March 25, 2026 – Planning Board – Video & Transcript
March 25, 2026 - Planning Board
Good evening. It's March the 25th, 2026 at 7.01 p.m. This is the Wayland Planning Board meeting.
It's a Zoom meeting and people are able to get into the meeting if they want to pay attention to it. It'll also be recorded and available on WACAM. The agenda for this evening is call to order, then review and approve draft minutes of 225-26 and 311-26. Then we're moving on to the continued public hearing for 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan approval. Then we have a proposed Route 20 planned redevelopment district zoning discussion and updates from the town planner and the chair. We have a few. Then board comments and concerns. And then adjourn. I'd like to take attendance this evening. Robin Borgestedt. Here. And Jesse Newbury. Here. Larry Kiernan. Here. Ira Montague. Here. Annette Lewis here. We have a full complement of the board. You see Ira? Yep. I can. Can you see him? He's here. No, I know. I asked him and he responded. Oh, I didn't hear him. Sorry, my head was down. No, he did. I just wanted to see on participants what we have on the list.
I mean, it's important to note that the continued public hearing for 3745 Waltham Road is not going to start to 7 to 30 at the earliest. So do you see some people on there that are probably there for that hearing? So just stick around for about half an hour. Okay. Thank you, Robert. Can we look at the draft minutes of February the 25th, 26th?
Has everyone had an opportunity to look at them? Yes. Yes. Okay. Does anyone have any comments?
No. No? Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as drafted? I'll motion. I move that we approve the minutes from February 25th, 2026 as drafted. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor, Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Larry Kiernan? Bobstain. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes.
How about the minutes of March 11th, 2026?
No comments. No comments. Does anyone have any comments on them?
Are we ready to vote? Yes. I move that we approve the minutes from March 11th, 2026 as written. And I'll second. I'll take a roll call. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Larry Kiernan? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. All in favor. I mean, five in favor of approval. Thank you very much. Well, that was quick. Robert, you're doing a good job on the minutes. I know you and I are doing that. I'm not running the minutes anymore. Well, I'm starting the minutes off with the motions and seconds, and then Anita's running the minutes. Yeah. Well, Anita's doing a good job. No, she sits there and watches the whole tip again to make sure she catches everything. So. I like that header. What, dude? You like the what? The header. The way that it's kind of listed out. Different things. I don't like it. You don't like it? Nah, I don't know. I don't know what I'm going to feel about. I did better before, but whatever. We can burn up a half an hour arguing over it. Yeah, it just makes it much longer. It just. Oh, yeah. Just a lot of wasted real estate. Yeah, it is. Should we go up to updates, or do you want to just. Yeah, I was just going to do updates. Why don't you do your updates, and then I'll do. All right, the next two meetings we have are April 15th and April 29th, and at this point we have a hybrid booked, we have a room booked in the COA for both of the meetings if needed to, if we need for any public hearings, and that will be to be determined later tonight where we're going to move forward. We do need a public hearing at some point, not sure, and we'd like to circle back at later tonight after the continuing public hearing for Carroll School to know where we got to for the public hearing for the planning board appeal, the select board amendment.
We have two new applications. One will probably be at the 29th, and that will be for outdoor seating for the Dunkin' Donuts, Jimmy John at 289 Bospos Road. I expect that to be a very simple, quick site plan approval, and now I put that on the 29th, and I also received an application today that was being completed for 1 Hobbs Road, aka 61A Local Street, and this is for a shared living facility at that address that I mentioned. And shared living is to be a dwelling, inside the dwelling would be six bedrooms, each of a bathroom, and this is for people who have intellectual disabilities, and one of the units will be for someone who can stay overnight. And so this would hopefully be a smoother site plan to go through, but it is also considered a Dover use, as an education use, but at this point, my understanding is the applicant is not asking for any crazy waivers under the Dover use, but it just happens to also be one of those uses that the town could consider. Very limited traffic, not many cars running in and going, maybe a van once in a while. The people who live there will not have cars. They'll use, potentially, a van to get to work. If they have jobs inside of Wayland or outside of Wayland. But I think this one will be mostly about stormwater, making sure that that's correct. Silvo and all of that, those kind of issues, traffic will not be considered an issue. We already put out a request for quotes for different companies to quote for the peer review. So, we should hear back very soon. And I slated that one for May, the first meeting in May, May 13th, just knowing how much we have going on before the town meeting and to allow time for the peer review to hopefully, hopefully be done. Very nice. So, I had that down on May 13th for the public hearing. And I already let the applicant know that most likely it's going to be May 13th. And I will confirm with him later this week, once I have this meeting, once this meeting's over, just to know where we're at.
I think it does a lot. Sorry. It's okay. Do you have more? Is that it? That's all I want to discuss now. I do want to circle back around later about the public hearing. But we'd like to know where, at the end of the night, we'd like to know where we're at with the Carol School. We'll do that at the end. For the Duncan site plan, make sure that they have copies of our guidance document for outdoor seating at restaurants, because that's what we'll expect to see. Okay. The Finance Committee has decided to withdraw its vote in favor of the article on the mixed-use development. And they're reserving their vote to town meeting. When I learned that, the person who's in charge at the Finance Committee let me know. I asked to be on their next agenda so that I could talk them through why we're doing this and what the benefits are.
It'll be a good dry run for town meeting. Okay.
And if people want to come, I'll let you know what the date is. You can let me know, and then I'll post. Otherwise, you know, you're certainly welcome to watch.
We have a note from the EDC, and we received materials from the EDC.
I'm not quite sure how to deal with it. I'm sure that they have the best interests of the town at heart. However, this is an – the MBTA zoning is different than all the other zoning that we have. You'll recall that we had to do modeling, and in the modeling, we needed to show how many units we could produce. And we also went through – created some performance standards in regulations. We decided not to do it in the bylaw because we wanted to make sure that the bylaw would pass state muster. And then on our regulations, we followed the guidance from the state. But we were much more in-depth in what the state would have suggested we put in zoning. So we wanted to get through. We did get through. We have an approval on our MBTA districts. The kinds of changes that are being proposed by the EDC, I believe, would require remodeling. We don't have money for remodeling. We don't have a consultant for remodeling. And Robert, with the change that we were making, with just the change in number of units and the change in the height, Robert checked with the state office of housing and was told that because of those, we would not have to be remodeling. Because it was just a straight up, and it was definitely an increase, and that would be fine.
Also, you know, the bylaw, we had hearings. They were announced. They were public. Nobody came. We talked about it at several meetings of what we were doing and why. And I'm not sure, you know, what to do. I don't want to particularly enter into a long conversation. I mean, I don't know what the thoughts of the board are. I'll let you give some thoughts first before I give mine.
Just to confirm on the modeling, I think you said that since we're increasing the number, it's not a really big deal. Right, because they want more. Right. Right. The issue becomes the step backs. We looked at that, you'll recall, when we were doing the bylaw and the regulations, and we decided that we couldn't deal with it in the modeling exercise. So we would talk about it, and we suggested in the performance standards, we talked about stepping back on that kind of stuff, but it wasn't the kind of step back that you would put into a zoning bylaw. And also writing it, I think it would be very difficult. And what is the percent increase in number of units with the added height or number? I don't know. Yeah. It would depend on how many, we don't have a project. It would depend on how many one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, you know? Yeah. I mean, the zoning change allows them to consider how they would develop it. And then they could tell us how many units they thought they could fit. I assume the reason for it is to add another floor.
I would assume, yeah. So if it's generally how we set up things, they're three stories high? We have 35 feet in general, except for the town center, where I think we went up to 42 feet.
And they have, are they three stories high? I don't remember what that was. I don't think so. No, I think it was, they were, they wanted 11 feet per, the town center people wanted 11 feet per story. So, yeah, I think it's more. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, I assume they're doing it for another floor, which would, if it's two, it would now be three. Or if it would typically be three, it would be four, which would mean a, either 25 or 33% increase. I don't think we actually know that for sure, because we don't have a. I know, yeah, we don't, but it's not 100%, it's not 50, it's not five. Yeah. But it's probably somewhere in there.
Trying to understand the magnitude. I just think it's odd, this, this desire to make an amendment on the floor at town meeting, where there's a project, there's a, you know, a guy who wants to develop it with these specific dimensions, because that's what he thinks he can make work. If they make these amendments, then what if he just walks away, and then there's no development, which does not benefit the town. You know, like you said, Annette, we had a public meeting, nobody came and said boo about it. And now, you know, we've got somebody who's willing to come in and do development, and these amendments may very well nullify that process, the prospect of this project. I don't even know that the amendments can be done on town meeting floor. Right. Because the changes are significant enough that it's a different bylaw, and we will not have had a hearing. Yep. But as a developer, if they felt they needed that going in, they wouldn't want to bet purchasing the property and asking for an exception, would they? The issue becomes you really, technically, you can't ask for an exception. Yeah. The Alta Oxpo got one, but I don't know that it was totally legal, and I think if somebody had wanted to appeal it, it could have been appealed, because it didn't meet the criteria for a variance. Right. There are specific criteria. So, as a developer, they would need this assurance if they thought this was the minimum they could do. Right. And it isn't even just one project, it's in general. I mean, having looked now at Alta Oxpo, since everybody's been raising the issue, Alta Oxpo, there was an RFP from the town. The town owned the land. People bid on that with set criteria. And we had a bylaw that was designed around those criteria, not by the planning board, but by others. And then, after they bid, after they got the go-ahead, then they changed their project as well. Their project was supposed to be, what was it, 35 feet at one place and then a little higher someplace else, but it's not. They got a variance to go up to 52 feet, 53 feet, and 48 feet. And that's not what we had in the bylaw. In addition, the bylaw said that they could have, I think it was 190 units. And you'll recall we went back to town meeting twice, because it didn't pass the first time, then they had to bring it back the next year. And it was a higher number that didn't pass. Then, when they came back, they went down, they went, I think they went from a 200 and something down to 190. Then, after they got the property and went through the process with the zoning board asking for a variance, they increased the number to 218, which is not what town meeting agreed. So, there are several issues here. One of them is, if the town is being asked to vote for something, then that's what they should get. I mean, I think the town people should know. And, again, I don't really think that a variance is necessarily doable.
