we move forward to maximize this piece of real estate, um, for ourselves, for the town, for the community, from a community economic development perspective, there are going to be certain things outside of our work with a town that we have to deal with Raytheon on. Um, and we feel one of the ways of doing that is to, um, establishing a line of communication with them and letting them know some of the things we're thinking about, like some of the stuff we spoke about today. So some of that work is, is happening in the background as well. Um, not the easiest, but necessary. Right. But most of those things, I don't, they shouldn't have an issue with because you're not going down into the ground and you're not really putting more water into the ground. Correct. That's our hope. Yeah. This is great. Very encouraging. Yeah. We're really excited. Um, we appreciate the time. Um, we view this as a partnership. I mean, even the feedback in terms of how we think about, um, these amendments, um, and, and how we think about kind of making some improvements to our plans, really, really valuable. And hopefully, um, this is, um, valuable for you all as well. It is. I think it's great. Great. Really appreciate your coming in. Great. And as you get closer, if you, um, want to, before you submit your application, if you, uh, want to go over with Robert or with me and Robert, um, the best way of approaching it, we'd be happy to do that. We will take you up on that offer. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks everyone. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you. Nine. Okay. Moving on. Um, review and approve draft minutes of 5, 13, 26.
Because everyone had an opportunity to review them. Yes. And are there any comments? No. Bill, are you okay too? Are you still reviewing? Yeah. I'm fine. You're okay. Ira, are you okay with the minutes?
Yeah. I love them. Thanks. You love them. Great. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 5, 13, 26? I move that we approve the minutes from 5, 13, 26. Who's seconding? I'll second if I can. You did. Good job, Ira. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. 4-0. Um, the minutes of 6, 1, 26. I had nothing. And if you want to talk about the substance, if anybody has any questions about, I'll just say that, um, they did move to, uh, the select board did agree to authorize the expenditure of $20,000 to assist the planning board in drafting, uh, Route 20 corridor zoning. And, um, it's being funded by, uh, money that Robert turned back from, uh, what was it? 60, 80, whatever. I can't remember the name of the section, but the monies that we hold, um, for, uh, oversight of projects and they were gifted back to the town and Robert figured it all out. Yay, Robert. Great. Yeah. Um, are there any comments or anything on them? Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 6, 1, 26? I move to approve the minutes from 6, 1, 20, 26. I second that. Thank you. Um, all in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Um, Ira Montague. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. 4-0. Um,
updates from the town planner. Do you have updates you want to give us? Yes. Well, just quickly on that thing we just talked about. Um, um, I did reach out to, um, based on the chair's discussion at the meeting, I reached out to different, uh, law firms to see if there's like student, uh, lawyers that would be interested to work on a project to draft the zoning for Route 20. And I, we have a discussion with, with Suffolk Law next week. Yeah. Next week to discuss that. So, um, you reached out to schools in the school. Yeah. Yeah. Not law firms. BU, Suffolk Law, Suffolk, uh, Northeastern. I, I wrote them all down, all the law firms. Okay. Right. But I can't phone in the Boston area to see if they're interested. And so far we have one that's, is willing to discuss and, and see, see if it's a good match or not. Have you talked with the town manager about, um, how to go about looking for a law firm also just in case? I did not, but I wanted to see this discussion first, how this goes. Okay. Okay. Um, I think last time, um, we were talking about for a site plan, um, how they work and what lapses there are and when you have to start, uh, your construction. And Robert had said something and I said, gee, I didn't think that was quite right by our regulations. So I want to clarify in our regulations at 302.24, they're the regulations for site plan. It talks about lapse of a decision and, um, at C and then parens four, it says that the time periods don't include appeals. You have to finish within five years, but the time periods don't include appeals made pursuant to these regulations and what would be at the conservation commission is not pursuant to these regulations. So Robert was correct that the timeframe is running, uh, on the Coptic church and they have five years to complete it. Two years to start, five years to complete. Yeah. What else? You had a meeting today, Robert, can you give us a briefing? Um, let's start back with the meeting that we had with, um, with the town manager first. We're talking about the clean energy sitting permitting, um, law that's in place and that governs the local regulations on solar permitting through towns and depending on your megawatts, how much you're building. Um, it depends if it, which, what kind of, uh, uh, process it goes through, even locally for the town, which would be maximum of 12 months, um, or for this, for the state, if it's, if it's much larger. So we had our original meeting with the town manager, with Olivia, who is the assembly coordinator, Michael Fea, the facilities, um, director, me, Annette Lewis, and then also Ellen from the NG and climate committee. Um, and just kind of discussing like who's gonna do what part because the town manager needs to appoint or putting someone in charge of different, some of the different processes. One of it is being the kind of the front door of the, when the town who works with the different land use groups. So that will most likely be me. Um, also someone needs to be in charge of negotiation, which would most likely be Michael McCall, if it would have, um, funds or any kind of negotiation that that's more of his skills and more of his, what I would be expecting from this town manager. Um, so that's the first meeting. And then I followed up the next time today with Ellen was there. Um, also Olivia and Michael were there too. Um, and we're discussing with a local, um, permitting staff president of the, of the Metro West region and just asking for more questions and they provide us more information. Bottom line is they're not, they're not quite there yet. We have a law, but they haven't finished the regulations and they haven't finished the potentially the proposed, um, model by law. It kind of feels like the MBTA where we have a law. We just haven't finished everything and send, we're one towns to apply and comply by, by October. But we, we're not, they're not there yet. So it's, there's a, there's something missing there. It's just, this is, it's getting annoying when we have these laws and we have to comply with them. And then the state doesn't like, I don't know, they, they don't yet, they don't even have it all done yet. It's like, so I'm still trying to gather as much information, but I also want to be, um, aggressively trying to figure this out before October. So that we're ready in case something comes up, which looks like, we might likely not happen. Right. But I want to be, I don't want to be having anger on our face. If something, something happens and we don't do it correctly. So. We actually need to be ready by July. The first is the bottom line, but we don't have to do a consolidated permit. The process is that you have to, as of October, you have to do a consolidated permitting with all of mostly all of the boards in town, like zoning planning, DPW and issue one permit. Um, and we also need to amend our bylaws to be in compliance with the statute. Uh, because right now we have certain timeframes within which we have to render decisions, which don't match the timeframes that are required under this new set of regulations. And, um, there are provisions for when you have to appeal or when an applicant has to appeal and they have to appeal X number of days from the issuance of the permit. So it doesn't work because you could get a permit in 60 days from one board and the consolidated permit wouldn't issue for another eight months, you know, so it's very messy and it is absolutely like the MBTA garbage. Well, and by the time we finally catch up on this, they're going to pass this other, the winds act. Right. And dump something else on us. Right. Did I share with you, I did a brief analysis of the regular those regulations. It was a one pager. Did we share that with you? I'll send it out. Um, just trying to figure out what the big pieces were so that Michael could figure out who to appoint to do what. So yeah, that's going to be another year, like the last three. So welcome, Bill.
Thank you. Oh, you're so welcome. Is there anything else? Does anybody have any concerns, comments that they want to make? I'm concerned that the legislature keeps dumping this stuff. I know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what to do about it. I don't. There's nothing. Yeah. I don't know. No, the only concern I have, and I don't think we have to discuss it tonight, is, uh, what we talked about with, uh, number one, Hob Street, that, um, and I mentioned this to Robert earlier, uh, yesterday, that, that intersection at local school, um, is really dangerous. And I think that the town will be responsible if some little kid crossing that street gets hit by a car, uh, if it's raining out or somebody is in a hurry to get to drop their kid off. It's really, it's begging for an accident. I think the town needs to put in a crosswalk. They need to have safety signs and they need to accept the fact that that is going to be an access to the school. And they have to put no parking signs there, or they have to put no parking and no stopping signs there. They can stop it. They have to be able to encourage people to drop these kids off there and they need to be able to create a safe access to the school from that. When I've been there, people generally either walk their kids or they drive and go around a circle. At least that's what I've seen, but we, Robert can mention it to the DPW and they can look at it. Because I think we should support it. I don't think we should fight it. Oh, I'm not fighting anything. No, I mean, it's, it's being used by the town. You're not going to tell them not to do it. They're just going to keep doing it. Um, we, a number of years ago, looked at the most dangerous intersections in town. There were five of them and we've fixed four of them so far. The fifth one is at Plain Road and Route 20, which is horrendous. And this is a sleeper. I think it would be a tragedy if some little kid got killed because we didn't take care of it. There is a crossing guard around there too. Around where people are supposed to let their kids go to school. Right. These people are trying to avoid the traffic, but. Okay. Well, Robert, if you can just mention it to Joe Doucette and ask if they can take a look at it in the morning when, and the afternoon when school. Yeah. If nothing else, at least some warning signs. So people are told this is a school crossing. You got to slow down, put in a speed limit limitation and a child crossing sign at that spot. So then the town is covered. And then if it's somebody still violates those warnings and at least we've covered ourselves. Yeah. Okay. So add that to your list. I'm smiling. Is your list getting long? He's tired. Okay. Anybody else? Anything else? No. Okay. Can I have a motion? Yeah. A motion to adjourn? Anybody else want to do it this time? No. I moved to adjourn. I'll second it. All in favor. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Bill Sterling? Yes. I reminded you. Yes. Yes. Annette Lewis. Thank you, everyone. We are adjourned.
Here.
Great. Annette Lewis here. Jesse Newberry will not be joining us this evening. Oh, and there is Robert Hummel. That's good. Thank you, Robert. We've called the meeting to order. I went over the agenda. And so are the people here from Hobbs Brook or Hobbs Road? If you're going to speak, just raise your hand so Robert can promote you guys.
Matt, do you not want to be promoted to speak? I know Matt was going to be on his phone, so I'm not sure if he is just having trouble getting on or just listening. He might just listen in and then speak if you need to. Okay. So, Robert, why don't you tell us where we are at this point? We know that we got comments from our peer reviewer, Greg Roy. And have we gotten anything from the applicant? We did, but it was sent at 4 or 3 p.m. Today? Yep. I just are now open my emails for this meeting. We've sent about three minutes after I left the office, so I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. Okay. What we should be doing for the applicant is that they should be getting us the materials. If we have a Wednesday meeting, we have to have the materials no later than five days in advance, but it would be best if we could have them a week in advance. Otherwise, I think that it doesn't make sense to continue and have hearings. It's wasting people's time and money. Correct. I did reach out to the applicant a few days ago. Yeah. I know, I'm just saying this for the applicant so that they hear it from us. Okay. So how would you like to proceed, Robert? Would you like Greg to start first? I would like Greg to start first. Okay. And to get it so he can answer your questions. We did have a site walk on, what was it, the 29th? 29th of May, where the board did walk the property. And with our peer reviewer and with the applicant. And we had a few comments at that time. And so we'll have Greg give us his report from the original report. And if he has anything to add from the site walk. And then we'll ask the applicant for their responses to Greg's report and things that we saw on site. Okay, Greg. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, Greg Roy with Dillson Roy. Good to see you all this evening. I'll try to be fairly brief here, but I'll go over, I'll highlight the comments that I issued in my letter. Just for reference, my letter was dated May 28th. And generally speaking, just in preface, I found the application fairly complete. I didn't have a lot of significant concerns, as you probably gathered from the letter. But I'll highlight a couple. And then as the chair suggested, at least one observation from the site walk as well, I'll add at the end. And so, again, I'm going to skip a few of the ones that really don't need to be highlighted. So one and two were real, excuse me, number one was really just, you know, reference for your board. Same thing with two relative to overlay districts.
Thank you, whoever posted that. So if I'm going too fast, please ask me to slow down. Number three was just to make sure that the, I didn't notice any exterior signage that the plans, identified on the plans. And I just wanted to make sure that that was indeed going to be the case. And if the applicant did want to have a sign, you know, to make sure that that's on the plan and conforms with that section 501 of your bylaw. Number four, Earth Movement, section 504.1 of your bylaw relates to this and has stipulates some requirements for whether or not special permits are required and things of the like based on the amount of earth work that's proposed on the site. And calls for earth work calculations to be prepared by either a registered engineer or a land surveyor. There's also a clause in that section, subsection of 504.1.2 that would allow an exemption. If the, if all of the earth work proposed is related to the construction of the foundation and the driveway and things like this. But in that case, it's, it also requires certification by a professional land surveyor or professional engineer. So we, we think that, that that should be provided by the applicant just to document compliance with the section or to document and support the wave or the exemption under section, subsection 1.2. So, um, number five, um, on the off street parking, um, the applicant, uh, is the plans are showing six parking spaces. They did in their narrative indicate, uh, that there'll be one staff member, that there's six units proposed, uh, in the, in the building and, uh, that there would be one, uh, full-time staff member, uh, and that, and actually on the site visit, the applicant indicated that a lot of the residents, uh, would not, uh, be driving to and from the site. Um, but we thought that, you know, just documenting that a little bit more, uh, robustly either on the plan or in narrative form would, would, would check the box on the parking requirement. Um, six parking design standards really don't have any objection to that, but we think that, you know, you should be our recommendation to just make sure that the police and fire are, uh, find that, um, you find it acceptable, uh, to, to, to be able to negotiate whatever vehicles they feel, uh, is required. To get in and out of that site.
Seven, um, we noted that the planting and mitigation plans sheet C3.1 didn't show any, um, any planting, um, or, you know, to, to, uh, check the screening box, so to speak, uh, that's required by that section. I will say though, that it's very small in the plan. I was just actually looking at it. There is an existing fence that I, that I identified that I saw when we were on the, on the site walk with the, with the planning board on the 29th, um, that exists today. Between that adjacent to that parking area. So I didn't see that in my initial review. It's, it's a little faint on the proposed plan. Um, so I, I will point that out to the board. Um, but that, uh, relates to just screening, uh, between a parking area and an adjacent residential use, um, which is number seven. Let's see. Um, number eight relates to, um, relates to the Dover amendment. And I'll, I'll just kind of leave it at that. I, I think, um, I think that the application is being proposed as an educational use, uh, pursuant to number 26 of the table of uses, um, which would be afforded, um, some relief, um, on, you know, only certain provisions of your, of your zoning bylaw and site plan approval regulations will apply. Um, I think there might be some questions over, uh, that, that, that, that the chair may, uh, may bring up, uh, relative to, uh, process and documentation, um, from the applicant as to whether or not that might be, uh, uh, whether or not we're able to check that box yet. Um, but I'll leave that up to the, um, um, number nine, um, again, despite the fact that this may be a Dover amendment, um, filing, um, we found that, you know, that, that, uh, um, most of the requirements in the application section, um, were met, um, and provided by the applicant. They are requesting a waiver to a traffic study, uh, which in this case appears to be, um, um, um, not out of line, uh, due to the, the minor volume that they're proposing. So we certainly have no objection to that waiver request, but we leave that up to the board, of course. Um, number 10, building height, uh, we, the architectural plans show the building height in a, in a few areas. Uh, and we believe that if the calculations were done, that, that you're going to, that the, the building height is going to be below, uh, the 35 foot that's defined by your bylaw. It's just that the calculations I think need to be done, um, to, to document that, um, an average grade calculation, essentially, since there's a multi, there's a walkout condition on this building. Um, so I think that just some additional documentation just to make sure that that, uh, the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. Number 11, um, again, um, just some additional dimensions, um, just for clarity on the plans, just to make sure we're dimensionally compliant with the, the proposed structure will be dimensionally compliant.
Uh, number 12, um, again, we found that the, the application of the plans and the submittal documents were generally in compliance with site plan review and approval regulations. Um, of course, um, of course, with the exception of the, of the waiver request for the traffic study, uh, which is, which is number 13. And I, I just said that, uh, earlier. So this is just a different section of your regulations. Um, we're into stormwater at this point, the stormwater and land disturbance bylaw number 14. Um, so just, uh, just going through the approval thresholds, um, we think that it would meet the, uh, requirements for a major, to be reviewed as a major project, um, just based on the amount of land disturbance that's proposed. Number 15, um, we noted that we didn't see any stockpile locations, material storage and lay down. So just to add those to the, uh, to the plans, uh, number 16, um, the, the applicant did use the, um, the, uh, appropriate rainfall depths from the NOAA atlases, but the rainfall distribution that was used, um, my letter indicates a type two. They used a type three distribution, which is, which is pretty standard, but it's an SCS distribution and, or an NRCS distribution and your regulations require a NOAA, uh, a distribution as published by NOAA. So that's just a modeling, uh, a modeling revision that needs to happen with the HydroCAD. Um, 17 relates to total suspended solids, TSS removal and nitrogen, uh, excuse me, phosphorus removal. Um, um, the TSS calculations, um, didn't, didn't show the 90% removal. So I, I think that, um, when I review the BMPs, better management practices, uh, that the, that the applicant is proposing on the plan, they are proposing proprietary, uh, storm scepter type, uh, uh, stormwater treatment units, and then underground infiltration and a rain garden. Uh, in one location. So I think that the TSS removal percentage will exceed 90%. They just need to document it. Um, and then we also just need to make sure we get the documented, uh, removal percentage, uh, of 44%, uh, which I think they've, their calculations actually document that, but not the overall, uh, percentage. So just for the benefit of the board, um, there's really two calculations we need for TSS in this case, because the soils are, are considered rapidly, uh, permeable soils. We need to document an overall TSS removal percentage of 90%, which can include the infiltration, um, better management practices. And then we need to document that there's 44% TSS removal prior to being discharged, uh, and infiltrated into the ground. So, um, again, I think that the plans doc, uh, show BMPs that will meet those requirements. We just need to clean up the TSS calculations that were submitted in the report.
Um, long-term pollution prevention plan. Um, I spoke to the applicant about this on, on, at the site walk. Um, it, it, it wasn't immediately clear that they had provided the requirements of the long-term pollution prevention plan. Um, so I, I have this comment in there. I think that they are combining it with the stormwater operation and maintenance plan. Um, so we just, we just ask that the applicant make that clear, uh, maybe in the title of the report, uh, and make sure that we're checking all the boxes on the requirements for the long-term pollution prevention plan.
Uh, let's see.
Uh, last is the, uh, wetlands and water resources bylaw. I'll just, I know this isn't necessarily under your purview, but I'll just go through this, just a couple of comments. Um, the, the, um, the stormwater pollution prevention plan, which again is a document that relates to on, um, construction period controls, uh, during construction or, um, offsite runoff and erosion. Um, they indicate that that that will be, uh, uh, uh, prepared, uh, in advance of construction. So either your board or the conservation commission, since this was a joint review, uh, may want to make sure that's a condition, uh, in one or both of the approval documents. Um, and then, uh, um, um, just to make sure that the O and M plan, um, includes, um, includes language and, and, uh, for snow storage, uh, coordination. Um, and then just generally speaking, I had five remaining comments. Um, again, just, just, just for the board's reference. Um, 21 is really just meant to kind of put context on the, on the stormwater design. Uh, the proposed impervious cover on the site is, is being reduced, um, from the existing conditions. So, uh, that means that more runoff will infiltrate into the ground and less runoff or runoff site. Um, just, just because of doing less, um, having less impervious, uh, area on the, on the site. So it's one of those unique redevelopment, uh, cases we don't see super often, but in this case, uh, you have that benefit. Uh, so, um, and then, um, in spite of the fact that it could be considered a redevelopment project, I wanted to just point out that the, the applicant to the board, that the applicant did not request any of the relief that could have been requested under the redevelopment provisions of the Massachusetts stormwater, uh, uh, policy. So they have documented compliance with the 10 standards and not asking for any, uh, redevelopment, uh, provisions. So they're treating it as if it were a, uh, new construction, so to speak.
Number 22, um, again, I, I, as I just said, I, I believe other than what I just said with some TSS calculation cleanup and things, uh, that I, I believe that, um, they've documented, uh, compliance with the, uh, Massachusetts stormwater management standards with no relief, uh, requested. For redevelopment, um, the rain garden, um, when I, I learned at the, uh, site walk in talking with the applicant that this was added sort of after the, uh, after the initial designs were prepared, um, and they're not really relying on it, uh, for the, to, to mitigate the flows. But, um, um, they may just want to take a look and, and tweak the bottom elevation if possible. It looked like, um, a couple of tenths might, um, might allow them to get compliant with the seasonal groundwater offset. Um, so that was just a general comment.
And then just for the, uh, more for the applicant's benefit, just to make sure that the, some of the septic systems under the pavement, uh, under the parking area. So just to make sure that they have, uh, you know, they got specifications for H20 loading on the septic plans just so they don't have any issues. And then 25 is, is again, mirroring, uh, the comment before just to make sure that the fire department is reviewed the, the site and has no concerns with emergency access vehicles. And, uh, and, uh, so that was the bulk of my letter. Um, I will say before I close that when we were on site, um, actually, Madam Chair, I think it was your, your comment, the, um, the lower, um, access entrance, um, which is a maintenance entrance, um, on the lower portion of the site off of, um, I guess that's Alden Road, if the plan's correct. Um, is a little bit tough on the site distance. Um, so if you, if you're looking, standing, looking, um, standing at the driveway, looking out of the site and you look to the left, the, the site distance up the hill and around the curve is pretty minimal. Um, so there was some discussions about, um, maybe looking to relocate the driveway a little bit further to the, um, it would be to the, to the West, uh, closer to the, uh, the intersection of loker street, um, maybe some vegetation, uh, clearing there might, might help too. I know that's a little bit of a double-edged sword because it's the vegetation acts to help, uh, screen things too. Um, so I did want to point that out. Um, uh, I don't have any issues with the site distance, the primary site distance, if you will, which will happen off of Hobbs Road. That, that seems to be, uh, acceptable and it's a pretty, it's a dead end street. Uh, so not a lot of through, certainly no through traffic in that location. Um, so I wanted to point that out too, but I think that's all. I happen to take any, answer any questions if the board has any.
Are there any questions from the board? When we were out there, um, I believe that, uh, several members saw things that they would like to bring to the attention of the applicant again, formally. Um, I know Bill did, Bill Sterling did. Did you, Robin, have anything you wanted to bring to the attention? No, I don't think so. Okay. Ira? No? Okay. Uh, Bill, why don't you mention? No, sure. It's actually, uh, picking up on, uh, uh, what Greg just, uh, discussed, which is the sight line distance, um, that is, um, walking the site. I think, um, my first suggestion had been to screen off the, um, uh, visibility of the service loading area with a fence. But, uh, as, uh, Jesse and I walked the site, he pointed out, out on the sidewalk, that, uh, the visibility for, um, drivers, uh, at the corner and the intersection was really cut off by the temporary fence that's on the site right now. Uh, and, uh, he suggested, uh, that we should do the opposite, that we should not have a fence along that road, um, but, uh, instead, uh, maybe some shrubs, but even though should be set back a certain distance. And that's the question I have, uh, for Greg, uh, what, what is the site distance requirement? Is it a specific number or is it just, uh, using judgment? Um, it's, yeah, there's a specific guidance based on the, um, the, the speed, the, and it, you know, it's, it's actually, it's not necessarily just the posted speed either. It's the, uh, it's the traveled speed on the road. Um, you look at sort of the mean 85th percentile, I think. Yeah. Thank you. Um, so, and that would be published in AASHTO, um, in the, the AASHTO, um, highway design guides or the design guide for rural. You know, small rural roads. So you could come up with a, the applicant could, could review that and come up with what the, what the required intersection distance and safe stopping distance would be and do, do an analysis on that. Um, I think we need, I'm not sure what that, I'm not sure what that is out of my head, but there is a definite, it's formulaic. It's formulaic, it's formulaic, it's formulaic, Bill. You can, uh, there's a table that you can look up to determine what that is. And it's under the jurisdiction of the, uh, Board of Public Works and or the DPW. They're the ones who give the permits for the curb cuts. Uh, I would say that's true. Although this one's a little bit of a unique case on the maintenance drive. I will just make sure I point out to the board, the applicant may as well, that they aren't proposing a new access there. They're, they're proposing to, um, to utilize the existing, uh, driveway curb cut that's there. So it's a little bit of a, I'm not sure exactly how they'll. Except that it's a different use that they're proposing on the site. That is very true. I, right. But I did just for reference. Thank you. Yeah. So I had, that was one point. The second one on this, I only had two. The second one was, uh, what Annette brought up at the walkthrough, uh, which I agree with. That, um, uh, you addressed it in the letter here, that the, um, visibility of the parking lot from, uh, residential abutters. Um, it's not really indicated on the current plan, uh, what the, uh, designer is intending to do to create that. But what we discussed, what I felt was the most important thing was block, or at least diminish the visibility of headlights of cars parking in that six car lot. Cause that's not a typical residential usage capacity. And even though there may not be many people with cars there, uh, it probably would be better served if they did screen that off. And we, at the site, we had discussed putting that picket fence that's there now over on the road, moving that over to screen off the parking lot from the residential property that abuts it. But I think we need to see, uh, what, um, the designer intends to do there.
Okay. Um, I guess at this point, I'd like to turn it over to the applicant and you can decide who on your team you would like to speak. Okay, thank you, thank you, uh, can you hear me now? Yep. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I would ask, uh, Brandon, I guess, to, uh, just comment on some of the, uh, changes that we've made since the, uh, site visit, uh, and some of the thoughts that we had, uh, to address, uh, the things that you're talking about, including the, uh, you know, site distances and, and, uh, screening and, and, uh, whatnot there. Do you need to use, um, any display on this? Do you need to display anything on the screen? This is Brandon Ducharme with David E. Ross. I think I can just run through most of these comments, um, without the plan, but if more detail is necessary, I can certainly bring that up. Um, I can just run through these comments in the order of, yeah. If I may, can you, um, share the screen with the, the PDF that you send with the responses? That'll be, or I can do that too. That, that way we can track easily. Let me know if everyone can see that.
So as, as mentioned, we, we did get a response letter back fully understanding that, you know, given the fact that the hearing was tonight, that you wouldn't have a chance to properly go through and review these responses. But, um, what I'll do is I'll kind of just run through the list that Greg had and give our feedback. Um, the first comment was comment three, which is pertaining to the signage. And again, what we stated in the letter is, is basically the idea with this development is to get it to blend into the neighborhood. And correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, there is no, uh, signage that'll be, uh, visible or out at the street at all. So it, it really is. The goal is to blend it in like a residential home. Correct. Just to, you know, address of the building for fire department to, to see from the road as is required. Yeah. Uh, the second item. Brandon was. Yep. Can you, uh, you're sharing the plan, but I think it would be helpful if you share that letter. That you have, it's a, with your responses below that way. Uh, yeah, that one. Okay. So kind of just running through these responses, as Greg said, some of these, there was no response. A lot of them were just comments addressing the submittal. Um, you know, we covered number three, which is, you know, since it's a proposed residence is assigned to blend in with the existing neighborhood, no additional signage is being proposed. Uh, comment number four has to do with the earth movement. Um, we've done a couple of things. I mean, first of all, we just wanted to specify that all of the proposed earth work on the plan, um, applies solely to the installation of the principal structure, the septic system driveway and walkways. Um, but we did run through and do some modeling of that in using, uh, software civil 3d and the cut fill analysis, um, results that we found was there's approximately 382 cubic yards of cut. Um, and 524 cubic yards of fill, which results in a net fill of approximately 142 cubic yards. Um, but again, as Greg was alluding to, given the fact that most of, or if not all of that earth work is relating to those items I addressed, we're looking at the exemption under, uh, 1.2. Uh, number five, just, again, just dealt with the, the parking and the number of spaces. And we kind of just reiterated what was in the initial letter, um, that there's a single handicap accessible van that will be stored onsite that provides transportation to the residents. Um, so consequently, it's unanticipated the residents will require onsite parking beyond the space designated for the staff members unit. Um, the additional parking that we show, which is the additional five spaces would be designated for guests of the residents as needed. And then again, just to point out in special circumstances, um, supplemental parking can be accommodated, um, off of the second access off of Alden street in that, uh, what we're calling more of the maintenance, uh, parking area. So again, we've talked a little bit about this one, but number seven, um, the intent is there's an existing solid wood fence that's located between the parking area and the residential property. Uh, that, uh, that, uh, that, uh, that it abuts, um, I'll, I'll point out that, uh, the, the abutting property has parking that goes up against that fence as well. It's, it's, it's front load. So, you know, the headlight concern is probably, uh, for both properties and the intent is to continue to use that existing fence, um, to be a permanent, uh, screening between both parking areas. Is that fence shown on the plan presently? Yes. And as Greg said, it, it's not as bold because it's existing, um, but it is identified and labeled on the plan. Perhaps you can show us that when we're done with the letter. Sure. Yep. Um, comment number 10 had to do with the building height calculations. And I know we did discuss that initially at the opening hearing, and I, and I believe the architect was going to provide some additional information as to, um, how that was calculated. So in, in, in our response, we're, we're kind of just defaulting to the, the architect to, to provide that additional detail.