Normally, when you've got a bylaw, you've got a bylaw. Do you know why they wanted the extra high? I'm assuming now, from listening to others and the people who asked us if we would make this change, that in order to make it work financially and in order to finance it, they needed to show a certain amount of return. And the way that they could get that was increasing the number of units. That's what I'm assuming. And I think that's why they had to raise the height and raise the number of units. I don't know that, but that's what I'm assuming. At the time, I thought it was just piggy, but I guess, you know, it doesn't work with the financial pieces. And when we did the MBTA thing, we weren't worrying about whether it was buildable or not, because that's not what the state told us to do. They said, just zone and they will come. So, we zoned. And they're not coming. No one did. Yeah, I mean, if they can't get financing, they can't come, and they need a certain density to get financing. Right. So, it's just a lack of familiarity with this environment that stops the, when you have a home, we all know what those heights are. But when you go to these apartment or condo type things, the impact of the height, I don't have a great deal of background other than watching what's being built in Wayland and Sudbury and now Weston. Right. Right. And they wanted to also change the setback according to the, what we got from the EDC. And that also would change modeling. And in our regulations, we thought about all of that, even though it says that the building setback, or it doesn't say building. It says setback, which is structures as well. So, walls and any other kind of structures have to be set back, I think it's 30 feet from the front line. And in our regulations, we talk about needing approvals from the police and fire. And we know already that the police and fire want to be able to walk around a building. They do not want to be, you know, chock-a-block next to a wall. And if you look at Route 20, we have pretty high area there. And, you know, you wouldn't put windows, you wouldn't have a building with a flat side and no windows. You need to have windows in a residential building. I mean, we went through all of this and we went through trying to figure out if we could say how often you had to break the facade and all of that stuff. So, we did our best and I just, I don't, I don't think this makes any sense, actually, particularly now.
What does everyone else think?
I agree. Go ahead. No, I totally agree with what she's saying. So, would you, I mean, I can reach out to the EDC and either put it in writing or ask to go to one of their meetings. And if somebody else wanted to come with me, that would be great. Or to talk to whoever offline and explain where we are and why. But I think the EDC needs to understand at some point in time what they're dealing with. And that the planning board is the planning board. And the planning board thinks these things through, a la the planning board. We had a public hearing. And we have constraints as well. Yeah, that's what I mean. It's the constraints. And, you know, some of us have gone to training. I'm a certified whatever it is at this point. I've gone to all the trainings, one and two levels.
It's not just, oh, this looks good to me. You know, I really like to do this. And it's private property as well. But the way that the MBTA stuff was set up, they do not want us micromanaging projects. And I think the importance of understanding that if they make some of these changes, it's going to kill this particular project. Well, as long as we're dealing with the project, it would kill our MBTA approval. Right. Yeah, yeah. Yes. But, you know, it'll also kill this, you know, any project at that site. If funding is dependent on a certain density, and these changes eliminate the possibility of achieving that density, then no one will be able to develop there. That doesn't count. And no one's going to want to develop it. Right. I don't think town meeting is the right place to hash this out either. No, it's not. If more than one of us go to their meeting, do we have a public meeting issue? Not necessarily. We would be a subcommittee, and we could post.
Do we know when they move out? You know, if it's at a time when I can go, you know, a night when I'm free, then I'm happy to go. Go, I'm sure it'll make them particularly happy to see me, too. Okay. Is that okay with everyone else? Yeah. Yeah. But I don't think we should send just one person. No, I don't either. Yeah. I guess let us know when their meeting will be by email, and then we'll figure out who can go. Okay. And I can post, and if I know if I want to go, that's fine, too. Yeah. Okay. So that was the EDC thing, the Finance Committee, and then EE. I don't know if any of you have had an opportunity to look at what the Select Board submitted in Article EE for the appeal thing. Robin, as we know, agreed to take a shot at doing a report, you know, just put something together first before the hearing so that we could deal with it. And maybe that way we can all see it and know, you know, what the facts are. The way it's crafted, it doesn't exactly work.
Robin, shaking your head. Well, it has some issues, let's put it that way. So we'll decide. I'll decide tonight whether we'll do it on the 25th, or not the 25th, on the 15th or the 29th. We don't have to do it either, but it's probably a good idea to try and do it. And the reason we don't have to is because of the time frames that we have. We have 65 days, and it won't have run. But I'm assuming that we want to try and have a hearing on it. Yes. Okay. Is there anything else? Does anybody have any other comments or concerns right now? We have two whole minutes. One quick thing, maybe. How open are we to having the town center owners come here and just talk about what their plans are for town center? They ask them. They're coming next meeting. Okay, good. Great. No, not the next meeting. They're coming on May 13th. I have April 15th. You and I talked today, and you said there was a choice, and I said better on May 13th. You gave me the dates. I thought we were on April 13th and April 29th. April 15th and 29th is when we have the meetings. April 15th and April 29th. That's when they wanted to come in. Yes. But I think it should be pretty brief. I don't think we have a lot of time on the agenda. Well, it's going to depend on when we have the Carroll School. Okay. But, yes, it would be great if they came in, and Robert has been talking to them.
I'll put this on the side, and then we'll figure it out after we figure out what's happening with Carroll School. Thanks for asking, Jesse. Yeah. Yeah. Robert just told me today.
Is there anything else?
Okay. What are the people? Yes, there's Bill Perea. Why don't we move on to PB 2503, Continued Public Hearing, 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan Approval.
And can you elevate Mr. Perea and whoever else he wants up there?
Good evening. Hi, Bill. How are you? I'm fine. How are y'all? We're just great. So just for the record, it's Bill Perea for the Carroll School this evening. Chris Rennie's here. Renee, I think Carrie's. Yeah, Carrie's here, too. So I see Jason. That's great. So, Madam Chair, how you would like to proceed? If you will just briefly say what you submitted. The board knows, but we'll make sure the public knows. Um, and, um, that would be helpful. Yes. Um, so we had submitted a couple of things. One was a little, a little brief on whether certain conditions could be included in the site plan decision, whether the board had the authority to do that. We also submitted a reply to the primrose case email that had come in before the last meeting, then revised conditions for the site plan approval. Uh, those were the three things we had, we had sent in to the board. And didn't you send in new site plans? Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. Um, yeah. Um, we, we tried to pull together the whole package with all the revision dates. Uh, Jason was very helpful with that. Robert as well. Uh, so we think we have everything in there, but we can discuss that. Okay. Just to make sure we do. And everyone else that has looked at them can, can agree or disagree and let us know what we're missing. If we are missing anything. That's great. Robert, um, can you speak to that now? The site plans? Yes. I have a, I have a group of site plans. The only thing that could not really, was harder to find, was some kind of index. I don't think we, I don't think we ever received an index for a cover page. And that would be really helpful just to know what we're, all the pages. Cause, um, there's just so many pages attached to the site plan. And it's been really, it's really kind of difficult to track all the, all the plan sheets. And so I think I, I did reach out to the, the Carol school team, just in asking for some kind of index, just on the, on the, on the first page. So we know what we're looking at. Um, but we do, we do have a group of, of the updated, the updated plans based on all the discussions that they've had with, with our peer review. And they seemed okay. As far as I know. Yes. When I reviewed it. Yep. Okay. Um, and where are you with the conservation commission? And that's still happening tonight or is that done? Yeah. Uh, I could speak Carrie DeLeo, a school or consulting. Uh, we just, uh, the conservation commission just closed our hearing, uh, tonight. So, um, uh, determination, uh, negative determination for applicability and then a chapter 194 permit, um, were voted and approved. Okay. And based on the last set of plans that we saw. Uh, and, and, and, and just so you're aware of that, we did accumulate all of the sets with, and I will thank Jason too for his review. I, um, I do have an index, Robert. I want to make, that's what I used to put together the set I dropped off. I did drop off an 11 by 17. Hopefully that made it to you. You were not in the office when I dropped them, but I have that. It's just, I'll, I'll make it look a little nicer. So you have an index, but I do have a record of all the, not only have you those submitted, but also the dates. And then also what the current is, um, yeah. And you have plans to go with all that. So I'll, I could start doing that. Um, are you going to submit a larger plan too, so that we can, um, actually read the thing? At least one. Yeah. So you have on record all of the current full size plans. Okay. And then when I was speaking, actually speaking with Linda at conservation, she was just, um, talking about the stress of getting all those plans into a file cabinet. So I printed 11 by 17, got it, get so that it's easier to find it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
Um, uh, I'm assuming that, um, well, has the board read all of the, uh, information that Mr. Perea submitted and read Robert's, um, statement on it as well. Um, there were two questions that I had to go to town council on, um, and I was able to speak with her. Um, um, with regard to, um, including anything from apple tree lane, uh, the 10 a property, we can't do it. It's not part of the application. It's not part of the site plans. We can't do that. We can include the, uh, information about how you get there. Um, and that we can put in as a condition, but we can't deal with that other property. If you want to enter into a private agreement, that's great, but we can't do it. Um, yeah, I didn't, I read the document, uh, bill sent, but I didn't see Robert's notes or I missed that. He sent it to us on, um, March 20th, 2026 at 825 AM. Um, the gist of what Robert sent was, uh, because the assessor's office shows the barn as having been built in 1965, uh, and it's been there and been in use. Uh, and barns routinely, uh, and barns routinely have equipment and vehicles stored in them, uh, and the barn appeared on a plan at the, uh, a 1979 plan at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. Uh, those are longer ago than 10 years. So the thing, the building and has been there, uh, for more than 10 years. And there's a statute chapter 40, a section seven, that says, if you've had a building in existence, uh, for more than 10 years, even if it was a zoning violation, it can stay. And it becomes what they call, uh, legally non-conforming. So the building seems to be fine where it is. Uh, Mr. Perea was referring to, um, the accessory dwelling unit, uh, bylaw adoption. Um, but because of the way it's written, um, it talks about, um, things, uh, it talks about the accessibility. The accessory dwelling unit, um, thing, I think it says, uh, not, uh, for things that are built after June 1, 1982. And these were built before 82. Um, if one wanted to even look at it now, um, it exists, it's part of the Carroll School and, um, they're allowed to continue to use it, uh, and they wouldn't need necessarily a site plan. And they didn't have any approval for it anyway. Um, so that's the first, I can see your hand, Dan, but I'm not calling on you right now.
Um, the other one was on the, um, transportation, uh, what we could do for, um, what we could, what we would be allowed to do in order to, uh, ask them to pay for more, uh, traffic work. Um, and, or roadway work, um, going forward, uh, and town council said, we can't do that. Uh, if they're willing to give us the, um, the $5,000 and we're willing to take it, that's fine. Um, but we would have to put something in like, this is again, a paraphrase, something like, um, within, uh, we could take the money now and then say that, um, we could use the money after, um, completion of the project, uh, to assess, uh, the area and, um, entering, exiting, those sorts of things. Um, and if we didn't use it within say 18 months that we would return it to the applicant.
So, um, I, for the board, I just want to make sure that you can ask what questions you have or concerns. And then I want to ask Mr. Perea, his, are you, I, Jesse, you're. Yeah. Sorry. I was muted. I guess I think like, how to like, who holds that? Where does it go? The money. Yeah. We have a gift fund. Um, and, and Robert had said at the last meeting that he'd prefer not to hold the money. I remember that. Yeah. To build them afterward. Yeah. But normally when you, it's tough to get money after the fact. So if we do want it, um, Robert, I talked to him, uh, about it and he said that it would be okay. He'd have to have written agreements and it would be clear that, um, if whatever was left at the end of a set period of time, and it wouldn't be a long period of time, would revert back to the school, um, because Robert needs to be able to get stuff out of that gift fund so that we're not carrying it for 20 years. Yeah, right, right. Yeah, of course. Makes sense. Okay. I think, I mean, I think a time period would be helpful in writing so that if the, if, you know, let's say that school actually does completely forget and they don't ask them money and like, oh yeah, we, we gave them five thousand bucks and then I wonder if they ever used it five years later, they can look back and say, oh, we, we, we want, we let our money back and then they can actually submit a request back to town. And then we would have some document on record saying after 18 months, it goes back just to the treasurer can say, yep, they, they are, they are, they have deeded back. The money is right there. They're theirs. So we see, we need something strong. That is that, that would be able to be tested over time. Regardless of who's in, you know, in what position in town. And I would have concerns with what we chose for a time period because, you know, like 18 months, they're just going to be finishing completion of the construction probably. Or it could be like 18 months after completion of the construction or something. Yeah. Select a timeframe. I'd be curious to hear from the applicant when it is that they expect to, from the time we approve or, you know, from the time they break ground, how long before they're up to their full student body that they anticipate, you know, sort of what are they looking at for a timeframe so that, because that would need to be basically the timeframe. True.
I can speak to that. I think growth is, it's not going to be immediate. There'll be a couple year ramp up, um, before we get to our, uh, our, our ideal, uh, enrollment.
Okay. I would say two to three years, uh, would be a, uh, two, two to three school years. But you would want it.
You would also want a period of time to see if it were three years to see how it was working at three years. So that would be more, I don't know, we can talk about it, um, as getting along. Yeah, it's getting really long. You're really looking at like five years between everything. That's not great. Okay.
Any other comments from the board?
Um, how about Mr. Perea? Would you like to, um, tell us your thoughts? Yeah, sure. I mean that, I mean, we did offer to, you know, provide that amount of money. However, the town thinks they need to, you know, fashion some period of time. I think we can work with the town on that. I mean, we want it to be useful to you.
So I think, you know, if town, the board or staff or town council draft something, you know, we could just take a look at it or react to it or, um. Right. Because if we're not going to use it for two to three years, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense for us to have the money just sitting there. Yeah. Either. Um, okay. That's sort of why that I kind of drafted it to be related to it gets payable later at some point. Right. Yeah. And then if what Robert would like, or the town would like, there has to be an end point to that, then we could do both, right? Right. Yeah.
Okay. Uh, Robert, I just saw something flash across my screen. Dan Hill said something or other in an email to you.
Say it again. Dan Hill just sent you an email. Oh, I did not. It flashed across my screen, but I can't get to it. I did not get an email recently or? Just now. I did not get an email from Dan Hill now. Okay. Yeah, he did just send one. Can you see it, Robert? Yep. And, um, your, says Robert, your webinar for the planning board meeting taking place right now is only allowing attendees to see the speaker and not the entire planning board meeting. Dan, I think that's your settings. If you go to your view settings, um, you can change your view. It, it's not the settings for the meeting. It's the settings for your computer.
Okay.
I thought that's usually what you can do. I thought you usually can only see you speaking at the, at the moment and it switches over. Unless you're, unless you're a pan less and then you can see everything. No, up in the top right corner, there's a little thing that says view and it has nine squares next to it. And you can choose whether you see the speaker or the gallery.
Hope that helps, Dan. Um, okay. Um, did everybody have a chance to look at all the materials that were submitted? Were you able to look at the plans as well?
Yes. And they looked pretty, I mean, I, I have not done a fine tooth cause it was so small. I did a fly over. Same. Okay. Um, we also got the, uh, markup. Uh, of, uh, what they're looking for, for conditions. And I just want to say first, um, when we draft a decision, um, we'll have findings of fact, and then we have conditions after that. We list, um, all the pertinent procedural things first. Then we have, uh, findings of fact, then general conditions, construction conditions, specific, if there's something extra special. Some of the things that you've included in the proposed conditions are, in my mind, findings of fact, and we can include some of those and some of the things we can make conditions. Some of the things we can, I don't believe we can make conditions, and I want the board to discuss them so that, uh, we're all on the same page. Um, so, um, if, Robert, you could put up the, um, March 18th markup, if you're there. I can do it. You can do it? Don't you have to be, doesn't he have to give you permission to do it? I don't think so. Oh, okay. Let's see, I just have to find the right. Oh, he's there, Robert. Can you do that? What do you need? I'm sorry, let's have to tell you for a second. The March 18th, um, proposed conditions, the markup. This one. The markup, though. Um, so, I'm not sure that the markup and this one are the same. One of my issues is that it's not always clear, um, who's done the marking up and whether the markup is sort of mutually agreed upon or not. I think this one was the last one. Yeah, this is the one. The one, uh, Dan Hill. No, I don't want Dan Hills. I want the one from Mr. Perea. All right, let me open that one up. I have to open my emails and get that one.
We're going to go over it first with the applicant and make sure we all know what's up, and then we'll, uh, speak to the, uh, neighbors, the council.
You having trouble? It's in the packet. Oh, did I put it in the packet? Yeah. Thank you. Well, hopefully you can all find your own, and we'll start, and, uh, then when Robert finds it, we'll see where we go. Um, in paragraph 3b, you still can't find it, Robert? I think I found it.
I was going to find it.
I believe this is it. No, I think that's the one from Dan. That's Dan Hills. I would do it. And that wasn't in our packet. That just came late. Oh. Oh. Wait. I'm sorry. I believe it was in the packet. I'm just looking. It is, but it's the one I had put up there a minute ago. It doesn't show. It says clean and track changes, but it's just, it's a PDF document. It doesn't show. It's the, um, it's the second part of it. I put, I put the one as one document, just so it's easier to understand. I found it. Here's the one, here's the one that track changes.
Thank you. This is what you're looking for. Yeah. Um, go down to 3b.
Okay. Um, and these are things that were added by counsel for the, uh, school. I think that we can, until we get one, two, three, four, fifth. At the end of the word property in the fifth line, where it starts with the garage may be used for, that's not a planning board thing that we can deal with.
I think the beginning part that we can, and, um, if it's okay, Mr. Breyer, we'll, we'll say it. I don't know that we'll call it the accessory garage use, but we'll call it something and refer to it as an accessory use. Um, but I think we'll refer to it more as the preexisting, uh, approved use or something, if that's okay with you. Um, yeah. I mean, it's, I don't think it's, I mean, I think it's, I think it's currently compliant with the bylaw. It is, but it doesn't match the way that the introduction to the bylaw is, because the introduction to the bylaw talks about accessory uses after 1982. And this accessory use started in 1965. Okay, uh, we'll take a look at what, what you're proposing, but I, I, I hear what you're saying. I thought, you know, I know you got some advice from town council about the garage. So, I mean, I tried to make my case. I think it would be helpful for everyone to have it included, but if that's the advice you're getting and the direction you're going, I can't. Right, and again, you can do it if you want us to, with whatever separate agreement you come up with, you want us to attach it to the decision, we'll be happy to do that and just refer to it as what it is. Um, and then, um, in 3C, going back and forth between condition 14, condition 3B, again, um, in, I'm, I'm speaking for me and I shouldn't be. I should be waiting to hear from what other people have to say. Uh, why don't I, before I go through this, um, does the board, do people on the board have specific things they want to talk about in the document? No, only, other than noting that there are certain things that, we have to separate this out in terms of what are actual conditions that we can have, and things that should be separated out in an agreement between the, the abutters, you know, the neighbors and the school. That's my only comment. There's certain things that are going to have to get pulled out and be separated. Right. Does anybody else have anything? No. Okay. Okay. So, well, in, in 3B, the second part of that would have to be pulled out, um, in 3C, um, we're at three and it refers to condition 14 and then it refers to condition 3B. Um, I don't necessarily think that there's a problem with it, but we might rewrite it so that it's, we're not bouncing back and forth between different provisions that come later.
Um, with regard to, in that same section, uh, 3C, uh, with regard to the, um, storage shed, where is that depicted on the approved plan? And is it in fact there? Mr. Hill had asked about that. He didn't see it. Um, yes. So there's a reference to a, what do we call it? A mechanical pen, I believe we called it on the plan set. And so I think we should reference that. That's where that storage shed will be. It's, you know, adjacent to where the, um, HVAC pad will be and things like that. It'll maybe a lot of transformer, but all in that area to the west of the new academic building. Okay. So we, that's, that was an, is an answer to, to Dan's question. And we could refer to that in the condition.
Okay. But in, you know, I don't know, maybe it needs, if it's not on the plan, there should be some reference. Shouldn't there?
You, you, you're talking about condition eight. I'm talking about, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. I went too far. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, I, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't have a, what I did was I just printed out the pages where I thought there were things to talk about, but hold on. And it's double-sided. So again, it's, it's going to be, you know, within that area depicted on the plan as the mechanical pen. I don't know exactly where within that footprint, because that design hasn't been done yet. I don't know exactly where transformers might be or it hit, you know, air handling equipment. Okay. So we tried to create a, you know, a pad where all these things would be put. So people would understand it wasn't going to just be willy nilly put on the site somewhere, but it was related to that mechanical pen that is shown on the plan set. Okay. Okay. Well, we'll look at the plan set and see if we can figure out how to state it, I guess, unless you have a better idea. I'm sorry. I went too fast before. Yeah. Sorry. That area on the plan is called out as a utility and service area. Okay. So you, you could just refer like that. If, if such time there's a shed, it will be located, you know, in the location of the utilities and service area depicted on the plan. Okay. Okay. Going back then. On number four, we're not going to be able to do what the request here is in number four. Um, we can do something with a review of student arrival, student dismissal, parking protocols and trends and other matters. Uh, but we, we're not, we said this before, and if the board doesn't agree, let me know. Um, I think that we said before that, um, we're not, uh, a mediation place. Uh, that's not the role of the planning board. We don't want to be in that role. Um, and to just have a meeting that we can't do anything about and make you, uh, make traffic changes just didn't seem prudent to us. Um, you know, the police departments can be involved, uh, if you're having traffic issues here, if the neighbors are having traffic issues and that's where they should, uh, go. Is that about what we said the last time guys? Yes.
Um, Mr. Hill had a number four, which I'm not going to find fast either.
Too much paper. Uh, well, we'll come back to that. Dan had some comments on number four. He had a new number four, um, with this, um, number five, um, the voluntary assessment. Um, I think that would be a finding of fact.
Um, and then, um, with the, uh, payment thing that maybe could be a condition, uh, separate from it. Um, and then going through, um, Dan had added legal holidays, which I think is fine.