Section 11, uh, not section 11, uh, number 11 has to do with the dimensional offsets. Uh, our plan set included a, a zoning table on the cover sheet. And what we've done is we've actually revised sheet C 2.0 to show those dimensions on the plan view. In addition, we also have added a zoning setback line, um, just to show each of the setbacks, be it, uh, a front offset, the side, uh, lot line, as well as the rear lot line. Um, in regards to the traffic study, and again, just to support kind of what Greg was saying, um, you know, given the fact that there's minimal, um, vehicle trips anticipated here, it's essentially, um, probably closely tied to what a single family residence is, which is, is why we've requested that waiver to doing a traffic analysis. As we get into the stormwater and land disturbance, which is chapter 193, um, we've noted the comment, and I, I can provide that the project disturbance is greater than 10,000 square feet. So it would be considered a, a major project under, uh, chapter 193.
Comment 15 has to do with the stockpile, uh, material storage and lay down areas. Um, again, I can show you on the plan. It's actually pretty easy to bounce back and forth, but there's an area over here just off the intersection of Alden Street and Hobbs Road that's outside of the 100-foot buffer zone and the riverfront area. So we've, we've designated this area, uh, for, for stockpiling and storage lay down area. Um, there is also a detail on the stormwater, um, erosion control. Um, that has to do with, uh, erosion controls that would be necessary if the stockpiling is to happen in that area. As we get into the drainage design, the comment, uh, was pertaining to using the NOAA, uh, distributions. Um, I haven't had a chance to send that over, but I, as of five o'clock today, I, I've got revised calculations, um, that model, uh, based upon your regulations. And based on our findings, uh, it does not impact the drainage design, but we will certainly send that to you and to, um, Greg to have a review of that. Uh, and again, in regards to the TSS removal, um, the TSS removal loads have been achieved by meeting method B, and then we've provided some additional calculations, um, demonstrating that we, we meet those requirements. Um, within the operation and maintenance plan, um, it's, it's including the long-term maintenance of the site, uh, all necessary information has been provided within this document. In regard to the stormwater pollution prevention plan, we just note that it will be submitted prior to construction and I just kind of echo, um, that, that could be a condition of the approval that that would be done prior to construction. The operation and maintenance plan will be updated to add, uh, uh, snow storage, uh, that, that's certainly something we can add, um, comment number 23, just again, the, the initial filing with conservation, we, we designed the drainage system. Um, and at that point we had proposed an overflow into the, um, the, the town municipal drainage system, um, and in our meetings with DPW, the comment was made that they would not like that to be connected in. So at that point, our overflow, uh, was being released on site, um, and in discussions with the conservation commission, one of the things that we added to, to kind of help mitigate, uh, mitigate, uh, any runoff and kind of control some of that overflow, uh, we, we proposed that rain garden. And one of the reasons why the, it isn't incorporated into the treatment is because of the, we have a high groundwater condition in the back of the site there. And we weren't, we weren't able to meet the, the groundwater offset and we're kind of dictated by the, the elevation of the slab. Foundation in the back and the road, uh, basically there's, there's not a lot of pitch there for us to be able to, um, sink that rain garden any further as it stands. We've got a one, it's basically a little over a foot and a half, 1.66 feet from the estimated seasonal high groundwater with regard to the septic design. The septic design was done by Gala, um, and I, I went through that plan again today. Um, the leaching field is, is specifying all schedule 40 PVC piping. Uh, there's notes on the septic design, um, stating that both the distribution box and the septic tank, which are either below the parking area or within close proximity to it, um, will be H20 loading. Um, and then the last comment here is with regard to access to the site for the fire department. Um, one of the things that, um, we, we have done on this is, is we've done a turning movement sketch showing access from both Alden Street and Hobbs Road. Uh, we, we, we, we modeled, um, an aerial fire truck just to show that the, the fire truck can get on and off the site. Um, Matt has sent this, um, for comment and to date we have, we have not received any comments back. Am I correct in that, Matt? Yes, that's correct. So, lastly, as, as we look at this plan here, you can see it says stockade fence, right? As it stands today, the fence begins right about here, wraps all the way down the side. There's a jog of the fence and it, it goes, extends all the way up to this point. And as you can see, um, the existing property here has parking along that goes up to the fence. And this, this fence would be between our parking area and the parking area that's on the abutting property. If you look at the sign, um, in that area that says van accessible aisle, that property isn't yours up there. I see. This is your property line. Got it. Yep. So, okay. So all, all the trees and every, lot three isn't yours, but. Lot three is our lot. Yep. Oh, lot three is your lot. Yes.
Okay. So the last comment I just wanted to make was just regarding the site distance. And, and again, what we tried to do was utilize the existing curb cut. Um, we certainly acknowledge that, you know, give it, given the curvature of Alden street. Um, the site distance is, um, the site distance is a challenge. Um, and speaking with Matt, um, what we, what we are proposing is to remove some of that vegetation within the right-of-way. Um, which would, um, which would, would increase the amount of site distance that, um, would be for any vehicles traveling, uh, in this direction towards the intersection of Alden and Loker. Um, I quickly looked at, um, I quickly looked at, at the, the stopping distances. And if we were to remove, I think there's, there's three trees, um, that would get us a stopping distance of approximately 115 feet, which would, would meet the, the guidance in terms of stopping distance. But we would, it would not meet the required, uh, distance for site distance. Well, I think site distance is what governs it, isn't it? Yeah. And that's a school zone speed limit there. Yeah. When the school's in session.
So with the trees that you'd have to remove, were they in the right-of-way or are they on your property? They, they, they would be within the right-of-way. And then you'd need a tree here. Essentially. It's, it's these three trees here, which would, would need to be removed. Okay. Have you spoken with the DPW yet? I have spoken to them, not about this specific issue. Um, one of the things that we did, um, I think Bill and actually, I kind of looked at was there's an immense amount of, of bittersweet, uh, you know, which is invasive in that specific area. Um, so, I mean, I, I'd like to, you know, remove that anyway. Um, but again, that, you know, when removing the trees, to your point, we would have to kind of go through the process, uh, and that wouldn't, that would also involve the DPW board. So, Robert, um, have you spoken with the DPW since our site walk? Yes, I have. And what did they have to say? I'm just waiting for, I'm waiting for the current, but then to review the plans. I've worked to, I've worked to review the plan. Okay. They haven't come back to me yet. Okay. Before the next meeting, we need to know what that is, because if they need to have a tree hearing, we should try and see if there's a way to do that so that we don't, um, hold everything up. Uh, and can I ask a question? The, uh, the tree hearing is for seven trees. Is that our number in Wayland? No, it's for any tree. Any tree in the right of way, Matt. Yep. Oh, in the right of way. That's what it was. Okay. Yeah. Oh, the seven trees is the, uh, conservation commission. That's, I get, I apologize. No, it's easy to get confused. So I would add, uh, what, um, we noticed though was the trees right at the corner, um, are also blocking view of potential children crossing at that point to get over to the school. Oh, it, it looks to me like a hazard, hazardous intersection that really needs to be fixed.
On the, on the Hobbs Road intersection or the lower? Yeah, the Hobbs Road intersection with Alden. That, that corner, no, go back to the other plan that has the trees on it. Um, there's a lot of vegetation right on that corner, right tight to the property line. And, um, I, if you could limit up, I don't think the trees necessarily have to be cut down, but they should be limbed up so that, uh, there's some visibility of, um, people trying to cross that street. Um, so if we propose to limb up, what, six or seven feet, if I, if I make an assumption. Somebody's sitting in the car is about four feet. Their eyes are about four feet off the ground. You got to get above that so they can see straight ahead and a couple feet above for. Five or six feet. Yep. Is that a, like a, kind of a known. So if we limb up the, would we then need to cut any of those trees? I don't know the answer to that. You really have to judge it by, um, um, your, your, maybe we would add that into kind of the scope of work for that area to remove the ones that are imperative to remove, but then coming up all the way. But again, you know, it's, it's, um, happen to do either, but I think we had also, uh, discussed at one time, um, putting an additional buffer, uh, you know, in that area. So. We did it. I'm retracting that. I was the one that was pushing for it. Okay. Okay.
15 feet of clear visibility from the curb. Well, it doesn't mean you don't still have a buffer. It's just that the buffer's pulled back. Pulled back 15 feet. Yeah. In limbing up, you also have to be cognizant of the fact that as Alden Road goes to the east, it goes up a hill. So you might have to go up a little further than you think you do. Yeah, that's right. And anything that's in the right of way off of your property line requires a tree hearing with the planning board and the board of public works. We do a combined one. Um, and on your own property, you just have to worry about the conservation commission. And is there a separate, um, application for that? For tree hearing? Yes, there is. So I can get that from. Um, it's, uh, available online. I think Robert, can you send it to them? Where am I sending? I can just go down there and pick it up. Um, the tree hearing request. From Anita, I think has it down there must. I don't have a form. Oh, okay. I thought there was a form. No? No. No. Request? It's mostly when someone emails and says, I need to do a tree hearing. Yeah. I think my, my suggestion would be that you have someone from the DPW. I think it's usually Joe Doucette. Yeah. Out with you and walk that area for the two things. One to make sure of, you know, trees and what has to be done. And the other, uh, for the site distance. Because they're gonna, if you move, you'll have to see if you have to move the, the opening, the curb cut on Alden, but you still might need to move it. Okay. Can we, can I ask for that? Or, or Robert, is that something that we can set up to, you know, to walk with Joe or, uh, make an appointment with him or how would I? Yeah. Just send an email to him, me and Joe. And when you try to set something up, say walk for that. Is there anything else that we need to go over with what we've already spoken about? Um, okay. Moving on. Um, at this point, your application, um, is, although it's for congregate living, it doesn't fit any of the congregate living requirements because there's nothing that shows us that it is either being done in conjunction with the housing authority or in conjunction with anyone else. Um, and. I'm sure we did get, I did get a letter today from the APKIN with agreement with, with, with, uh, um, Miniman Ark. Miniman Ark has signed. There is an agreement, a written agreement? Yes. And I think the APKIN was, was, was finalizing it. He was signing it today. So it wasn't. I, I apologize. I just, I saw, I, we've received it. I had forwarded it. Um, but I wet signatured it today. Um, so that's on me. I, you know. Okay. So, but there isn't, you have Robert, you have the agreement in hand. I got it today. Okay. So we'll look at, at that. Um, and I'm assuming that it'll be fine. Cause otherwise I was going to say that, um, if you wanted to continue, it would have to be a special permit in front of the zoning board because it's in a residential district and all you can do here is a single family dwelling. Yeah. That it's, it highlights the role of response barrier of Oak Tree Management Inc. The role of Miniman Ark for Human Services Inc. Uh, education of charity purposes, the terms and future agreements, convention, good faith, non-binding nature, operation, operation, and then assigned by the CEO of, uh, Miniman Ark. And it will be, it was, it has been also, what is the non-binding nature say? Um, except for the vision related to the convention and the party's obligation to act in good faith during the terms of this letter, this engagement letter is non-binding and intended solely as expressed of the party's perfect present good faith intend to explore potential correlation which we regard in the project. Nothing contains here shall obligate any party to receive out with consuming aid or finance or otherwise participate in this project or a transaction related, therefore, unless, until definitive agreements are negotiated, executed, and delivered by the applicant parties. Pretty much just saying that, that they are on board and this, that they're not, this is not like surprise to them that they, they have been working towards an agreement. Well, it's a little less than that. Um, when do you anticipate having a real agreement, not just an agreement to agree?