And, um, in number all the way through. Um, and then, um, we did number eight, um, on number nine. Um, I wanted to understand, um, on your last real sentence there. Um, why it says special events, which are otherwise subject to the site plan approval. What does that mean? It means for the note, you know, generally for the notice requirements, that if they were going to be events of certain size, then they would also be subject to that notice, you know, the notice provisions in the protocol.
And that's why we use that capitalized term as a defined term. Um, why, if it's special events, why does it have to say, which are otherwise subject to the site plan approval?
It doesn't have to, I w I just wanted to make it plain that there wasn't, this wasn't being used as an exception to that. Okay. Those, those other provisions. Okay. We'll figure out how to deal with it. It becomes confusing when it says that, um, with a number of these, things, um, it says that things won't, uh, begin earlier than a certain time, but it doesn't say what the latest time is. Is that anything that you've discussed with the neighbors?
Uh, no, these are the provisions that we had talked about and I don't think they had any further comment, but I mean, Dan said, normally we, we provide a beginning and an end period, a window for doing it. So we can ask them about that.
Four, number, I was writing myself notes. So we don't forget. Um, and, um, in number 12, all property lighting, we don't have, I don't think we have a definition of what property is. We've been talking about project. We've been talking about, uh, individual parcels. Well, we did on the heading of this, we can put a definition in somewhere. I see. Yeah. Well, you don't have to say all lighting. Now we'll just pick it up from here. Yeah. Why can't it just say all lighting? Yeah. That's why I was wondering why I think we can just say all lighting. Yeah. Okay.
Um, in a, uh, um, a part of this is, seems to me again, as a finding of fact, what your standard operating hours are, um, and the conditions are conditions. So we can break those apart as well.
Um, and the definition of the school, I know that it's a school. Um, or you just want to talk about the, the, uh, okay. So it'd really be standard operating school hours, maybe.
Okay. Um, in B, I think it's the same thing, breaking it into findings of fact and conditions. Um, there are things that you do. And then based on what you do, we're setting certain conditions. And when on number 12 B, um, in, at the, on page, no page numbers, uh, on the second page of that, uh, it says in parentheses, see student arrival slash student dismissal parking protocol event management plan. Is that one document or is that two documents?
I thought they were two.
Um, I, I think it's one document as it's attached here. Okay. Those are sections of the one document.
Okay.
In C under that same section, um, is it okay if we change municipal public safety departments to officials, municipal public safety officials?
Yeah, sure. That's fine.
Because you don't want it just coming from the general department. You want it from somebody who's in charge. Okay. Um, number 13, um, is technically a finding of fact and it'll be on the plans and then we'll incorporate the plans. Okay. Um, in C number 15, 30 days prior to commencing project activity. What, what do you have in mind? Um, I think any sort of action toward the project, contemplated project and demolition, you know. Right. And you can't do that without a building permit. Right. So normally we would do it, um, commencing, uh, prior to, um, issuance of a building permit.
Carrie, did you have. Or any permit from the building department. And that, that, that is exactly what we were trying to do is get it to align with the issuance of the building permit versus the approval of the site plan. Absolutely. Okay. So however you want to write that, but basically we're just saying when we get closer before we start work and when we're going through that, we will, we will submit both that, um, the sequencing plan and the temporary fire protection standards. Okay. Yeah. Um, and that'll be, um, it'll also include a traffic management plan for construction. Yeah, exactly. And I don't know what else, but okay. Um, that's 15, 16, 17 was legal. 18.
Yeah. You know, the, the attached plan bill is, um, student arrival, student dismissal, parking protocol. I just found it. I couldn't find it before. Um, so it's not, um, the event management plan is something else. I see it's in there. Yeah. It's a section of that protocol. Okay. Well, I think we should just refer to the protocol. Okay. Then I thought maybe there was something new and different that we hadn't seen. Um, okay. And this, um, this protocol plan would just be attached again as an exhibit to the, just our decision because you gave it to us. Yeah. Yeah. The sites, the site circulation plan. Right. Yeah. The student, the, the dismissal and parking protocol. Oh yeah. No, we would, we would expect that to be, I mean, it's, it's a really a condition, right? I would think. Um. How we operate the site. So I would make a finding of fact that you gave us this and that we have included it, uh, as a condition. Yeah. Okay. I just want to find, I have Dan's thing somewhere and I just want to find it too much. Paper is going to kill me.
I can't believe I can't find it. Um, let me just pull it up. Um, Robert, can you pull up Dan's thing now? Anyway, where do you want to start? Um, going down number four is number four.
Yeah. When, again, we, I think we talked about that already today. Um, we're not going to do that. And, uh, number five, um, we can't ask for $50,000.
That's a lot of money. Yeah. And, well, we couldn't anyway. They offered $5,000 and I'm assuming the board would like to avail itself of the $5,000 that's being offered. Is that correct, members? Yeah.
Larry, uh, you said yes. Uh, Jesse, Ira. Yes. Robin. Yes. Jesse. Yeah. Okay. Um, in number six, that's new. Um, here. And I don't, we haven't necessarily talked about that.
And Mr. Perea, have you seen on Dan's number six applicants facilities, including the gymnasium, athletic fields, et cetera, shall not be leased or let to, or otherwise used by any public or private individuals or organizations. Again, I don't think that's something that we can say as a planning board. If you want to agree to that separately, that you're more than welcome to.
Uh, yeah, I saw, we, we've talked about this since last fall, that this kind of restriction on sort of business decisions that, you know, future board or administrators might have to make, we would not agree to that. Uh, okay. Then, uh, moving on past eight, Robert, hold on. Uh, in number nine, there's a footnote, go to the bottom. We don't, okay. That was the shed thing. And so we've gotten that taken care of going back up. Okay, go past 12, go past 13.
Okay. That was, I think, the end, um, of them. Uh, uh, Dan, if you want to speak, Robert, you see there?
Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. So, um, I just want to address the, the Zoom issue. Um, the Zoom screen that we see as participants is not the same screen that you all see as panelists. So I do not have a button on my screen to toggle between viewing all the panel or viewing just the speaker. So right now, all my, my screen, all I see on my screen is basically my name. I can't see any of you folks. Um, and, and this is really not a good practice. Um, I don't know why you're doing it this way. I mean, you have the ability to change the setting on, on your Zoom, uh, format. Um, Dan, I, the reason why it's set that way is so that someone can't take control of the screen. And once you, once you push into a panelist, um, then you can take control of the screen. You, you, you can show stuff on the screen. It's, it's, it's, it has a safety measures on purpose. So someone doesn't Zoom ball in the meeting. That's why. Right. But can he see, he see us? He's run out. He's, he has the ability to talk. Now, if I put him to a panelist, then he has full control. No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that he cannot see our faces. That's just the way that that's just the way the webinar is set up. But normally with a webinar, you can see at least the person who's speaking. That's all he can see. Yeah, that's all he can see. You have to take control of the meeting. I don't. No. That'll worry. Why don't we just try it with him being able to see everything? Well, I think he's concerned that other people can't see everything as well. The issue is not making me a panelist. The issue is that we cannot see everybody in this meeting. All I, all we can see is the speaker. And that is not, that's not something that's typical. I just got out of the Conservation Commission Zoom meeting and I could see all the panelists. That's normally how it is. For some reason, your setting on this webinar isn't allowing participants to see everybody. And I don't know why that is. Can you select Mallory up at the top or not? No, I can't. I don't have that option. No. And I just checked with Adam Curry, who's also on the Zoom. He doesn't have that option either. Can you see content? Yes. I can see when you guys post things and I can see the speaker, but I can't see the panel.
Well, thankfully, Dan, you don't want to see the rest of us.
It's really going in the wrong direction. It's bad enough that we can't see the other attendees. We don't even know who's in the room. Now we can't see who's even on the panel. This is, it's just not right. Robert, I mean, Dan, we have had issues. As you know, all the way along in all of our meetings with Zoom, in-person, hybrid, whatever it is.
We've talked to people about it and we'll continue to talk. I don't think there's anything we can do right now if Robert doesn't know how to fix it. Robert isn't here, is he? You're in charge? No. I'm running out of the host of the meeting. I don't want to interrupt this meeting. I just want to make the point that this is happening. I will ask IT if there's different settings set up that is different, had different meetings. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure how the- One last question. Have you been able to see the way you would like to see it, Dan, in the past? Yes. So there's the answer.
Anyway. Okay. So Dan- Back to the application. Yeah. Okay. So the first comment I had was that Bill went through, or actually I think it was, I'm sorry, the woman, I forgot her name, and I can't see her because I can't see the panel. Carrie, do I know? Carrie. Carrie listed, I think the plans, or maybe Bill listed the plans that have been submitted. I don't see any revised plans on the Planning Board's website, and we haven't seen any revised plans except for the circulation plan that was submitted. So if there are revised plans, I mean, I think the last set of plans we saw was dated sometime in late February or mid-February. So if there is a revised set, if the applicant could please forward those to us, and also if the board can put that on their website, that would be helpful. And then, of course, those need to be listed in the conditions or in the findings of fact.
And then with respect to condition 3B, I mean, I understand the advice you're getting from Town Council. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is. It's unfortunate. The garage is being used as part of the project. It should be part of the application. It should be part of the conditions. So with respect to number four, at the last hearing, we talked about this on February 25th, and I heard your concern that this was too complicated and it was kind of amorphous. And then I reminded you that this condition was actually in the 2016 conditions, and you said, well, why don't you go back and give us that condition and we'll consider it. And so that's what I did. I took the language from the 2016 condition and I stuck it in here. So if you still don't like it, that's fine. But this was a requirement from the prior project. So I don't see really what the harm is in having it in here again.
Okay. Robert, can you put four up again? Yeah. It would be in Dan's. His is brand new.
Yeah. We're not, we talked about it as a board. We do not want to be in the middle of it.
Yeah. And again, it's not in the middle of something if the board wants to actually have the hearing. But again, I'm just. If the board wants to have the hearing, the board can just have the hearing. On its own initiative, period. It doesn't need to be in a decision. Okay. All right. With respect to number five, you made a comment, Annette, that the board can't do that. They can't ask for mitigation or can't impose a requirement for mitigation. I don't agree. This was a condition in 2016. We had a condition in there that said that the applicant must contribute up to $10,000 for traffic calming measures. So are you saying that what we did in 2016 was also not correct? I wasn't on the board at the time. I don't know what the discussions were. The issue that we have is we have multiple Dover Amendment cases happening now at the same time. We cannot look as if we are overreaching in one of them because it will come back and bite us in the rear end on the other ones. So we're happy to take the $5,000 and we can use some of the language that's in number five. But we can't go or number review or whatever. We can maybe wrap number four into number five.