From a financial standpoint, you mean to put the numbers in there? I don't know. But what you've got now, what Robert just read, to me is an agreement to agree in the future. It is not a binding commitment. So I'm at, I'll explain why in a minute, but I'm asking when you think we'll be, what timeframe will, will we be dealing with for a final agreement with the art? I think that's, um, Andy, um, I can ask you to comment, but my comment would be it's financially based. We don't know how much money we're going to get from, you know, the different sources, the town, but, uh, yeah, Sinith or Andy? Yeah, I can, I can answer. So where we are is we are moving several, uh, balls in the air. So this is one part of the, uh, again, uh, identify myself to new John development consultant. So having a site plan approval or, um, is one action that we require then go to DDS, Department of Development Services to, for them to support for funding that we require. We will parallelly go to the housing authorities in Wayland to get, so, so we are doing this in parallel. So for them to fully come on board that their board is also saying that is, uh, Andy, you can step in is that we need to have the project to a certain stage for them to fully say that we will sign an agreement operating agreement. So we could say that we can have it in three months, but several other things have to fall in place. I hear you. I just want to say that under our regulations and by law, you have to, once we issue a decision, you have to start construction within two years and you have to complete it within a total of five. I think it's five. Is it five or three, Robert? Five. So, I mean, we can, we can, we can have it as a potential condition. No, we can have it as a condition, but it will stop. I mean, once the other condition, as Annette said, as the chair said that the clock's kind of starts. So it's not like, oh, it will, the clock will stop when you have building from it. Like once a decision is issued and signed the clock for the two years starts. So, I mean, I think, I think from this point of view, I think this is the best you're gonna get at this point because there's so much in the air and, but I think they are committing. They just, we have, they just have no written agreement with numbers that, that would make sense quite yet, but, but it has been signed by the CEO. So they did sign it. So it's not just someone just writing a letter or something. So, um, I would, but I would let the board, once the board, we'd be able to let the board decide into any other comments on it. And if I, and if I can add, we had asked, um, some different town departments and again, it's, and it's almost like, uh, you know, simultaneous or in parallel, like Xenius is, uh, identifying, uh, something from the town that we could bring to the state to the DDS and say, yes, the town of Wayland has acknowledged. They do want more group homes. They do want this. So, um, well, if you want that, we can get that from the, um, the town manager, because that is something that the town wants. Because I had, okay. I'll ask Mike again. Oh, very good. I do think that, uh, from the perspective of men and men are too, uh, if the, uh, and a lot of this, our boss is DDS. And so Cindy said, we're looking for support from DDS. And support from Wayland is, uh, very influential. I think when they see that local support and they see that, that we've gone before the planning board that helps to, to move DDS. And it actually is my personal opinion, but starting that clock might not be the worst thing to get DDS moving on it too, because they want this to happen as well. They recognize the need for more creative models like this, and they've shown great interest in it, but it's almost like nobody wants to be the first one to make a commitment. Um, and that's what we struggle with. And Andy, you have a letter from DDS, um, showing that. We do have a letter of support. Yes. From DDS and supporting the model. And Andy and Matt has been in front of several town boards for about a year now, or more than a year. So the Minutemen Arc has publicly recognized coming and Matt going to project for this project together. So there's this commitment through action. It's not been papered yet in a more defined form because of all the reasons we just mentioned. Right. But whatever you do have in writing, you should submit to us so that we can reference it. Because I hear what you're saying, and I certainly understand, but we don't like to approve something that is, um, not real. Absolutely. Yeah. I understand.
Um, Robert, do you have anything else that you think we need to go over? Um, I think we did mention last time that, I don't know if they, we haven't seen updated site plans yet, but I believe we wanted to see setbacks for the, for the building. So I thought that they submitted them today. They didn't, they just submitted comments. Just the comments. There's no, I don't, I don't have any update plans, which I think they're just waiting. Yeah. There was a link in there, Robert to down the, the plan sets was too large. Yeah. So yeah, you can download those. Yep. Yep. No problem. Um, um, yeah, I think there's, I think there's a few asking questions, but I think I would like to look at the plans before I, cause I have, I don't know what's, what's on there yet. Okay. Um, currently, um, we have, um, a letter from you agreeing to an extension of time to June, the 26th. There's no way we're going to make June, the 26th, because we haven't even looked at what you've gone to do already and submitted. Um, and, um, we can put you, if you think you can get to the plans, uh, and anything else that you need to complete by June, the 24th and have talked to the, um, whatchamacallit, the DPW and have that under control. We can either have the next hearing on the 24th, or we can have it at the next meeting after that. And, uh, we would ask you for an extension of time to render the decision as well. I don't want to rush you, but I don't want to run out of time. If the, uh, and I believe, uh, you know, uh, DPW has been pretty, you know, accessible. I don't know, Robert, do you think that that's, we could get a walk through with, uh, Joe and have a comment back from him to, uh, you know, give the board, uh, you know, ample time to review any comments that he has? Yeah. If you, if you put, pull up more pressure on him and say that the board is looking to get answered by the 20, by the next meeting and so that they can actually vote and then we can run a decision, you know, in a few, for the few weeks. Well, yeah, I mean, we need it before, we need it by the 17th so that we knew what was happening and that the applicant would know if they had to revise their plans. Right? Yes. I mean, I can certainly, I, you know, I'm going to intend on going down tomorrow. Right. But I'm going to, I'm going to leave it to you, Matt. If you want to have the time to get all of your ducks in a row, because you still have a bunch of stuff that we don't have, um, we can go. Our next meeting, as I said, is June the 24th and the meeting after that is July the 8th. 9th. The 9th? 8th is what I have on what you gave us. Oh, so I can fix it. But if we pushed it to the 9th, we would have to sign another extension form. Yeah, we have to do another extension no matter what. Oh, we do. Yeah. Yep. Right. It is the 8th. It's not the 9th, Robert. July 8th. Oh, I put out the, I put out lashes. I'm looking, I'm sorry. I'm looking at lashes. Calendar. Yes, you're on the 8th. So Matt, what's your pleasure? I mean, I don't want to have to have two more hearings is what I'm saying. I mean, I'd like to just do what we need to do. Um, I think, um, Brandon, can I, uh, ask you, I, uh, we've submitted the plans. Do you think we need more time to, to address some of the, uh, consultants, uh, items or dot the I's and cross the T's or, um, um, yeah, the, the plants that's been revised and, and sent back, obviously they need time to, to go through that. The only, the two, yeah, sorry. They have two outstanding items. Yep. Yeah. We, so we had, we would have to revise this again. And then if Joe Doucette has some comment, we would have to revise again. Correct. It would, it would only be if DPW had comments or the fire chief. And we will, we should do the fire chief, um, as well. There were, Robert, did you send them the comments that we got from Rich Ripley? Uh, I thought I did. I can send them again. Was that, that was recently? We got it on May the 14th. Matt, I think those were the initial ones that prompted us to do the sketch. That we responded to. They were? And that's why we did the drawing. Okay. Well, there, there's another thing about, um, the hot, the nearest hydrant. Yeah. On the, it's shown on the, uh. Okay. And then the fully, the, the building is fully sprinkler. Yes. Okay. And no, no, uh, solar arrays or EV charging stations. No. Okay. Great. Sorry. Well, Madam Chair, regardless, regardless, because the deadline is the 26th. So even if the, even the board issued, issued or approved a decision on the 24th, it's going to take more than two days to finalize the decision, most likely, just because it's, there's a few moving parts. So. No, absolutely. The deadline most likely has to be moved anyways, unless as it can, you know, the lesson decision is very clean and we can, it can turn around in two days, which. Yeah, no, we don't, we're not going to do that. But. Right. So it's pushed to the 8th then, if that's. Okay. So we would have a hearing on the 8th. We would skip our meeting on the 24th. And we would, um, vote to extend, uh, to, uh, continue the hearing until July the 8th. Okay. Okay. Um. Is that, that sounds terrific. Okay. But then we need an extension of time to issue a decision. Okay. If you, if you got us everything and we had everything and we could close the hearing on July the 8th, then hold on. I'm out, I'm out the 10th, 10th, the 9th we're here and 10th we have, we have summer vacation. So we're not, I know we're actually here on Friday. Okay. And then I'm also out on Monday, so. Okay. From my point of view, I can't, I wouldn't be a turnaround. Until maybe, until. The 13th or the 14th probably. Well, more like the 17th. I would say at 16th, because we don't, we don't actually have, um, we have, we have four day work week and summer. So I would say the 16th. Um, but we wouldn't have seen the decision where we're just, either they'd have to rely on you and me or. Then you have to push it back. Or we'd have to have it until like the 22nd or 23rd. Well, unless if by pushing it back to July 8th, maybe we have enough there that we can have a draft decision ready for July 8th to talk about. I started working on it today, so. Okay. So Robert, for your schedule, um, what would you like? I, I, I don't want them to have to keep expecting. Um, well, there's a board. If, if it gets a draft decision by the 8th for the board to at least kind of have their eyes on it, then, then I should be able to turn, turn around and be afraid to be signing by the 16th, which should be about a week after. Okay. Yeah. And the wild card will be whether we have to have a joint meeting with the DPW about trees. Well, that would require two week hearings and everything. Right. I'm just saying that's the wild card. No, it is the wild card. But we would know that by July 8th. Yeah. Okay. So, um, Matt, can we get an, um, Robert will send you a form and just ask you to sign it. Sure. Is that okay, Robert? Yeah. Uh, extending, uh, the time for a decision until July the 16th. Is that what you said, Robert? Yep. And that can still have like, um, conditional decision, right? Yes. I mean, it will be conditional, but, um, there's only so far that I think we'll want to be able to condition. I mean, we're having a lot of stuff, but we want to make sure that the site lines are okay, where the main plan is. Um, you know, that sort of thing. Okay. What time on July 8th? Or do you? No, he doesn't. What time on July 8th? If we're going to have a motion? Um, Um, how about, um, how about, um, not seven? I don't want to do a seven. Uh, how about, um, 715?
Okay. And that's a zoom meeting as well. You don't want to have an in person. Pardon me. So can I have a motion to continue this hearing on one Hobbs road, uh, until July the 8th, 2026 at 7 15 PM? So moved. Second, anyone? I second. All in favor. Um, Bill Sterling. Aye. Robin Borgestedt. Aye. Annette Lewis. Aye. Uh, Ira Montague? Ira? Are you here? Ira? Ira, are you? It'd be helpful if somebody stopped screen sharing so we can see each other. Oh, Brandon, want to bring that print down.
Ira? Ira, you're muted. Oh, there. You can't figure out how to unmute. Is there a way to unmute him, Robert? There it is. There it is. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Um, so, uh, the hearing motion approved and the hearing is, uh, continued until July 8th at 7 15 PM. Thank you. And please do try and get all that stuff under control so we can issue a decision. You need to mute yourself again. You need to mute yourself again.
What is that? It's because I resigned on twice. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very, very much. Have a good night. All right. Yep. Bye-bye.
Robbie, can you promote Ann Gordon, please? I think she's in the audience. Hi, Ann. Thank you for joining us. Um, perhaps you'd like to just introduce yourself to the board. Well, we'll introduce ourselves to you and then you can introduce yourself to us and tell us why, um, you want to be on the design review board. Um, so going across the top, we have Robin Borgestedt. I obviously am Robin Borgestedt. Um, been on the planning board for a few years. I'm also on the design review board for now. Um, I don't know. I'm a lawyer and I live in Wayland. I don't know what else to say. Right. And I'm Annette Lewis, but I think you know that. Um, I do. And then we have Ira. Can you say hello?
Bill, can you say hello? Yeah, I know. I do know Ira. I mean, I've, I've, I've sat with him in meetings. Okay, great. Yeah. And you know Bill. I know Ann as well, having worked for the COA for a number of years. So tell us why the design review board? So, um, thank you for having me and thank you for considering me for the position. I, uh, have lived in Wayland for 30 years and I think probably like all of you, uh, long time Wayland resident, then I care a lot about the town. I care about, um, how it develops and how it grows. And, um, my professional background is in communications. I, um, started my career working in what was then Harvard community health plan, now Harvard Pilgrim, um, doing communications and marketing, um, materials. So I've had a lot of years of working with graphic design. Um, I'm not a graphic designer. I am, uh, a writer, an editor. Um, and then I spent about 30 years as a consultant doing writing and editing for healthcare organizations, um, both in Boston and in New York and in Washington, DC. Um, so, and those were the early days of the internet when, um, organizations were more apt to create printed materials. So I did, uh, spend a lot of time working and collaborating with graphic artists and, uh, feel like I developed, uh, a sense of, um, design that, um, that, um, that I would like to bring to this position. Um, I, um, wound down my consulting career and decided that I wanted to take a part-time job at the council on aging here in Wayland. Um, and I worked there for 10 years and, um, in that role, I was the communications and community relations specialist. So again, working on written communications, the newsletter, I revamped it from both of content and design point of view, um, electronic communications, um, as, uh, more and more people began using email. Um, and, um, I'm also just ending eight years on the Wayland historical commission. And that, um, um, as you probably know, is the town's body that is charged with protecting and preserving the town's historical assets. Um, and so that's another way in which I've tried to contribute to the town and, and in terms of protecting the character, um, and the beauty of Wayland and its history. Um, I've, uh, talked with Bill a little bit about what the, how the design review board works and, and what the content of the work is. I've watched some meetings. Um, I've read the design, um, guidelines and, um, I would really like to continue contributing to the town. And I think this is a way that I could contribute. I, I feel like I could bring some new, uh, new, a new voice, if you will, to the, to the design review board. So, um, that's why I'd like to be considered. Great. Does any, we'll go around Robin. Do you want to ask any questions? Not right now. I, it sounds like she knows what she's in for and having served on the historical commission. I think, you know, the sensitivity to preservation of the feeling of the town is there. So Ira, I can't, we can't hear you if you're, while you're trying to figure out how to speak, I'm going to go to Bill. Bill. Um, I, I really don't have, uh, any, um, questions. I just want to say that, um, the board is, um, has a capacity of five people and we only have three right now. So, uh, uh, I really welcome your interest and I look forward to working with you.
Robert, do you have any? I do not have any questions this time. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes, you can. Let's see if I can stop this. Uh, I'm on my phone and obviously it's not working well. I guess my only comment is that if Bill, because he was emphasized the need for a graphic designer, I'm not sure if there's more leeway in that, that he needs, I, I kind of go by what he says. I do, um, echo other people's opinions that I think she has the background of the town, uh, the historical connections and all of those things, which I think are really important and would be a good basis for her participation. But, uh, Bill had mentioned the graphic design aspect. So I guess my, uh, only question is, does he feel comfortable with that aspect of it?
You're asking me or you're asking you? He was asking you, I think. Okay. Uh, I, I think that's a very important question, um, that, um, may or may not be aware of. The, um, uh, the reason I brought that up is that, uh, that the issues that deal with signage in particular, um, uh, come up on many of the commercial applications and it's really helpful to have someone who has dealt with, uh, the types of various types of fonts and, uh, size and scale of graphics and, and how, uh, effective they are, um, and how in, if you drive around some communities you'll find, uh, signage can be overdone. And I think that, uh, our mission in Wayland is, uh, about to be redone because we're thinking of re, uh, examining the signage bylaws for Route 20 at least if not the entire town. So, um, it would be great to bring you into those discussions as well as we develop, uh, new zoning guidelines for signage. I think that your, uh, communication experience with fonts and so forth would be helpful. Anne, have you read the, um, the bylaw that describes what the design review board does? Um, I don't know that I've read the bylaw. No. Okay. Um, it's, you, you should check it out. It's 198-508 and it sets up the design review board and technically it says that we need to have one person who's an architect, one who's a landscape architect, one who's a member of the planning board, uh, a business owner, a Wayland resident who's a business owner in Wayland, um, and or a graphic designer. Um, I'm not sure if you fit the graphic designer or the, um, uh, someone from the planning board that the planning board appoints just separately. Um, and I know that Bill, uh, would like to have another body and I sure would too, but I just want to make sure that you understand that the role is, um, advisory. I do. And that, um, one, after you have your meetings, you have to issue a report and you send it to, and you only have 30 days to do the review and then you send it to the planner. Uh, if it's a planning board member thing, it's a plan goes to the planning board, it goes to, um, the building department and on some things it goes to the zoning board. And, um, there's one other thing I wanted to say and I have to remember what it is because my brain is losing. Um, it's a three-year appointment and what else? I think that's probably about it. And also it's only for commercial things. You don't do anything with residential. That's how the bylaw was written. Okay. Thank you. So, um, would someone like to make a motion to appoint, uh, Ann Gordon as a new member of the design review board? I move that we appoint Ann Gordon as a new member of the design review board. Um, I have questions. Should we specify which position she's taking or just do it? I would just do it because we do have two vacant seats and I can stay on if I, you know, until I'm appointed to the housing. Okay. One. So, okay. That sounds fine. Um, so, um, all in favor, we didn't get a second yet. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay, Bill. Um, uh, all in favor, Robin Borg said. Yes. Uh, Bill Sterling. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Ira Montague. Here I am. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we will, um, Robert, do you think you could prepare a letter? I actually think that the, I can send a letter. Yeah, because it's, I don't remember it was me or the town manager's office. Cause I know they do, they do those too, but I can. Yeah, but it's, this one is our appointment. It has nothing to do with the, the, um, yeah, it's a direct appointment from the planning board. All right. Okay. And then, um, you have to, when you get the letter, you'll go to, uh, the town clerk, get sworn in, and then you can go to the meetings. Great. Well, thank you all. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your confidence in me. Okay. Much appreciated. Thanks. Okay. Robert, moving on.
Robbie, can you promote Jesse and AJ in the audience? Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Sorry. We're a little late. Hello. No problem. Okay. We received your materials. And, um, I guess I should just say where we are now. This is a permitting discussion with Graffito WTC partner, LLC and owner of the town center development. Um, and we received materials from you folks. Uh, and I think we've all reviewed them and we're ready to talk. That's great. Well, thank you, Madam chair, uh, members of the board. Hello. Nice to see you again, Ira. We can see your name and that will do. Um, but I know I can hear you now and Robert, so nice to see you. Um, so I think it might make sense for me to also pull up the document and share as, as I speak, you know, our goal for today is really, um, and we're quite thankful for the additional time here before we file, but to create some space for comments and guidance from you all, um, on what we've been working on. We've been working really hard since we last spoke, we thought it'd be productive to share some actual plans and materials and also provide kind of some rationale and some commentary behind them. Um, as you'll see from the pre-read, we really focused on just three really critical moves, which I'll walk you through. Um, so let me just pull up the screen here and, um, you know, we view this as a conversation, so please, please stop me as I go. Um, and can you all see my screen? Yes. Okay, great. So, um, first thing I would just say is, you know, it's interesting listening in the conversation with Ann before this about history and graphic design and visuals and, and the importance of signage, which we'll talk about a little bit tonight. But, um, we agree with all that, you know, at Grafito, we have our own in-house creative team. So we have eight full-time employees, two of which are graphic designers. It's just that important to our work and the places we are creating. What you're seeing here on this cover page is actually, um, the new brand. It's not a new name, it's a new brand. We've integrated as you'll start to see into the site. Um, it, it came out of a bunch of research in terms of, um, the history of the place, uh, that it was inspired by this pattern that brings together these, you know, four W's, um, which some people see right away, others don't. And when put together, it kind of appears as a bit of a quilt. Um, just understanding the history of quilting in Weyland, um, as an old New England town, some of what's on display in the historical society, as well as thinking about what we're trying to do here, which is kind of quilt together, um, a community. And I say that not as cliche, but like, we really think that there are elements that we want to pull together in our work with you all in Weyland town center. So we hope you like it. This is new brand. There's a lot of thought that went into it. We just rolled out a new website on June 1st. Um, and you'll see some beautifications around the site, which leverage this. And again, all of this is really important. So, um, just a real quick primer, um, prior to today, you know, we've been before you all once, uh, the select board once, but we've had many, many meetings with stakeholders in the community. We've done some of our own team building, which, you know, you'll see the result of some of that team building materials tonight. We've done a lot of planning, a lot of listening. And as I mentioned, we've been working on preliminary site beautification and rebranding. We've got a ways to go. Um, but we're excited so far about some of the baby steps we've taken over the last six months since we closed on the property at the end of last year. The goal for tonight is really to have, as I mentioned, this pre-filed discussion, uh, to share some preliminary plans, talk through our approach. And then coming out of tonight, we have a, um, as you know, we have a bit of a timeline at the end to finalize these plans, incorporate some of your comments, um, and move forward working with you all, uh, on the master special permit amendments and related application. So we anticipate the next time before you all will be an official hearing. Um, and I'll just pause there, uh, as I kind of walked you all through, um, uh, the, sorry, my screens. Can you guys still see this? Okay, great. Uh, I'll pause there as I kind of walked you through, Madam Chair, kind of how we were thinking about the path ahead, um, for any comments, uh, but if not, we can kind of dive into the deck. Yep. Nope. Okay. Great. So I mentioned three really threshold moves. Um, so they're kind of three groupings versus three moves. The first one we're going to discuss is how do we improve the gateway signage? Um, really, really critical to the success of the site from a retailer and restaurateur perspective, something I think everyone in the community understands and knows. Um, second, we'll talk through the, the long time plans from the community around kind of pedestrianizing humanizing and making Alyssa more usable. And we've also clustered into that move, uh, how we think about an improved rail trail entry. And as you see, you know, this importance of this zone that kind of connects the town green to the rail trail, um, we kind of talk about internally path to park, um, it's perhaps a little bit too cute to use out in the community, but that's the way we've been thinking about it. And then the third kind of grouping of moves are how can we really take advantage of all this underutilized green space, uh, that is currently inactive at Wayland town center. And I think facilitates the feeling of things just not happening. We feel like that's an asset. It's been a real liability for the last decade plus, but we feel that's an asset. So I'll start with the signage, um, existing conditions. You all know them. Uh, these signs are very, very difficult to read. Um, we frankly do not think they serve much of a purpose. Um, and we think there's tremendous room for improvement. We agree with many of the folks at the town and some of the prior owners, the design review board went through some studies previously, uh, and came up with something like this, the prior owner, uh, came up with something like this, which, you know, we liked the use of stone, you know, their approach, I think overlooked some issues with where they were citing it, but we appreciated the prior moves. Uh, it was instructive as we thought about, um, updated signage and where we ended up after a lot of work and working with a really trusted, uh, environmental graphics firm, Whitney Vegas, who some of you may know we've done, we've been major admirers of their work over the years. Um, they've got a national footprint. They're based here, their local firm, they're really thoughtful. Uh, you know, so they integrated some thinking around natural materials, um, thinking about the brand and the name of the place. And then also, and we have some work to do on this, making sure we have room for signage. Some of this is quite small. Uh, we have not shared this with tenants, just so you all know, right? Where you're, you're kind of getting a first look at this, these preliminary concepts, but we feel like it's something very similar to this that we feel is, is a huge improvement. And while a lot of this is subjective, we feel that it fits the context quite a bit more than what was the, some of the previous studies. Furthermore, we think that there is a language we are developing with the brand and at the place, which can be utilized in various different contexts in and around the site. Um, this would be a great replacement for the 20 or 27 signage. Uh, and furthermore, we're thinking a lot about iconography and ways in which we can make this site more legible for humans. You've all been there. The existing wayfinding and signage is illegible. It is impossible to see. It is not at a scale that works particularly well. So this is the work we've done, um, to date. So I can either pause here and go through the next two items, or we can kind of hold for a conversation around signage. Madam Chair, I'd look to you for guidance or members of the board how you want to do it. Um, but we're prepared to do either, either charge through or hold after each section. Um, what's the board's preference? I think we should do while we're, you know, on the subject. Okay. Can I just give a little background information about, um, why the signs are what we have today? Is that okay? Yep. So that's, so we have them in the, in the zoning bylaw, we have dimensions for wall signs and that translated to the decision. However, in the decision for the master of special permit for the overlay, um, issued by the planning board, it cites a, a diagram of a sign that was a, I figured it was attachment B or C in the decision. So what they proposed to dimensions and what it looked like was, was granted by the planning board. And that sign plan is, was from 2007. So almost 20 years later, the current applicants and the owners are still stuck with that old sign. So in my opinion, you, the board would need to amend the master special, special permit to, and to, and to issue a new amendment and attach the new signage, um, plan into that fold to, to allow the app and to actually do this. So with the approval that was given, was it, I know it was in the master special permit, but was it a special permit in the master special permit, or was it part of the main master special? I think it's part of the main main. Okay. Thank you. So this is, this is, it's a big change, but also a change that the plan board can also may, um, and has the ability to thoughtfully look at it and go, okay, what works today? What does not work today? Um, there was a few things on that, the regional plan where it said you can have, I think six tenants names listed, which is not today we have today, there was just a little bit of restrictions that made it, didn't make it, didn't even give the new applicant any flexibility to, to change it. Um, and 20 years later, I think it's, it's, it's a point for the board and the town to look at it and see what, what worked and what doesn't work to move forward. Okay. Robert, how high is the current sign from the ground, including what it's the, uh, platform that it's on? I would have to back to the, I'll have to look at the, the decision. I don't, I'm not sure. Okay. It will be on the plan. Do you know, Jesse? I do. I'm pulling it up right now. It's going to be 15 feet. So to Robert's point, what we would propose is, is just replacing that exhibit with a new signage exhibit with a corresponding, you know, master special permit amendment. I can tell you the current signage, which in our opinion is far too small. Um, it's just, it's very difficult to see from the street. Um, let me just pull it up right now. Currently it is, um, to the top, just under 10 feet and we were proposing 15. And so you would add, be adding another five feet. Yeah. So this is from this side, 10 feet. There's a little bit of a grade change here. You can kind of see it, but this is 10 feet. We propose adding an additional five feet. That is correct. Um, so from that to this and you know, the dimensions of this, this was quite a bit higher. The prior applicant was also closer to 20 feet. So we haven't quite gone to 20 feet. Like some of the signs that have been showed previously. Um, we think we can get it done. And we tried to come back to you all with something that felt contextual and not too aggressive. We would love more signage and candidly. So would our tight, our tenants, we'd love bigger, more of a signage. Um, we also showed some restraint for good reason. One of the things we would keep, as you can see on the existing, they're lit, but not internally, they're not self illuminated. They're, they're lit by lights on the exterior. That would be the approach here as well. These are not backlit signs or electrified signs. Um, so they won't have the appearance like many signs you see that are backlit. And, and we think at times can be quite distasteful and out of context. Um, so that's just a little bit more history on kind of how we got to here from certainly here. And then from here and Robert, thanks for the background as well. Bill, Robin? Um, I think a change is good. I think I'd like to see, there's a lot of blank space on this sign. And I think it would be great to get more of the tenants names on there and perhaps lose some of that blank space. Um, but, um, we, we agree. And we're looking at a couple of different schemes for that. We couldn't get in time. Um, as Bill will know from his architecture days, negotiating at times with signage consultants and folks who are doing environmental graphics there at times, um, proportions matter quite a bit, but, but we'll, we'll show some mock-ups that actually move. We've already been looking at that would move the yellow, sorry, what looks on my screen a little bit yellowish, but call it beige up to here to provide some more space for tenant signage. We also know that tenants are going to push for that. So we were, we were preparing it, Robin, knowing that tenants were going to say, this is too small. We want more signage. Um, but heard that's a great comment. Yeah. Because you know, like Joe banks, I know, even though they're long gone, I, you know, I know what their logo looks like, so I don't have to see great detail to, to know what that is. And, you know, X golf or Panera, if I know what their logo looks like, that's easy, but for a smaller tenant, having their name up there, it makes a big difference. So, um, otherwise, you know, conceptually I'm not opposed at those two locations to having a bigger sign. Um, I, I find this to be a little bit cold. I don't mind modern. It seems a little cold to me, but this is just a design concept. So, you know, I, I would wait until there's something more definite that we're really kind of looking at, but. Great. I, I think it's exquisite. Uh, frankly, I, I, I like the space. I think that's a sort of a fundamental of Swiss topography topography, topography where, um, the space allows the text to become more sculptural. Instead of just jamming the sign full of text, I think it gives you some relief. It gives more emphasis to the Whelan part above. Um, and I think the composition and proportion is beautiful. Very nicely done. Thanks, Bill. Well, I think it's also important to look at this is also thinking about who, who are you also trying to attract to the center. If you are saying, Hey, let's, let's meet at the local, at the Whelan town center. It's important to have the word Whelan town center big. Cause then you're like, Oh, there it is. Oh, I know exactly where it is. But if you put all your tenants in there, it kind of distracts a little bit too. So I can see both ways, having a lot of the company names, some sharpies, hardware, and having all these different, um, business names, but then also having the brand name on there. So someone says, let's meet at the, you know, Takara at the Whelan town center, you know, I'm looking for the local Whelan town center and the wards. Yeah. And that's an interesting point too, Robert, because right now there's very little wayfinding. Once you're in there, if you're looking for a shot, that's not right on kind of the main drag as you're going through, it's not always easy to find it if you don't know where it is. Um, so if this is, um, you know, I, I don't mind the smaller names for the tenants, if there's more improved wayfinding within the site. So I guess at this point, I would defer to the, to the owners and the, to figure out what best works for them. If it's more of focusing on the Whelan town center or is it focusing on putting as many tenants as possible, filling the blank space. I think they have a better idea of what they have. I think putting too many tenants is going to clutter it up a little bit, but I honestly, I would just defer to the app again, if it looks, you know, clean and sleek and they know what they're trying to do, or you can take two different, get two different diagrams and pick between them. And then from there, then that's, we go with. Yep. With the, um, arbor wood thermally modified ash, are you concerned at all that over time that will disintegrate and look bad? You know, it's a, Annette, it's a great question. Um, it will age and it will actually get a bit more gray, which is interesting. The ash, um, we're not super concerned about it, but it's something we'll raise with the signage consultants. We felt pretty strongly that having, they felt, and we were on board, let me be clear that, you know, having some natural materials and we'll play around with what this base is as well is really important. We, we really, really did not like this at all. Um, to be honest. And, you know, what we liked about this was the natural kind of stonework at the bottom. That's how they kind of got here, but that's something we'll certainly ask them. Um, and you know, I think this feedback is exactly what we're looking for. Um, we don't expect many tenants are going to be, um, are watching right now, but we also wanted to make sure before we went back to tenants who are major stakeholders, it has to work to Robin's point for the tenants. We want to make sure people know they're there, that we have something that we all feel really comfortable at between this board and ourselves. So we'll do some additional studies on just the sizing of this, but you know, it sounds like directionally, um, there aren't any major objections yet, although we haven't heard from the chair. Um, but we feel we've looked at a lot. Um, we feel really good about this. We also feel that this translates really well to this. It's logical. It works. Um, we like some of the sloping and then we really like some of the preliminary studies. We start to think about how this translates to the rest of the site to Robin's point for directional science and wayfinding within. So we feel good about this direction and we'll, we're going to keep going on it. Ira, do you have any comments? I don't know if you can hear me or not. Can you? Yes, we can. We can hear you. God, this is horrible. Um, my question is, is there an established...