But we can't do we can't we can't take more money. We can't ask for more money, according to town council and really the case law. So I guess I mean, I'll just disagree because there is case law that that in the Dover Amendment context where conditions requiring mitigation payments were addressed. I mean, we gave you that native case. But that native case, I can distinguish from this case on the payment issue. Not in the payment issue. Yeah, I can. That was not a site plan, really. It was a special permit. There were two major things that they had to get variances for. And from my point of view, that's what those things may have turned on. If they even made a decision at all on them, it's possible that they didn't make a specific decision on those particular things because they weren't part of the appeal. Correct. Those those were voluntary conditions. So if you read the case carefully so that the appeal didn't take that issue up. The developer just decided that they would accept some of those conditions, the conditions they did appeal, they won on. And the court had a lot to say about one of the parties putting words in the court's mouth that it had the ability to regulate activity off the site. And the court said, go, you know, just read it. Court said, don't essentially wrong. The court never said that. And you missed you sort of mischaracterized what the court was doing. So that case is not applicable at all to the situation. OK, we've made our our pitch on that with respect to number six. This is something else we talked about the last hearing that I mean, I actually watched the video again just to confirm yesterday that we specifically had a discussion about there that might make sense to put a restriction that the applicant can't basically use the property for something. That's non-educational. And that's that's what this restriction does. It says you can't lease this out to private organizations for some some other use, that the use of the property is is given Dover Amendment protection because of its educational nonprofit educational use. And there's plenty of case law that says that that organizations cannot lease out their property for other purposes. There was a case out of Winchester or Melrose where a church was renting out its parking lot for commercial purposes. And that was held to be outside of the scope of Dover. So that was the point of this restriction was simply saying that the school can't lease out its facilities. I don't know why this is controversial. There are other cases that say that as long as the school is being a school, you can't put those kinds of restrictions on it. They wouldn't get Dover Amendment protection if what they were doing was building a building on their property for some other commercial use. But this is their use and their building. So you think if they leased out their gymnasium or their athletic field to a to a private event promoter that was selling tickets to to like a music festival or something that that that that would be. I don't know, but that's not what this says. This is wider than that kind of thing. Yeah, I mean, if you want a condition that says we won't do anything that we can't do as a Dover use, then put that in. But this says we couldn't even if we if the school goes out of the school business, but they lease the property to another school, which is perfectly valid. We couldn't do it under this kind of condition. I have a question. I have a question. Can we limit it to educational uses only and can we limit it to the standard hours of operation that the school has agreed to? I think the standard hours of operation are are it unless there's a special event. I think I don't know that we can do this. You definitely can't do this because it's not what Dan's trying to accomplish. The intent was to that to prohibit leases for non-educational purposes. So, yeah, if you want to add that caveat at the end, that's totally acceptable because that's that's what the intent was. But if you don't have any condition in here, then I don't know what's stopping the school from, again, using its facilities for non-educational purposes or letting other people use their facilities for non-educational purposes. It's the same as any other use. If someone is using their property unlawfully, then there's a mechanism to enforce that right under the Zoning Act. There is. And this would be an additional mechanism that the board could say, well, not only are you violative of the of the Dover Amendment, you actually are violating a condition of our decision. So it's a it's a it's a tool for the board of the town of Weyland to have that if that were to occur, then they have a more direct enforcement mechanism. And I've seen this happen in other towns where Dover Amendment uses are get used for non-Dover purposes after the fact, like years later.
Then a general condition that says we can't use it for non-Dover purposes. That's that's fine. But if you said that that incorporates a lot of other stuff, there are lots of Dover Amendment purposes, multifamily housing.
There's a whole bunch of stuff in there. Well, that are inconsistent with this site plan decision. That's obviously the case as well. I mean, this is the project that's being approved. Multifamily housing is not being approved here. So that would definitely trigger another site plan review. Right. Right. But that kind of language, I don't think is something we can't just say Dover because it won't work.
What are the board's thoughts on this? If town council thinks it's okay, I would be I would think it's okay to put in a condition that says only educational uses consistent with the application are permitted. And within the general operating hours that were specified and within the general operating hours that were specified.
I agree with that. Yeah.
That makes sense to us. We wouldn't have anything conceptually, I think, to oppose that. But we'd have to see what the language is. Right. Robin, can you repeat that again so I can write a note? That only educational uses that are consistent with the application or with the permit, I guess, are allowed and only during the permitted hours of usage or hours of operation, I think, is what it's called up above.
Standard hours of operation. I mean, I just don't want that to negate the special events that we've tried hard to define and provide notice for. So, again, conceptually. Those are all part of your educational mission. Yeah, but we've had it with the standard hours of operation. So that might need to come out. It's just. Just however it's phrased up above where it allows for special events, you know, in addition to the. We just have to refer back to the provision that lists the hours. Where is it?
Also have. I can't remember at this point. In what you put together, Mr. Perea, did you have hours of construction?
I don't think so. I think that was left for the for the construction plan. OK. Do you have. But there's there is.
Hours shall be. I'm looking at this. No work construction. It says said hours shall be. Yeah. 18. Friday 7 to 4. Yeah. And Saturdays from 8 to 3. OK. Sorry. I couldn't remember that. Yeah. That's 18. Right. OK.
Is there anything else, Dan, that you had? So just on the hours of operation. I don't think there was any language that said that for the special events that those had to end at a certain time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't I don't think there was anything in there and that there really should be like 11 o'clock at night if that's what their intent is. One second. Looking for it.
Do you know? 12 A and B. What is 12 A and B? 12 A and B. 12 B is special events. Or here it's 13.
OK. So isn't Mr. Parade's 12 B? Yeah.
There's no end time, right? Right. Well, there's no end time in a lot of the things that you agreed to already. I think I think that was addressed sort of implicitly on on C, right, because it talks about when the lights will be out so that I mean, we can make that more specific. The idea was those, you know, the the campus wouldn't be lit after 11 o'clock except for those very limited exceptions. So events would be over, you know, well before that. Yeah, I think it'd be prudent just to add a sentence in 12 B that events show in by by 11.
Is that OK with the school?
Chris?
I. Yes, I generally I want to. Yes, I think so. But I feel like I'd like to I'd like to talk about it internally. OK. With respect to the storage shed, it wasn't clear to me how we left off on that. Are they going to add that feature to the plan or because it's not currently shown in the plan? I don't think we have to look at the plan for that. What they said was that there is a utility and service area depicted on the plan. I don't have the plan in front of me. Is that something, Robert, that you can also put up, believe it or not, even though this takes time, you can see the thing better than you could if we were there in person or pay. Blow that up bigger. And so we can see where Robert C401 has it noted over. Or is it the one that's it noted? Yeah, it's plan left right there. It's kind of right there, right at the bottom left corner, the utility service area. And that's pointing into what looks like either six boxes or seven boxes in there is that. Yeah, the idea is that all of the, you know, any of the ground mounted mechanical equipment, storage area, you know, all that is going to be in a large fenced enclosure there. And I think what we would propose is that if we determine we need a shed, that it would go in that same area of the site. Within that squared off area or adding on to the squared off area? Um, I mean, I'm not sure we've thought through what all of those individual squares are, but I think we would attempt to get it, you know, within and could certainly discuss if it's not. But that area will be shielded, I think, from all view, regardless, except from the Carroll School, they'll be able to see it from the backyard, potentially. Annette, if I could suggest that maybe the condition should be reworded to say that an exterior storage shed may be located adjacent to the westerly facade of the new academic building in the, in the area delineated as utilities service area. Uh, hold on. Just reading it back because I have all write ups and markups here. It's the exterior store or an exterior storage shed may be located adjacent to the west. Is this okay? Adjacent to the westerly facade of the new academic building. And then, um, what did you say after that, Dan? Within the area delineated as utilities service area.
Yep. Now, if we do, I'm asking the school this, that would mean that it would have to be in that area, it would have to be within that square, that rectangular area.
Could we say that it would be, or, or behind, or something just out of view from, from the road and neighbors? You know, if you would envision we put a little shed behind that enclosure, that's a six foot fenced enclosure, or maybe even an eight foot fenced enclosure. If there was a shed behind that, nobody would see it except the trees and the school.
Normally we like everything to be on a site plan.
Do you think you guys can figure out where you would? I just, I just don't know how we figure out what we're going to need until much closer to the actual build. That's what I'm, that's what I'm hedging on a little bit is we, we don't exactly know. Um, you know, and in this case, we weren't exactly sure what the restrictions on 10 a we're going to be, you know, so there's like kind of a cart, the, uh, like a circular reference. Right. So, um, you know, I think we could say within, unless we come back to the planning board to ask for permission to, for it to go outside. I don't know what the other options are. I just, I can't, I don't think we can commit to exactly how big it is and, and all that, but I think we can commit to where it would go and the fact that it would be, um, you know, on a, on the kind of Carol side of, of the fence. Okay. Yeah. Um, board, how do you feel about, um, revising it similar to the way Dan suggested, um, and say that, uh, if they, uh, need to make changes, they can come back to, uh, either the town planner or the board, you decide board, um, and, uh, have a minor amendment. I think town planner is fine with me. Me too.
I'm fine with that.
Okay. Thank you.
Anything else, Dan? Um, no, that was it. I guess on the special events, it sounds like the applicant is willing to consider 11 o'clock, but they're going to get back to you on that. Um, so I think that's something that we just need to address at the next meeting. And, um, I don't, I don't have any other comments, so I don't know if, uh, Adam, who's on the, on the call, he might have something else to add, but that's it for me. Um, are there any public comments?
Catherine Cooper?
Hello, this is Andrew Cooper with my wife, Catherine Cooper. Um, I would just like to make a comment. We're at five Apple tree lane. I'd just like to make a comment on the garaging at 10 a. And the three B condition. Um, I perfectly understand that 10 a. Has been an accessory, uh, and is grandfathered in as such. I'd point out that it has been an accessory to a private residential address. It now seems that it's becoming an accessory to a larger sort of somewhat commercial enterprise. That to me feels like a change of use. Um, and it's not just grandfathered in, uh, because of that change. Um, that, as a layman, is the way I would see it. And therefore, I don't understand why it isn't included in the site plan. Um, uh, unless its use is not changing at all. We have no desire to see the garaging taken down. We have no desire to see access prohibited to it from Apple tree lane or anything like that. But we want to be protected from it becoming a much busier hub of operations for a more commercial enterprise. It's been, uh, an accessory to a private residential address at 10 Apple tree lane. It is no longer going to be that if the school are going to use it for much more, um, commercial purposes. And I therefore don't understand why it's just getting a grandfathered nod and the school can do whatever they want with it. Um, to respond, it was part of a farm. All of your land was part of the farm and as was the schools. Uh, and, uh, the barn has been there and it serviced the farm. Then there was a site plan or an A&R plan that divided property. Um, A&R is an approval. It's strange, but it's an approval, not required. It means that, uh, the board approved the planning board at some point approved the division of the property into various parcels. Uh, but didn't review it because it didn't have to. This is a very strange thing that Massachusetts law has in it. Um, so that it has always been a, essentially a farm use. And that's how it's listed at the assessor's office that that building was there. And the way our zoning works is for structures, including buildings that were in existence for more than 10 years, they're, they're outside of zoning. They just stay there the way they were, the structure does. But it was already an approved kind of structure and use in that area. Uh, I would suggest that farm use is different to school use in particular because of the amount of impervious surface, uh, that the school has as opposed to what a farm would have. Uh, and therefore, you know, my biggest concern all along has been, uh, dealing with snow, um, because. Really, I don't mean to cut you off, but it really has nothing to do with that. And that's not, unfortunately, I, I know all of these cases are very difficult. Um, I know that neighbors get very upset. Uh, I get upset myself at different times, uh, but it's not something that we can control. I'm sorry.
Well, are you saying we, meaning the town of Weyland has no. I'm saying we, meaning the planning board under zoning provisions. Right. So my question would stand as to who in town, um, you know, does have any sort of jurisdiction or say over it. Private property owners, um, have the right to use their land as they wish to use their land, as long as it fits within zoning and public safety requirements. I, I guess my question is still, I don't understand, understand, understanding zoning. Well, who do I talk to? Talk to your council. Who is my council? I thought, I thought Mr. Hill was. Oh, well, I'm asking who in the town I would talk to. You don't have it. You have to talk. It's a private matter, actually.
Are you saying the town's not involved? Only via zoning. That's correct. Or if there is a danger and the danger is, uh, an imminent kind of danger, fire, something like that.
So is there a zoning board in Weyland? Yes. Oh, okay. So presumably I could talk to them. Now on a separate matter. Well, yeah. On a separate matter, um, at the last meeting that I attended, um, Neighbours was struck out because it had no legal definition and it was just left as a butters. But I think later on in that meeting, I got the impression that a butters must live in the same town and therefore, for instance, 109 Old Sudbury Road would not be considered an abutter to the Carroll School because they live in Lincoln. Is my understanding correct? Is my understanding correct or not?
Robert? Yes. Can you deal with this? Because we're talking about apples and oranges again. Well, so under site plan, it's only abutters, it's only abutters within the same town. Now, if you're dealing with a special permit, which is not a site plan and it's different, then you would cross over and you would have to notify the abutters in different towns. So, so site plan is not, it's not actually found under master in order for EA, it's actually, it's a, it's a, it's a town is allowed to adopt local regulations on it, but it's not actually, so when using it, the word abutters, it's, that's why we didn't notify the abutters in other towns because it's not legally required. And we're also not required under site plan to, to actually attack, to actually send to abutters, but the town of Wayland goes ahead and goes further and actually wants to be as consistent as possible.
So. Yeah, that's all fine. I don't, I don't want to relitigate what, who has and who has not been previously notified on anything. Mm-hmm. with special permits. And that was why we said what we said. It's very complicated. This is not easy stuff. There are multiple different kinds of permits with multiple different kinds of standards that we have to deal with. Yes, and that's fine. I'm, I'm, I'm referring to the use of abutters and neighbors as terms in the conditions that we have just discussed through this meeting. Where in the conditions, will you point out exactly where your issue is, sir? Um, I, I don't have the, the copy in front of me, um, because there's been so many reasons to this. So, but, you know, if you did a word search on neighbors and abutters, you would find it. But I am simply pointing out that if abutters has, is used with a legal definition in these conditions that they have to live in Weyland. I am concerned for my neighbors in Lincoln that they need to be included in some fashion if they're not included under the term abutters. Excuse me, Mr. Perea, can I ask you and Mr. Hill, I, I have multiple different pages in front of me. I thought we had dealt with this and I didn't think that it was an issue. And I think that the provision that you're, uh, that the, this gentleman is speaking about is something that we took out anyway. But I could be wrong. I don't think we reference neighbors in this anymore. The only references to neighbors is with respect to the sort of the email chains from the school and the school's efforts to notify neighbors. Yeah, but that isn't limited by distance or anything. If people want to be on that list, they can be on that list, whether they're legal abutters or neighbors or whatever. It's, it's available to anyone that might have an interest in the neighborhood writ large kind of idea. So we're not limiting that at all in this decision. I think all the other provisions relating to neighbors have been stricken. Right. And I think it was probably provision four, uh, which we said that we couldn't do. Right. Well, number four says party of interest. And it, well. As it's been in Mass General Law 4811. So a third term, so we have neighbors, we had abutters, now we have party of interest. So it's, it's, there's a lot of different terms being thrown around. Party of interest is defined in 48 section 11. So it's, that's actually a defining term. What are you reading? I mean, which, which condition are you reading? Under the new four, which was. Dan's new four that we were thinking about and haven't done yet. Correct. But that's where they use, Dan uses the word party of interest, which is a third different term. That's a different term than, than abutters on neighbors. In that term, it would include neighbors in Lincoln as well as Will and I. Yep.
Because you're saying 4811, which is talked about the special permit requirements of notifying party of parties of interest. I have no idea what anyone's speaking about now, but I thought we had taken it out. We did, but, but I'm going back to Mr. Cooper's comment about neighbors and abutters. He, he, he discussed that and just was trying to get to the bottom of that. And it's very difficult when we, when we have all these different terms that'd be thrown out and they mean different things. And some are legal terms, some are just terms like I'm a neighbor, neighbor to what, how far, what are the, you know, it's, it's, we need to use defined terms that are actually, you know, defined. The bottom line is that the only place that it probably will be referred to in here is with the getting on the list of the school to receive information about special events and other things.
Annette, can I make a quick comment, um, on that 10A apple tree lane issue?
Yes. So I understand your rationale for not including conditions on the use of that, of that structure because it's not within the site plan, uh, application. I, I just want to state for the record, I, I don't agree with the, um, justification that I think town council provided to you that because the structure has been there for more than 10 years, it's grandfathered, um, that does not protect the use of the structure. It only protects the structure itself. And Andrew is correct. Uh, there's a distinction between uses and when the structure is being used for a new use or for, for any use that's non-conforming, that isn't protected under, under 48 section six and that, and that 10 year statute of limitations issue. So I will use, it's being used as a barn and it was used as a barn and in barns, they park equipment, trucks, uh, hay, uh, farm stuff. If you need fertilizer, I mean, that's what you do in a barn. So I don't think that this is any different. But, but you don't build a salt shed next to it. They're not building a salt shed next to it. This is what we want in the conditions. I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to, I, we are not, we will not put something in on a property that was not part of the application. We cannot do that. The reason that you have public notice and notice in the newspaper is so that everyone, knows what you're doing. We can't just change horses in the middle of the stream.
Is there anything else that we can try and clarify for anyone? Is there any other public comment?
No, I don't see any other hands raised.
So, um, Robert has started drafting the basic part of the, uh, decision. And, um, if you think that the plans, Robert, are the way that they need to be, and, um, I guess I should ask Jason as well. If you had an opportunity, Jason, to look at the final plans.
Jason, I'm going to ACT. Um, Madam Chair, we reviewed the final plans piecemeal on the last package that they had come in on, that's why I had assembled the, I assembled the, uh, the second attachment to the letter that we provided that listed the previous versions, the most current version. So we did see that we have not, we did not see a full complete package with every document prior to the completion of this. So that's why we pulled that, we pulled that together and I wanted to make sure that when the board received it, that they received the various boards, commissions all received one package. So the answer is we, we, we've seen the final versions, but I've not seen them in a complete package. My concern is I just want to make sure that what we have in front of us is in fact, everything that you have reviewed and I don't know how one says that unless one sees it with the final date on it.
Um, and now I can, I can comment. So Jason had sent us a list of all the things he had reviewed and we confirmed that he had the latest and greatest. And going back to Dan's question earlier, there's not a new set of plans, right? That February date was the last set. That's what was submitted. There were some that when we were resubmitting did not get resubmitted. So for example, like that original set of floor plans, like those didn't get submitted each time, right? So everybody who has been in receipt, both, you know, Robert and Jason, we confirmed that those are all the current. I have assembled that set. Um, I can send it around electronically, but those submissions have, have all been confirmed. And, and, and Robert, I just emailed you the, the list of, um, I basically cleaned up Jason's list and confirmed it, and then put that in a, on a header that just shows the kind of each issuance and then the, what the current is.
Well, how do you feel about, um, the plans at this point? Do we need Jason to just confirm one more time that everything is set? Because they all have the date of March. I forget what the date is on them. February 23rd. No, there's a final date on the plans that you submitted. That was March something. There were some, um, that were for board of health. I believe that have a March date. No, ours. Well, whatever we got had a March date. I could be wrong, but that's what I said. You're correct. It's the carry. It looks like the final set that came from.
I apologize. Let me see. It looks like it came in.
Okay. So the set that came in on, I believe, March 2nd, at least on the drawing, I'm looking at how to March, how to February 10th date on it. Yeah. Um, am I able to share? Yeah. I, I can just show you what I just put together. That might be helpful. My concern is, um, with your engineer, he's doing other projects and we've been told that he made all these changes on other projects and they weren't made. Yeah. So this, these are all, this is everything that's been submitted in, in plan form, right? All the way up through that last site circulation plan. The first time it was submitted each, um, each time after that it was submitted. And then just for reference, you know, what the latest and greatest is. But Robert, in the plans that are in our packet, they all had a date and I thought it was March.
I'm looking. Okay. Cause it's so small. I had to use them.
Oh, I couldn't get it that big. It's so, so big. Um, February 23.
This is in the packet. What you sent us in the packet.
It's February 10th. They, they, they, they changed each plans. February 23rd. They just depends on where they've been revised or not. February 10th. They just, it, it goes back and forth. Hold on.
They don't have, they don't have, they don't have the same date as, as the index that carries showing on the screen. They all have different dates on. I see. This says, okay, February. This one is February 26th. Got it. Somewhere, somewhere February 23rd or February 20th. Okay. I thought that there was something that was March. I was looking at. Okay. Okay. There should be, I think, two drawings that were, um, the last round with, um, that went into Board of Health that were a March 12th date. C-602 and C-603, which were final details. And the circulation plan had a March date. And the circulation plan was a March 18th date. It was the same plan. We just needed a date because we wanted to reference it in the decision. Okay. Okay. Um, I think that we will leave the record. Well, I'll ask the board. Do you want to leave the record open before we deliberate and have Robert just put the document together, send it to us before the next meeting. And then at the next meeting, uh, go over the final document and you can send them comments in between, but go over the final document, um, and then close the hearing or close. Close the hearing at the next meeting. I vote for that.
That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Um, our next meeting is, um, April the 15th. And, um, we have to have the decision done currently by April the 17th.
Okay.
So we need the plans and the draft decision to look at before the next meeting. I assume. Yes. And we've got the plans, I believe, but then we're going to get, um, an index, which will be helpful. Right. Um, and, uh, yeah, because we have, we should be able to do that.
Okay. Um, is there anything else that the board wants to ask any member to make sure that they're comfortable?