What? We could hear you. We can't now. ...distance either from you or in the, um, in the development. So the smallest, um, tenet there would be able to be seen from, uh, the road as it comes into the development. At what point do you say this is okay or this is too small?
You just, um, unmuted. I mean, muted rather.
I think that study needs to be done. We probably don't, but then it depends on the height of the font and the travel, uh, speed that you're traveling. Um, but you could, you could deliver that answer with a study, I think.
Yeah, I think we caught some of that and we're, we're looking at it. The other thing, just to let the board know, we've had a series of excellent meetings with our neighbors at Russell's about how we can just beautify the entry. We think a lot of it is, I mean, from a, from a scale perspective, this is not a very inviting entry sequence. Signage aside, right? So we're thinking a lot about that. Um, in, you know, I, I think it's a combination of creating more visual beauty, um, creating a little bit of a sense of compression, but I choose through, potentially through vegetation at the entry combined with new signage that I think, you know, while most people can't articulate it, it will feel good to enter this place, right? It doesn't right now. You kind of feel like you're entering something that you don't really know what's happening and, and all those things taken together kind of what we're looking at. And again, signage is big. And if we understood IRA correctly, you know, we will be looking at kind of how these signs are experienced and how we make sure they're legible. We don't want to spend, uh, these are expensive signs. We don't want to spend a ton of money on signs that don't, that aren't actually functional. And you know that that area has, um, an easement on it from some state, I think it's the highway department for. Okay. Yeah. And so we're looking at more as you come into the site versus actually on some of the zones, um, at the mouth of the site, which are, which are quite complicated. And I think a prior applicant owner got tripped up on that. Yes. Okay. I don't have any comments. Okay, great. Well, this was, this was excellent. Thank you. Um, so transitioning similar format, as you saw transitioning to Alyssa, we're kind of looking at the current condition right now. Um, it is not a very well utilized street from a vehicular perspective, right? Um, it just is not for those of you who spent time in the site. There's very, very little throughput here. Um, I think it's one of the reasons that the town from even the earliest days started to think about how to pedestrianize this street. Um, this was one of the plans from some point in the last 10 years, which was shared in some of the master planning work that beta did for the town. Um, there are a lot of challenges with this plan. This is not something that we would attempt to execute for a multitude of reasons, but there are certain elements we really liked. For example, like creating some decking structure here. We love the utilization of tables and chairs and vegetation. Um, and you know, there is a real sense, I'll use the word again of compression on this street where this certainly would feel for humans. And that's what we're designing this place for much more inviting and comfortable than this. So, so we applaud the prior efforts. Um, you know, the EDC has been working with the town manager and we in turn have been doing the same to try to deploy some of the shared streets funding to buy, uh, planters, tables, and chairs. This was an EDC plan, which had some very interesting play elements in it, like cornhole. Um, and, you know, looked at a series of, um, planters and potentially bollards and other objects to kind of make the streets safe, as well as some of these dividers. Um, there were some of that we certainly like, and we were working with the town to make sure that we're leveraging the $92,000 that, that the town of Weyland has from the state as part of their shared street grants. But what we've done is taken it a bit of a, a bit further with our landscape team. Um, and, you know, also have met with public safety, police, and fire. And, you know, we, we really do believe that, um, maintaining a, um, fire lane, a fire lane here and having a 20 foot clear lane that provides a fire department access to one of the residential units above here is advisable. Um, they were advising it. We are okay with it. Uh, we still think we can pedestrianize the street and this can be available for temporary programming. Um, and for only movable things with a bollard system, we'd work with public safety on police and fire, um, that will be operable. Fire department would have keys for, so they could operate it. They'd have instructions prior to, and then within the street, um, in addition to having this canvas for activations, we would deploy some of the decking that was on the earliest plan, but we do it for the entire street. And essentially what we're doing is we're doing it flush with the curb and we're creating just far more common area. So not only common area for folks to gather and sit, um, with things like wifi, for example, we want to do things to encourage people to be here. But for example, we're working on a cafe deal in this corner right now, we're at least with to provide cafe seating outside for them. Right. Um, you know, Giacomo's currently has some seating outside, which we think is great. We've actually been exploring with a restaurant we're at least with to replace Takara, putting some of the similar decking here to actually allow them to maintain the front entry on Alyssa, which we like, but then have a secondary door that has seating over here with a similar deck. So this is where we are at. Um, you know, it really is not nearly as, um, it's quite a bit less in some ways than these other schemes, but admittedly we're putting in more structure here by way of this decking, which we feel like it's going to make the street much more usable. So again, like with the signs, we've gone through a lot of different schemes. We feel really excited about this. It has changed quite a bit. You know, Robert was at several of the meetings we had with, um, uh, with police, fire and public safety. And this has evolved, but this is where we ended up. Um, and we're really excited to execute on it. So we'd love to get comments, answer questions to the extent you all have them. Uh, Bill, you want to start first? We'll go in reverse. Sure. Um, I, I like the idea of inviting, uh, outdoor restaurant seating, uh, that otherwise if you just put the decking there, I don't, I don't, you wouldn't have the cornhole or the other attractions that bring people to want to sit there. So I think, uh, that's probably a more effective way to get people to want to gather outside. I think it's a good idea. Yeah. And Bill, to your point, like we, we think, and there are just some renderings you all saw, we think there are a lot of things we can do in these zones to facilitate gathering. Um, and you know, we think this, this area, which again, we want to make sure there's is fire lane here, but you know, this can be a great place. We had a great event last weekend and running through this month, we have a pop-up gallery in the space at this corner up here. Um, and we've been talking with arts Wayland about if this was a closed street, there could be all sorts of, you know, I wouldn't call them regular daily or even weekly, but monthly activities, um, around food and arts and entertainment and programming that we can do on a temporal basis. Um, but again, we feel like, you know, it provides us a great canvas without being super prescriptive right now with what goes on in the middle. Um, but you know, it could be quite lovely. Sounds good. Robin? Um, I was going to say, I like this plan versus the, what was sort of on that other drawing. You know, if there's cornhole and more physical activity, you're now setting aside some of the green space for that kind of stuff. And I like this as a more, I don't know, I don't want to say elevated or adult space to gather, but a quieter space to sit and gather and, and meet. And if there's cornhole and who knows what else going on, it can happen, you know, over even just up that little walkway to where the hockey rink is going to be the skating rink and that in the summertime can have cornhole and things like that out. So I like the design of this much better. Um, you know, I think it's good to preserve the fire department access up the middle. Um, so yeah, looks nice. Ira? I don't know if you can hear me. This is a horrible setup, but I think it's, it's, it's a really great start. So I'll not speak that long because of this situation, but my vote is no cornhole. So actually you couldn't use, I did research for the town manager, uh, over a year ago, and you can't use these streets money for cornhole stuff for games. Um, is there anything? Oh, you're done. Okay. Um, I have a concern, which I've mentioned before. I know that the ballards are removable. The question is how fast can you remove them? If somebody is having a heart attack and you need to get an ambulance in, how fast can you do that? Um, so that's something to think about. Um, and in the master special permit, because the roadways are all laid out in the master special permit, this would need an amendment to be able to, uh, make this pedestrian. Yep. To the site plan, that means I'm going to say plan or both. Um, I think it's actually maybe the site plan too, but definitely the master special permit. Yep. Yeah. I think after we discussed previously a few weeks ago, that might, might be, might we need to include amendment to the site plan too. And the other thing is that, and I have a memo on it and I'll try and look for it. There are certain under the master special permit. Currently, there are certain places where you cannot have outdoor seating. Um, so we'd have to maybe have to amend that, or it might be that where you're thinking about doing it, you can do it. I also, I had that same information. I had to figure out where this place is. They, I don't, they call them building or zones. It was different zones. They're building areas. They're building areas. A, B, whatever. Right. I have that all the way down because I've done multiple times for different things. So, and I think this will be part of our due diligence coming out of this, both Madam chair, your point about the ballers, which we're going to work with and make sure it works for the town and the folks that actually are coming there to, um, provide safety and fight fires, etc. Um, and then secondarily, you know, just so you all understand our approach to outdoor seating generally, um, this is a big site. There's just a lot of space. We, we love the idea of a concentration of energy on this pedestrian stretch. And we actually think it would be worth looking at together how we ensure that we can have spill out up and down Alyssa with no limitations because you know, the, the, the places and spaces that typically work best, not just for restaurants, but for patrons and for residents and for visitors, you know, we all know them, we experienced them are where you have a lot of this stuff and there's a rhythm to it. Sometimes with space with, with sites that are as big as Wayland town center, you know, many, many acres, we've seen situations where you're permitting little pieces scattered throughout the site. And, you know, while that is effective and the local and Takara have nice outdoor areas, it, it just lacks in some ways, the energy that you get in a place when you bring a lot of these spaces together. And we think the potential for the town to do this and centralize that around Alyssa is quite exciting. Um, so that's part of what's motivating this. And I think I'd also just say to Robin's point, we think a lot about active and passive uses, a very active use would be throwing ping pong or cornhole or whatever it is here. A passive use would be just creating space for people to gather and move through and socialize and stop and sit. Right. And, and we very much view this as being active programmatically at times, but largely the identity of this space is somewhat passive, which we think is a nice balance. Uh, I think you should never lose track of the fact that, um, a walking distance away is a community center that is very often counsel on aging who will be providing functions. And even last year when they first opened, uh, a large number of people went to the function at the COA and then walked over to, uh, the nearest restaurant and filled it up to capacity. It was jammed with people. So I think that connection to the, um, really, we always thought the community center would be an anchor tenant to this development. So I think you should incorporate your thinking to making it an easy path from the COA as well. Yeah, we agree wholeheartedly. Good. Any more comments on this piece? Or shall we move on? We've got the second part of Alyssa, um, which we'll track back. Yes. Yeah. Um, we had, we had, you guys had mentioned, um, also potentially an amendment to the, um, to the site plan. When you guys think about that, cause I know that current site plan and the master special permit is probably even, um, older than what the existing as built is. Do you guys think, does it replace that site plan in your mind, or is it just like a, in a debt, you know, an, an, an additional site plan to that? I, in my mind, I think it has to be replacing it so that you can keep track of what the difference is from one time to another. Um, there are some things that when you start explaining what you're doing, I'm going to suggest a way of handling it where you won't necessarily need to review or redo that part of the site plan. Got it. And, and would you, whatever you think is going to be permanent. I mean, this to me is pretty permanent. Yeah. And, and, and so the way we would think about that, I just want to make sure I think about it right is we probably work off the, you know, the Alta survey, right. As the, as our, as our base, and then take the Alta survey and, and add anything that's permanent into it to suggest a, a amended site plan. Does that sound right? I can't even answer that. Cause I don't know which one the Alta survey is. Um, I would look at the, in the master special permit, there were, um, certain plans that were approved. I have, we have them in our files at the town hall, I believe. And I have my own leftover. Um, and, um, I would do those, um, because I can't even keep track of the phase one and the phase two and all that kind of stuff. So I would just work off the master special permit ones. I think, unless you have the phase one or phase two approvals, um, and whichever one you're going to work from will go with as being the replacement in the master special permit. Does that make sense? Yeah, totally. Totally. Thank you for the clarification.