I'm all set. Yeah. Can't think of anything. Okay. Um, for the conditions, Robert, I asked him to, uh, go back and look at Veritas, the way we put that decision together, because we made some actual real findings. Um, and, uh, also, uh, look at the, uh, more recent, uh, Coptic church and use the conditions, you know, for timing as we state them. Um, that was another thing, Dan, you, on some of these things, you did not have, uh, end times. You didn't want, uh, certain work starting before a certain time, but normally we have things that say you can do deliveries between X, Y, Z and X, Y, Z hour, that kind of thing. Um, are you there, Dan, Robert? Yeah, one second. Sorry. I was, I was on mute. Um, yeah, I, I don't know if that was actually, was that my language on the deliveries? I thought that was in there already. Well, there's one, I, no, I don't know that it, I wasn't even paying it. It said we normally do that, but for example, on trash removal, uh, they can't start prior to a certain time, but otherwise you have no problem when they get the trash.
Well, I'm sure we do. I don't, I don't think those guys normally operate at night, but yeah, I mean, it would make sense to put a, an end date and end time as well. Um, I don't know if we feel strongly about that time. I mean, five o'clock seems reasonable, but. Well, there are several ones here and on the deliveries, it's not before 7am on weekdays. And yeah, these are all essentially before times, nothing after.
Yeah, we, we can think about that. I can talk to Bill about it too. Um, like I said, I don't think we have a strong concern. I don't, I don't think it's going to happen at night, but we can, I can talk to Bill about a time. Um, I would just say whatever you've been using on your other decisions here. Okay. And if that's fine with Dan and his group, I think we can live with those. Um, because, um, what we put together will not be a board document. Um, I'm not sure, um, we had, someone had asked before, if we normally share it with the applicant, we'd normally don't share it with anybody. Um, but we'll think about, um, whether or not to share the conditions part, uh, in advance. Uh, but you would be looking at it probably at the same time as the board. So it would not be a board document. It would just be what the most recent proposal is.
What do you mean? It won't be a board document. It's going to be drafted by the town, correct? It's going to be drafted. The draft of the, the draft of the final is what I'm talking about. You said, well, you and, and Dan both said, oh, well, we'll look at it. Well, if, if we're going to, if we're going to be able to share it, um, because of the timeline that we're on, the sharing would be, you would be seeing what Robert and probably me looking at it have put together. It will not be what the board has finally agreed on or thought about. I get it. I understand. That's what I was saying. I understand how your process is working. That sounds normal to me.
Okay. Um, so, uh, can I have a motion to continue? The, uh, hearing on the Carroll school site plan until, uh, April the 15th at one minute.
So moved. Now I have to pick a time. Oh, uh, one second.
April the 15th, April the 15th at Robert, excuse me for one minute. Just interrupt interrupting. Um, that would mean that the, um, what were we talking about? What were we talking about for hearing on EE? Uh, that needs to be 15 at 29th. And that really depends on what, how much time we need to, for this public hearing. I think the 29th then. Okay. So, um, April the 15th at, uh, seven o'clock. And do you want that, um, hybrid or do you want that, uh, remote or in person? I think zoom. What does everybody else think? Zoom is fine. Yeah. Okay. Hey, go ahead with your motion. I move that we continue the hearing on the Carroll school application to the meeting on April 15th, 2026 at 7 PM via zoom. One second. Yeah. Um, you said you wanted the town center people to come in then Robert. Yeah. After, after, after, or before, um, how much time, whatever the board wants. I mean, I think that'd be flexible, whatever they can get there. Well, if I'd rather do them and then get that over. Then let's push it. Just push the, um, do they only need like an hour?
Uh, boyfriend minutes. I mean, give, give whatever timeframe that I will get back to them and say, you have this much time. So I don't want to, for your minutes, let's say, let's say half an hour, for your minutes. I mean, or we, or we can just, we can just schedule for seven 30 for, for the care of school. And if, you know, if, if it ends alert, we'll start. Okay. Um, so for the Carroll school, um, at, at seven 30. Okay. So I move that we continue the hearing on the Carroll school application to the meeting on April 15th, 2026 at seven 30 PM via zoom. Okay. Second. Who's seconding. He said, give it to Ira.
Robin Borg said yes. I remarked you yes. Ari Kiernan. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
No, Robert getting back to, um, the, uh, hearing on EE. We'll do it on the 29th. Okay. Perfect. And that will be, uh, and then you want that hybrid. Cause we have this, we have the COA for them for that one. Yeah. Sorry. The new, the new COA. You're going to get the microphone. Um, can they make it work? I mean, I only want it hybrid if it can work. Otherwise they just want to zoom. I mean, we can do zoom too. I mean, we have the microphone. We just have to tell them to leave it out and not lock in their cabinet. Duncan's coming in that evening too. Uh, Duncan knows. Yep. It's on the agenda too. Yep. That shouldn't be, that shouldn't be too long.
And potentially if, if the towns and town centers offer to come to both meetings. So if you give them like half an hour for the first, for the service meeting. I'm sorry. What was the other thing? The town centers owners are willing. I think they're willing to come to both meetings. I think they're just trying to get, we just need them at one meeting. Yeah. But they may, they may come back or something, but, but, but I can, we can, we can do a follow after if needed. Okay. So on the 15th, we have town center at seven, seven 30 for the Carroll school. Then, um, on the 29th, we have Duncan and then the hearing on EE. And, okay. And then minutes. How do you want to hand, I, I, I've not, I've advertised, of course, I've not done the legal ad for the Dunkin' Donuts. How, what order do you want? Do you want, do you want, do you want that, do that first and then do EE or do EE first and then do the same plan? I want to do EE first. Okay. At seven o'clock. So what time are you going to do Dunkin' Donuts? Uh, I have not decided yet. I mean, I was waiting to see what comes up tonight's meeting to go and move forward. Okay. So for the hearing, I don't know how much time we need for that either. I don't think too much, to be honest. I mean, they're going to. Well, I don't know.
Uh, let's get, we haven't seen the Dunkin' application even. I mean, there are, there are dining, it's going to be, everything, if things should be built, they're just asking to put two tables and a few chairs on the patio that they already can, are going to construct.
That's, that is what the site plan is for.
Um.
45 minutes for, 45 minutes for the, uh, uh, article EE. Sure. I don't want to, I also want to put too much time in and get stuck, you know. Yeah. Well, we'll see how it goes. But yeah, I, I, I, do you think that's right, guys, just doing that hearing first and then moving on to Dunkin' Donuts? I don't know. I think, I think it makes, makes sense to do Dunkin' first because it's specific people who have to show up and do that. And then we can open the hearing on EE. If nobody's there, we can close it and move on to other business. Okay, that's fine with me, I guess. Um, so if we did Dunkin' first, that would start at 7, oh, something or other. Oh, we have to decide if we need, um, uh. Half an hour? 7.05. I don't know about half an hour. I don't think so. I think more like a half an hour. We can do 7.05 and do 7.30 for, to make it a little bit easier for the, yeah. Uncle E, and that will allow, if it, you know, overrides, go by five minutes. We still have, you know. Yeah. So if you do Dunkin' Donuts at 7.05 and then the hearing at?
7.30. I think you need to allow more than 25 minutes just in case. 7.35. That's half an hour. Either 7.35 or 7.45 and then we could in between do minutes. All right, let's do, let's just do 7.40. I'd rather just do even, uh, easier numbers. So let's do 7.45 and then 7.45 for EE. Okay.
Okay. Um. Um, do you want that, how and how, what kind of format do you want that meeting? Hybrid, Zoom, in person?
Fellows? Thoughts? I know you usually do the zoning hearings in, um, hybrid, but that's been when we have like five articles and it is, you know, very important to have all this feedback. But if we have one article, I'm not sure if it has to be hybrid or not, but I booked the room in just in case.
I have no opinion. The only thing I'm concerned about is, is are other people out there going to have the same problem that Dan's having or that, can that be solved by the time we put? I'll look into them all. I'll have them. I'll ask, I'll ask Seth from IT. I think it's just settings. I really do. Yeah. I think we can resolve it. I just don't, I don't know where the settings are. I'm not going to run the settings to figure it out. I can choose to view gallery or I can choose to view speaker. He can't, he said he couldn't see that though. Yeah. You can only see that. I think you only, you only see that if you're a panelist, if you're promoted as a panelist. You can't go log in as a non-panelist. Yeah. There you go. Um, so I heard, I, doesn't matter. Anybody else? I mean, for the Carol school, the next one, the 15th, we're doing that by zoom, right? Correct. Okay. And then, um, don't get insight plan hearing. Do you think that we should try and do it in person number on April the 29th for the Duncan plan and for, um, it'd be easier. It'd be easier if you do it hybrid or zoom than, than just in person. If that's right. Yeah. They didn't mean just in person. We would have to be in person. I know. Um, I know I won't be able to make it in person for that one. Could you make it on hybrid? Yeah. Zoom? Yep. Why don't we do it on zoom then? Seeing this as the first meeting with them, maybe it makes more sense to meet in person,
but maybe not. Well, if we did hybrid, can you, you can make it Jesse on the zoom thing? Yep. Larry, can you make it in person? You're muted. Yes. I can. Okay. Okay. So why don't we try it in person and Jesse will be on in zoom? Sure. So we'll do hybrid. Yeah. It just, it's easier for me when, for the minutes. So there's actually a recording. So, so one of us can go back and actually make sure the minutes. This thing better be good. I mean, I'll have a, we just can't hit. Oh, the COA is, is usually, the COA is a lot better. Or if you have the microphone and we make sure we have, we can actually share the, the zoom. That room is the best one. It's the best, most technology best, but you just need to make sure there's a microphone. Like it's actually not locked in someone's cabinet. So I'll make sure that my silly is unlocks it for us. I have just returned from the land of the non-panelist and I could not change to a gallery setting. I could only, it only came in as a speaker setting and I couldn't change it. Okay. I'll ask you to, to see if we can readjust that for next meeting. Yep. But it's, it's something, it's something in the back end. Yep. And don't forget that town meeting begins on May the 4th and we have zoning articles. If you, you have to get your little speeches together, you know, I believe we, the moderator's rules tell you how many minutes you've got for the main speaker. I can't remember. It used to be seven. I don't know. Oh, I thought it was much less. That was like two minutes. No, it's not two minutes. It's not, it's seven anymore, but it's, I don't think it's two. So I, it's really low. Not for the main speaker. Yeah. I, from last year, I'll pull up the emails from last year. I think I only had two minutes. Who's, what is the main speaker? Just someone who introduces what we're going to. If you're, yeah. If you're speaking to your article. That's the main speaker. Yeah. Oh. So when you present the housekeeping article, Ira, you're the main speaker. Seven minutes. I don't think I can do it in seven minutes. Yes, you can. All right. I need to look for, I have a cheat sheet somewhere.