Sorry, Jesse. Go ahead. No, that's great. So, um, the, the second part of Alyssa is we just feel to be, um, responsive to what we're hearing and responsible as we think about this site, you know, to Bill's point about how do you connect to the center on aging? You know, we believe this move to connect to the rail trail is really hypercritical. Um, the striping there is just an existing condition disregard kind of the material shown here. This is really just meant to highlight what we think is a very, very critical connection from the park to the path, but we've already been talking to DCR about improving the connection to the rail trail. We think this is a source of tremendous value for the town, for us as owners of the site, and we really want to lean into it. Currently, the rail trail entry is next to a transformer further down towards route 20 in a very awkward location that is right where all the cars turn. I would not feel comfortable with my two 12 year olds getting off their bicycles there in front of the local. So part of this is also around safety. Um, and we believe the most logical place to do this is actually where Alyssa Ave ends. Unfortunately, the prior plan had a dumpster located here, which is the absolute wrong place for the dumpster. Um, we are exploring right now. Um, instead of relocating this dumpster, potentially just eliminating this dumpster area and trying to make do with one of the other dumpster areas we have down closer to stop and shop. This involves tenant issues, operational issues, but we're looking at it. What we want to make sure is that we're not over dumpstered on the site, to be honest, because these are not particularly pretty things. Um, we're going to beautify them. We're going to manage them, but we think the best use here is for a better connection to the rail trail is a very, very preliminary scheme. Um, but it's something we are thinking about. It's something we believe will also require. We think, um, some reference, if not an amendment, or it probably would end up being an amendment in the master special permit that kind of makes this connection and allows for it. It's something we'll, we'll think about in the weeks prior to our, our pre-file later this month, but wanted to just make sure the board was aware that we're thinking about this. We think this is a great move. Um, this, I don't think these trees will actually grow here. Um, and this is a lot of, uh, wild grass, but I think you get the point, which is how do we make this a beautiful entry for, um, runners, cyclists, et cetera, so that they can bring them in and draw them up to the site this way versus what is currently the case. And, you know, just from an urban design perspective, we really, really like this move a lot. And we're gonna be spending some time studying it further. I think that's great. Anybody else want to comment? Just one question. What is the grade change from, uh, the rail trail up to your property? So, so it depends where you are, Bill, right here. We're actually at a similar grade, right? Um, the grading is challenging where the idea is that you're at a pretty similar grade here. Let's see if you can see in one of these renderings, the rail trail drops off here, right? And there is, um, what is essentially a six foot grade change that gradually comes up by stop and shop. Let me pull up the site plan for you. Um, so kind of at grade, at grade, it starts to rise here and rises pretty aggressively up through this section till you get right here. So one of the reasons we have the entry here is that this can be at grade. It is not at grade here. There's a major drop off. Um, that's one of the reasons we looked at it here and you can, you know, when you're on 20, you see the site, you see the grade change, right? This is quite a bit higher here. So the idea is, and you can see here, this is currently, this is the existing condition right now. It's very confused. Frankly, this is where you would get off your bicycle. Um, this is where I was talking with my children. This is the truck route into stop and shop in the site right here. I, I do not like having people get off their bicycles right here. And there's a transformer right here at all. So, you know, not only does it create just more synergy with Alyssa, um, we think it's just a safer solution. It also allows us to eliminate a pretty unbecoming dumpster here. It sounds like it works. I think, uh, six feet, you talked about almost the same here, not even six feet. Generally, um, the rule of thumb is if, um, the grade change is above eye level, then it's, um, it's, it's forbidding to people and they don't want to make it. So I think you're wise to go to the one that's less than six feet below five feet would be ideal. Yeah. And the grade change is gradual from here on up, but there's a significant grade change, um, for sure. And that's something, you know, the good news is like with signage, we have a great landscape architect MDLA out of Boston, and they have a Connecticut office. We have a lot of respect for them. AJ has worked with them quite a bit on other projects. Um, they've been really thoughtful in the way they've, we've, they've thought about this. This is one area we're gonna spend quite a bit of time in the next week studying, um, just to make sure when we come back to you all, we have something that we feel really comfortable with. Well, speaking of that, Jesse, I really liked the rendering that you showed of how that would look, uh, uh, but if the trees don't know the rendering, you know, if the trees, is there a way to do that, um, with trees that are native? We hope so. Um, some concerns about how trees have grown on site, um, but something we're studying actually. But you know, this is one of the reasons we feel like one of the assets is having, um, some of, uh, potentially the best home garden shop across the street in all of greater Boston. I would argue one of the best in New England. So, you know, we're really trying to leverage the knowledge that Russell's folks have around native plants. Um, you know, I think this is probably something more for a horticulturist versus, you know, um, something you'd buy at a, at a, at a Russell's, but like looking at tree varieties, indigenous tree varieties, where they grow, how they grow, what the care is, is part of this pursuit for us. You could also try talking to SVT. SVT? SVT, Sudbury Valley trustees. Nice. Huge quantities of, uh, land. Yeah. Great. Conservation land, but they, they seem to know what they're doing too, with trees. Great. Um, is there any thought to, so you've got, if you're coming from the bike trail, you've got to cross two, I'd call them roadways, but pathways through the parking area to get over to that pedestrian zone. Is there any thought? I know your truck entry is coming through here. Is there any thought to sort of making it so that only one of those goes through? If you want to drive from the local, the stop and shop, you would have to be on the one, let's say closer to the rail trail, which has to be your truck entrance and kind of close off the other one so that people weren't driving across your pedestrian area. I don't know. And that's making a face. She doesn't like that. Well, it's a parking area. I mean, there's all that parking stuff, so it would be... Yeah, but you can, you can get through on the, on the outside, just not on the inner lane. There aren't that many people who drive, who cut through like that. I don't, in my experience, being over there. That's how I go all the time. Okay. Well, I mean, I think a lot of people, if they're going from one end to the other, go out to Andrew Ave. Um, but you know, if you are by the local and you want to go to stop and shop, you'd still be able to cut through. You just do it on one side, as opposed to the other side of that kind of median that goes up the middle. Robin, it's an interesting point and something we'll look at. I mean, I think the idea would be once you pedestrianize this street, because if you're coming down this street, you're gonna take the first turn. It's just how humans behave, period, no matter what. Right. Um, it's, it's something we, we can look at actually. We, frankly, I don't think AJ correct me if I'm wrong. We have not even considered it, but it's an interesting point. Yeah. Yeah. It gives you more of that pedestrian area. Yeah. Um, and more visibility of the pedestrian area. Yeah. And it's not, it wouldn't be hard to do. And there's plenty of, there's plenty of parking on the local side and there's plenty of parking on the stop and shop side. Um, so I don't know that there's really a need to go through on both sides, but anyway, just a, just a thought. Yeah. Um, the other thing I thought about is, uh, I spent some time out in Cleveland and, uh, on a bike trail there, they have these, um, bike service that's a post and it has tools that are attached to it permanently. Uh, so if you need to do some quick repairs on your bike and they're really cool, I mean, if you just Google bike path, bike repair, you'll get, I think one company is Saris that makes them. We had one actually in another rendering. We didn't share with you. It's actually in this little show. Yeah. So that's pretty, that'd be fun. Yeah. We, we have electricity. You can have a compressor buried in there so that you can actually have an air pump. Yeah. We actually have electricity right there. Cause it's in the, it's in the trash enclosure. Yeah. So the ones with an air pump are really good, but anyway, those are my thoughts today. No, those are good. And it used to be, um,
it used to be a compactor there. So we're lucky to have, um, electricity. So I'm going to show you one thing quickly while we're on this. Well, you know what, why don't we keep going and then we can come back to it, but we, we have, um, took a lot of, um, so actually let me just show you this because I think it's really helpful. Hang on one sec. Um, I'm going to just switch views. Can you all see this? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So this is one of the drone shots we took recently. So Bill, to your point about the grade change, can't quite see a huge grade change from here to here. And it slowly starts to come up here to the point where finally you're at grade up here. And that's where the entry would be. You can actually see people have humans have organically used this. This was not a path. It just shows the way people want to move. Right. And it's just hard to fight that. So we're owning it. Um, this is the dumpster. Uh, so you're looking straight down to the rail trail and this is what you see. Um, what we are studying is, can we just increase pickups? So maybe this is the only dumpster. So we can kind of eliminate this one. We haven't quite completed that study. Um, but we're looking at it. And then the last point here is that this is the exit right now sequence right next to this transformer. And this is a pretty busy point on the site for cars. That's the point I was making earlier. So we just generally feel that if you can centralize entry and departure here with some of those bike amenities, soft seating, uh, or hard seating, frankly, um, and moving that dumpster, we feel really, really great improvement in connection with some of the other stuff we've been talking about. So I just wanted to show you that all that. Cause there's a good, and there's, it's a logical stop. There's a stop sign in the stop area right there where you don't have that on the other side. So people are kind of turning in and they're turning in to get to parking where here, it's like a logical, you have to cross and there's a stop. So I do think it's a kind of more logical break point. And then we can put signage there, um, to, and most, you know, a lot, a lot of that traffic, not all of that, a lot of that traffic is going to be going to parking or already had parked. Um, so I think that will help too, from like the, the crossover. Um, so I think, yeah, I think those are, that that's all relevant. Okay. The only other thing is that traditionally, when you have an LA like that, uh, a main axis and a plan, you usually have some kind of a major event of focal, but at the end of that focal point, uh, they usually have a park or they have a major gathering place or something, uh, that would draw people to go there at that intersection with the, uh, with the rail trail. So I think you probably want to have something there to announce that entry, almost a gateway celebration of some kind. Yeah. We didn't want to overwhelm you too much with more gateway signage, but it's something we've been looking at is, is treatments there as well. Um, we've got some work to do there, but we completely agree with you, Bill. Like it's got to feel like you're arriving somewhere. A place where teenagers might gather to hang out. Exactly. Exactly. Um, okay, let me switch back. Yeah, we, we have a, and we just haven't, I think we need another round on it, but we have like an enclosure there and a bike rack. So like, you know, we, we, we envision a place where you could sit, you could, you know, get off your bike, you could sit there, you could hang out there, you could wait for others. Um, but like you said, kind of like that visual moment of you've arrived, you know, at the entry of the, the rail trail or you're, you know, you're waiting for someone or you're getting your bike ready or, or you're fixing your tire and, and all that stuff. But to your point, there has to be kind of that moment where you're here, you've arrived. Um, so I couldn't agree more that that's a hundred percent intent. Okay. Um, this is slightly unrelated, but I've noticed the last couple of weeks, you've removed some of the color variation from building to building and everything's just gray. Is that going to stay that way? Yeah. We're, we're, we're trying to, we're trying to create a color palette. That's a little bit more consistent. We are bringing color back in, as you can see, like all the banners we're putting in are, um, you know, have more color. We were doing wayfinding. That's going to have color. We want to start adding art. Um, and so there's like a whole mural campaign and, and painting. So like, it's definitely like step one of the color palette, but for us, it's about creating a consistent brand and, and consistent palette throughout. And there's a lot of clashing going on with the current color scheme. Um, and didn't really have any sort of cohesion. So I think our, the efforts you're seeing right now are to kind of get back to a baseline and then start adding to it. Like you said, like what you see with the banners. Um, so it's, I think it, it may be tough to see it now as it's in motion, but I think, um, you know, with the signage, the wayfinding, um, us adding, you know, visual art pieces throughout and, and having opportunities to, um, to, to, you know, take that, that palette to the next level. Um, I think, I think you'll see it kind of come together, but, but yeah, it is part of the puzzle, but I would say, um, you know, maybe 20% of the whole story. The color palette is either in the master special permit or in the phase one site plan approval. So technically before you change it, we need to, you need to check that and make sure that you can change it without us making a change to the documents. Well, it's really, it's even based on like the design guidelines that we have in town, that you're supposed to be breaking up the faces of the building and colors. One way to do that. Bill, you want to stab at this? We will, um, we'll go back and look at that. I mean, our, our honest take, and I think every consultant as well as everybody on the ownership team looks at the vintage of these buildings and their roots and kind of what we would with all due respect, um, interpret as kind of this new urbanist move in a very suburban place with, you know, we see a lot of these color schemes, um, in suburban areas, largely in the Southeast, um, that are fabricated around the turn of the century, a lot of outlet malls. Um, we really, really don't like the colors. We will go back and look at it. We really, really like expression and personality and texture and variation between storefronts. It's something we're spending a lot of time with our tenants on. We believe that expression should come from the tenants in their unique identities and the way they think about these things versus the seven or eight different pastels that somehow made their way onto the site. Um, but we'll certainly go back and look at this and make sure we're, we're coming back to you all. Can you tell I'm passionate about this one? Yeah. Um, okay. So, um, just moving on the, the, the last bit we did want to share with you is around the open space. I know we're getting a time here. Um, so this was that last element and I, and I think we will also need a master special permit amendment and we'll work with you all in the language leading up to our filing that allows us to utilize these currently, uh, these, these green spaces that have no activity on them right now. So we're concentrated in these three zones. The, the A zone is where we're thinking about some sort of play, um, whether it's volleyball connected with the existing tenant there, whether it's, you know, small five aside type youth soccer fields, working with the local youth soccer academies, uh, dog park on B and then skating rink on C. You know, our goal here has been to find great local partners to do this versus us self executing. We actually feel that we found four of those groups already just through some of our due diligence. So, um, what we believe will have to happen though, is because the underlying zoning for all of these spaces is not for recreation or fields or courts, um, unless you are the town is to have some sort of language. We work, um, into the, into an amendment that gives us a right for ancillary. Meanwhile, um, you know, use of the open space for recreation and play elements, um, but does not actually change the underlying zoning and the intention that for example, you know, long-term there likely will be commercial buildings on these on a, and the intent is not to disrupt that long-term intended use. So we will need some guidance on that. We won't have some further conversations, but we wanted to be transparent with you all that that is something we are hoping to execute on. We've got operators that want to enliven and beautify these spaces. And we'd really like to be in a place this time next year where you go out there on a June night and you've got kids and families, um, out there using this green space. I think that we can work that out. And I think we can refer to it sort of as a temporary use, but not temporary, temporary, uh, because the bylaw as it was set up is set up for buildings. It's really not set up for anything else except for the open space that it already called out. But I think if you keep the underlying zoning and we give you permission to do temporary kinds of things, knowing that they're longer term than tomorrow, um, I think we can do it that way. Otherwise we'd need to amend the bylaw. Yeah, that, that works for us. And I mean, we're still going to keep them open space. We just want to have activities on those open spaces. Yeah. Yeah. Great. So from here, um, we've still got work to do continued engagement, um, with some of the groups we're talking to, you know, as, uh, and as you pointed out, we want to have conversations with public safety and fire around things like bollards and like, make sure we're on the same page with them. We, we do not want to work with you all to amend the master special permit, then be in a place where we have something that's not functionally sound. That's, that's the worst, uh, outcome, frankly. Um, so we will continue to kind of look at our plans. Um, we're going to start working on the drafting of our master special permit amendment and, you know, it would be our goal. And, you know, we think this is very doable, but also we have a lot of work to do to be back in front of you for a formal hearing sometime in July to discuss our master special permit, um, amendments. And, you know, we, we really want to be in a position, you know, a year after we close, so call it this fall, right? Where we're starting to invest some money to effectuate these changes. And by next spring, we want Whalen town center to be a place to show up at, and there's some great stuff happening. Um, and you know, it feels like a lot we're discussing today. Uh, there's a lot more that we are considering. Um, but we feel like just with these moves, right, you know, just with the updated signage, pedestrian, you know, kind of pedestrianizing a list and improving this connection. And some of these play elements, this place is going to feel really, really different to be more marketable for better local and regional tenants. And, you know, we think we'll attract far more people from the community. So, um, that's where we're at again. I know this was a lot. We, we so appreciate the opportunity to have what, what feels like, um, more of a discussion than a presentation with you all. And, and, you know, we've tracked all of this feedback and, um, it will certainly make our way into kind of future planning and thinking. In anything that you're doing, will you be creating more impervious surface? No, uh, it would, most of it would be. So just thinking through it, you know, one of the uses we're talking about is for volleyball, um, to extend like the indoor volleyball to outdoor volleyball courts, um, and activate that. So that, you know, I'm not sure if that, that would be considered, but it would be either like a grass or a sand material that they would be using. Um, and then the other side is, is the idea is to do a soccer field, um, for the U sports, Wayland and Weston have a, um, a program called war cats that's for, uh, eight to 14 year olds. And it's a Weston and Wayland program. And we're looking at building a field for them. So they have a home field right now. They don't have like a dedicated home, um, field. So that, that would just be a playing field. Okay. One other one would actually be the rink here, which is temporary and seasonal. It will just be November through February, maybe March that will be removed though. And that, so that will be something that's just in the winter. Um, but that will be right. That has water also associated with it. So you need to get rid of the water. Correct. And we have a great partner who's not only getting rid of the water, bringing the water in. Um, there will be some chilling elements, even though it is temporary rink. So it will be maintained, um, to the highest standards. And that's actually, we're not operating it. We had a conversation with them today. Like this needs to be executed really, really well. Um, and, and all in maintenance included. Okay. Annette, when you think of like the two uses for the back, does that, does that feel like an impervious change or does it? No, it's not, it's not, if you're, if you're going to be using a macadam cord or so, or a clay court, then you might have an issue. Um, and because there's drainage all over this site and it's really comprehensive drainage and it had to go through lots of permitting. Yeah. We're not looking to interrupt any of that. I will say, I will just say for the benefit of the board, and this is something we'll talk about in the future as well, as we think about potentially adding more commercial development. Um, we are actively working on improving and I wouldn't say improving. How do I say this? We recognize that this is a site that for certain uses will need approvals from Raytheon for. So it is something that we're not talking to this board about currently, but it's certainly something as we think about kind of how we move forward to maximize this piece of real estate, um, for ourselves, for the town, for the community, from a community economic development perspective, there are going to be certain things outside of our work with a town that we have to deal with Raytheon on. Um, and we feel one of the ways of doing that is to, um, establishing a line of communication with them and letting them know some of the things we're thinking about, like some of the stuff we spoke about today. So some of that work is, is happening in the background as well. Um, not the easiest, but necessary. Right. But most of those things, I don't, they shouldn't have an issue with because you're not going down into the ground and you're not really putting more water into the ground. Correct. That's our hope. Yeah. This is great. Very encouraging. Yeah. We're really excited. Um, we appreciate the time. Um, we view this as a partnership. I mean, even the feedback in terms of how we think about, um, these amendments, um, and, and how we think about kind of making some improvements to our plans, really, really valuable. And hopefully, um, this is, um, valuable for you all as well. It is. I think it's great. Great. Really appreciate your coming in. Great. And as you get closer, if you, um, want to, before you submit your application, if you, uh, want to go over with Robert or with me and Robert, um, the best way of approaching it, we'd be happy to do that. We will take you up on that offer. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks everyone. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you. Nine. Okay. Moving on. Um, review and approve draft minutes of 5, 13, 26.
Because everyone had an opportunity to review them. Yes. And are there any comments? No. Bill, are you okay too? Are you still reviewing? Yeah. I'm fine. You're okay. Ira, are you okay with the minutes?
Yeah. I love them. Thanks. You love them. Great. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 5, 13, 26? I move that we approve the minutes from 5, 13, 26. Who's seconding? I'll second if I can. You did. Good job, Ira. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. 4-0. Um, the minutes of 6, 1, 26. I had nothing. And if you want to talk about the substance, if anybody has any questions about, I'll just say that, um, they did move to, uh, the select board did agree to authorize the expenditure of $20,000 to assist the planning board in drafting, uh, Route 20 corridor zoning. And, um, it's being funded by, uh, money that Robert turned back from, uh, what was it? 60, 80, whatever. I can't remember the name of the section, but the monies that we hold, um, for, uh, oversight of projects and they were gifted back to the town and Robert figured it all out. Yay, Robert. Great. Yeah. Um, are there any comments or anything on them? Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 6, 1, 26? I move to approve the minutes from 6, 1, 20, 26. I second that. Thank you. Um, all in favor, Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Bill Sterling. Yes. Um, Ira Montague. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. 4-0. Um,
updates from the town planner. Do you have updates you want to give us? Yes. Well, just quickly on that thing we just talked about. Um, um, I did reach out to, um, based on the chair's discussion at the meeting, I reached out to different, uh, law firms to see if there's like student, uh, lawyers that would be interested to work on a project to draft the zoning for Route 20. And I, we have a discussion with, with Suffolk Law next week. Yeah. Next week to discuss that. So, um, you reached out to schools in the school. Yeah. Yeah. Not law firms. BU, Suffolk Law, Suffolk, uh, Northeastern. I, I wrote them all down, all the law firms. Okay. Right. But I can't phone in the Boston area to see if they're interested. And so far we have one that's, is willing to discuss and, and see, see if it's a good match or not. Have you talked with the town manager about, um, how to go about looking for a law firm also just in case? I did not, but I wanted to see this discussion first, how this goes. Okay. Okay. Um, I think last time, um, we were talking about for a site plan, um, how they work and what lapses there are and when you have to start, uh, your construction. And Robert had said something and I said, gee, I didn't think that was quite right by our regulations. So I want to clarify in our regulations at 302.24, they're the regulations for site plan. It talks about lapse of a decision and, um, at C and then parens four, it says that the time periods don't include appeals. You have to finish within five years, but the time periods don't include appeals made pursuant to these regulations and what would be at the conservation commission is not pursuant to these regulations. So Robert was correct that the timeframe is running, uh, on the Coptic church and they have five years to complete it. Two years to start, five years to complete. Yeah. What else? You had a meeting today, Robert, can you give us a briefing? Um, let's start back with the meeting that we had with, um, with the town manager first. We're talking about the clean energy sitting permitting, um, law that's in place and that governs the local regulations on solar permitting through towns and depending on your megawatts, how much you're building. Um, it depends if it, which, what kind of, uh, uh, process it goes through, even locally for the town, which would be maximum of 12 months, um, or for this, for the state, if it's, if it's much larger. So we had our original meeting with the town manager, with Olivia, who is the assembly coordinator, Michael Fea, the facilities, um, director, me, Annette Lewis, and then also Ellen from the NG and climate committee. Um, and just kind of discussing like who's gonna do what part because the town manager needs to appoint or putting someone in charge of different, some of the different processes. One of it is being the kind of the front door of the, when the town who works with the different land use groups. So that will most likely be me. Um, also someone needs to be in charge of negotiation, which would most likely be Michael McCall, if it would have, um, funds or any kind of negotiation that that's more of his skills and more of his, what I would be expecting from this town manager. Um, so that's the first meeting. And then I followed up the next time today with Ellen was there. Um, also Olivia and Michael were there too. Um, and we're discussing with a local, um, permitting staff president of the, of the Metro West region and just asking for more questions and they provide us more information. Bottom line is they're not, they're not quite there yet. We have a law, but they haven't finished the regulations and they haven't finished the potentially the proposed, um, model by law. It kind of feels like the MBTA where we have a law. We just haven't finished everything and send, we're one towns to apply and comply by, by October. But we, we're not, they're not there yet. So it's, there's a, there's something missing there. It's just, this is, it's getting annoying when we have these laws and we have to comply with them. And then the state doesn't like, I don't know, they, they don't yet, they don't even have it all done yet. It's like, so I'm still trying to gather as much information, but I also want to be, um, aggressively trying to figure this out before October. So that we're ready in case something comes up, which looks like, we might likely not happen. Right. But I want to be, I don't want to be having anger on our face. If something, something happens and we don't do it correctly. So. We actually need to be ready by July. The first is the bottom line, but we don't have to do a consolidated permit. The process is that you have to, as of October, you have to do a consolidated permitting with all of mostly all of the boards in town, like zoning planning, DPW and issue one permit. Um, and we also need to amend our bylaws to be in compliance with the statute. Uh, because right now we have certain timeframes within which we have to render decisions, which don't match the timeframes that are required under this new set of regulations. And, um, there are provisions for when you have to appeal or when an applicant has to appeal and they have to appeal X number of days from the issuance of the permit. So it doesn't work because you could get a permit in 60 days from one board and the consolidated permit wouldn't issue for another eight months, you know, so it's very messy and it is absolutely like the MBTA garbage. Well, and by the time we finally catch up on this, they're going to pass this other, the winds act. Right. And dump something else on us. Right. Did I share with you, I did a brief analysis of the regular those regulations. It was a one pager. Did we share that with you? I'll send it out. Um, just trying to figure out what the big pieces were so that Michael could figure out who to appoint to do what. So yeah, that's going to be another year, like the last three. So welcome, Bill.
Thank you. Oh, you're so welcome. Is there anything else? Does anybody have any concerns, comments that they want to make? I'm concerned that the legislature keeps dumping this stuff. I know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what to do about it. I don't. There's nothing. Yeah. I don't know. No, the only concern I have, and I don't think we have to discuss it tonight, is, uh, what we talked about with, uh, number one, Hob Street, that, um, and I mentioned this to Robert earlier, uh, yesterday, that, that intersection at local school, um, is really dangerous. And I think that the town will be responsible if some little kid crossing that street gets hit by a car, uh, if it's raining out or somebody is in a hurry to get to drop their kid off. It's really, it's begging for an accident. I think the town needs to put in a crosswalk. They need to have safety signs and they need to accept the fact that that is going to be an access to the school. And they have to put no parking signs there, or they have to put no parking and no stopping signs there. They can stop it. They have to be able to encourage people to drop these kids off there and they need to be able to create a safe access to the school from that. When I've been there, people generally either walk their kids or they drive and go around a circle. At least that's what I've seen, but we, Robert can mention it to the DPW and they can look at it. Because I think we should support it. I don't think we should fight it. Oh, I'm not fighting anything. No, I mean, it's, it's being used by the town. You're not going to tell them not to do it. They're just going to keep doing it. Um, we, a number of years ago, looked at the most dangerous intersections in town. There were five of them and we've fixed four of them so far. The fifth one is at Plain Road and Route 20, which is horrendous. And this is a sleeper. I think it would be a tragedy if some little kid got killed because we didn't take care of it. There is a crossing guard around there too. Around where people are supposed to let their kids go to school. Right. These people are trying to avoid the traffic, but. Okay. Well, Robert, if you can just mention it to Joe Doucette and ask if they can take a look at it in the morning when, and the afternoon when school. Yeah. If nothing else, at least some warning signs. So people are told this is a school crossing. You got to slow down, put in a speed limit limitation and a child crossing sign at that spot. So then the town is covered. And then if it's somebody still violates those warnings and at least we've covered ourselves. Yeah. Okay. So add that to your list. I'm smiling. Is your list getting long? He's tired. Okay. Anybody else? Anything else? No. Okay. Can I have a motion? Yeah. A motion to adjourn? Anybody else want to do it this time? No. I moved to adjourn. I'll second it. All in favor. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Bill Sterling? Yes. I reminded you. Yes. Yes. Annette Lewis. Thank you, everyone. We are adjourned.