Seven minutes is a long time. Yeah. Well, it used to be seven and I don't, they cut it, but I don't remember to what. Because if it's complicated, you know, you're going to get tons of questions out anyway. The questions don't count. This is just your little spiel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I understand.
Here it is. Seven, yeah. Any person who wishes to offer the principal presentation in support of the main motion under an article has to notify the moderator prior to the session at which the article is called and complete the same within seven minutes or less. And they have to do it within the time used by the proponent or with three minutes, whichever is longer. Okay?
Okay. You don't have to talk for seven minutes. But you need to make it clear what we're doing, why we're doing it. And if you want to put something together and run it by me, I'm happy to look at it.
Can you use somebody else's time if they don't speak for seven minutes? No. No. Oh. The moderator won't let you.
These are, again, in the back of the warrant. Each of the warrants has moderator's rules in it. Okay. Moving on.
Oh. Well, you can talk about it again, I guess. Think about, well, Robert will think about, Robert, when you're drafting, think about the start time. For doing, taking the money for the traffic and for giving it back, how you want to structure that. Right. Yeah. I'll think about that. Okay. I just, but I think overall, we just got to be very clear when, not for you guys, but for staff has to be very clear. And some kind of number that's tracking this all, when they came in, what is it for? And some big description said 20, 30 years, someone can pick it up and know exactly what was it for. For any project. For any kind of project. So it's not a mystery of why you take 45,000 hours and then you do a goose chase around to figure out, oh, that's why. Or you make a guess why you don't actually figure out exactly why. Or you have to search for documents and documents. I just want to save myself or anybody else in the future time. And it's just, it's ridiculous. It's not fair. Okay.
Moving on. The next item on the agenda is the Route 20 Planned Redevelopment District Zoning discussion. I took what we talked about last time and fit in those things that you all added.
What I'd like to be able to do, so I'd like to just go over it again and see if there's anything more. I'd like to be able to send it to the select board and say, you know, these are the kinds of things that we need to put together for zoning. And we would like assistance in drafting the zoning. And so if we need to, and we need to find someone to assist with it. And it's not just zoning. They need to help us think through how to write the zoning to make, to reach the goals.
So if you want to go through it section by section, we can do that. If you've looked at it in advance and you have comments, we can do it that way. However you want to do it, people. I looked at it. I think you did a good job capturing what we talked about. Yeah. And I like the plan.
Larry, Ira, anything? Yeah, I like it too. Yeah, it's what we talked about.
Okay. If somebody gave this, think about also, if somebody gave this to you and said, you know, we need you to do ABC. Do we have enough in here so that somebody knows what we're talking about?
My guess is when you kick this over to the select board, they're going to want to be briefed on it. Yeah. It's almost like we're too close to it to answer that question. Well, no, because some of the things we haven't said, like height, we haven't said what the maximum height should be. And we haven't said how to get those little pathways in there to get us the connections that we want to have.
Right. But if you put this together with someone, a consultant, and someone to write this, they could actually help you to figure out what is the correct height or what they would recommend for height. Because we didn't really get in too much detail when we did the plan of Route 20 by beta. But if someone actually was able to craft this, either a lawyer or a consulting consultant that had a lot more experience on actually drafting this, they could actually give you some recommendation based on things that they've worked on. Or they can do, you know, some performers to figure out you need X, Y, Z, you need X height to make this work. So I think this is a good start. But I think it's a good professional consultant would actually know how to take those, you know, information and actually expand on it a little more. And they would also, a professional would know to look at this and know what to come back and discuss with us. And to seek further guidance on or to at least have, you know, some engagement on. But I assume to a professional, this would all mean something. Yeah, I mean, it's good enough to give them a start.
Okay.
Okay, we'll put something together with a little memo to the select board.
I'm not sure what the cost. I'm not sure how many hours it would take or what the cost might be. I was trying to figure out how many hours it would take. And at first I was thinking 40, but I think it's more than 40. It's going to have to be a little bit of research in there, too. Anybody have any thoughts on numbers? No? I know how long it takes me to do something.
I was just thinking about going back to the MBTA stuff. I mean, that took a long time to pull together. I was just thinking about this town meeting is May the 4th. At the end of town meeting, that's when the new people take over. But, Larry, if we've – oh, but we don't – okay. Sorry. I just think we don't have any special permits. They're all just site plans. Because normally, if you're in the middle of a special permit, you have to stay on the board until we finish the special permit. But we're not doing a special permit. We don't want to make it worse for you, Larry.
Just for ourselves. Yes, right.
Do you have anyone running as associate member? We have an associate member already. It's the full position. Larry is leaving. And Bill Sterling, we said that the last meeting, is running for that position, the full member position. The associate member position is not up for re-election. So Nick is – as far – as long as Nick wants to finish up his term, he's the associate member.
Okay. Is there anything else that we haven't discussed and we need to discuss this evening?
No. The only thing was, you know, the issue with the Dunkin' Donuts signage and stuff like that. Yeah. And when design review meets, you know, with that particular one, we noted that their sign was too large and it was not lit properly. And so in our finding, we recommended that the zoning board apply the zoning bylaws. But so many times we note that a sign is too big or something like that, and they – the zoning board gives them – allows them to do it. And so what we have been doing is saying zoning board should apply the zoning bylaw and make sure the sign is compliant. And I assume that if they allowed that sign, it was because they wanted to allow that sign.
Oh, I don't know. It would be better. Oh, yeah. I mean, I think it would be helpful if rather than just saying apply the zoning bylaw, the zoning bylaw says 40 square feet. It should be 40 square feet. Or if you think it needs to be slightly bigger, then no larger than or something because it's really big and it's orange. Yeah, I think that every time we've tried to be more specific, they allow it anyway. So I think we're kind of frustrated by that. Well, don't be frustrated. It's your job. I mean, that's – Keep doing it. Right. That's why we created the design review board. Right. We also asked them not to brick up all the windows on the south side, which they did anyway. Well, they probably need to do it to have working surface. They said that they could leave them there and cover them, but instead they bricked them up, which is what we asked them not to do.
And that's in the decision. Yeah. I don't know that we have control over that part, though. I mean, that's different. But the signage isn't – I mean, it is in the bylaw. Yeah. And they had to allow them to put sign on the side, too, additional signs. So, I mean, they've got a lot of signage on the building. And when it was Bank of America, it didn't have it on the side. Oh, I only saw the sign on the – it's on the side, but that's because it's the only flat surface of the building. It's not on the post office side also, is it? No, not on the post office side. It's on the parking lot side. Yeah. And then I don't know if it's up yet, but there was – what they submitted was on the Route 20 side as well. It was slightly smaller. Well, we didn't see anything for the Route 20 side. I think you did, because you sent it to me, and otherwise I wouldn't have known it. I didn't remember seeing that. We were mostly just shocked by the size of the – what they put up on the side of the building. Right. So.
Yeah, well, don't get frustrated. Just keep telling them what you're telling them. Yeah, but we're going to have to have changes to design review. We're going to have to do something. I don't know what we're going to do if we don't get more bodies, because it can't be a mini planning board. No.
Okay. Is there anything else anyone wants to discuss?
We're up to date now in the minutes, right, Robert? Yeah. And then we'll just have these minutes at the next meeting. Mm-hmm. Yep. Cool. Would you like a motion to adjourn? Sounds great. I move to adjourn. Oh, one other thing. Sorry. We got a note today from somebody about the Coptic Church. You guys get to read it. Okay. Yeah. I was thinking of taking – if it's okay with you. I talked to Robert about this. Taking what we sent or what I sent to – To Laurie Hamill. Yeah. And then just modifying it slightly and then sending that. That works. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I move to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Good night, everybody. Bye, everybody. Good night. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.
It's a Zoom meeting and people are able to get into the meeting if they want to pay attention to it. It'll also be recorded and available on WACAM. The agenda for this evening is call to order, then review and approve draft minutes of 225-26 and 311-26. Then we're moving on to the continued public hearing for 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan approval. Then we have a proposed Route 20 planned redevelopment district zoning discussion and updates from the town planner and the chair. We have a few. Then board comments and concerns. And then adjourn. I'd like to take attendance this evening. Robin Borgestedt. Here. And Jesse Newbury. Here. Larry Kiernan. Here. Ira Montague. Here. Annette Lewis here. We have a full complement of the board. You see Ira? Yep. I can. Can you see him? He's here. No, I know. I asked him and he responded. Oh, I didn't hear him. Sorry, my head was down. No, he did. I just wanted to see on participants what we have on the list.
I mean, it's important to note that the continued public hearing for 3745 Waltham Road is not going to start to 7 to 30 at the earliest. So do you see some people on there that are probably there for that hearing? So just stick around for about half an hour. Okay. Thank you, Robert. Can we look at the draft minutes of February the 25th, 26th?
Has everyone had an opportunity to look at them? Yes. Yes. Okay. Does anyone have any comments?
No. No? Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as drafted? I'll motion. I move that we approve the minutes from February 25th, 2026 as drafted. Is there a second? I'll second. All in favor, Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Larry Kiernan? Bobstain. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes.
How about the minutes of March 11th, 2026?
No comments. No comments. Does anyone have any comments on them?
Are we ready to vote? Yes. I move that we approve the minutes from March 11th, 2026 as written. And I'll second. I'll take a roll call. Robin Borgestedt? Yes. Jesse Newberry? Yes. Ira Montague? Yes. Larry Kiernan? Yes. Annette Lewis? Yes. All in favor. I mean, five in favor of approval. Thank you very much. Well, that was quick. Robert, you're doing a good job on the minutes. I know you and I are doing that. I'm not running the minutes anymore. Well, I'm starting the minutes off with the motions and seconds, and then Anita's running the minutes. Yeah. Well, Anita's doing a good job. No, she sits there and watches the whole tip again to make sure she catches everything. So. I like that header. What, dude? You like the what? The header. The way that it's kind of listed out. Different things. I don't like it. You don't like it? Nah, I don't know. I don't know what I'm going to feel about. I did better before, but whatever. We can burn up a half an hour arguing over it. Yeah, it just makes it much longer. It just. Oh, yeah. Just a lot of wasted real estate. Yeah, it is. Should we go up to updates, or do you want to just. Yeah, I was just going to do updates. Why don't you do your updates, and then I'll do. All right, the next two meetings we have are April 15th and April 29th, and at this point we have a hybrid booked, we have a room booked in the COA for both of the meetings if needed to, if we need for any public hearings, and that will be to be determined later tonight where we're going to move forward. We do need a public hearing at some point, not sure, and we'd like to circle back at later tonight after the continuing public hearing for Carroll School to know where we got to for the public hearing for the planning board appeal, the select board amendment.
We have two new applications. One will probably be at the 29th, and that will be for outdoor seating for the Dunkin' Donuts, Jimmy John at 289 Bospos Road. I expect that to be a very simple, quick site plan approval, and now I put that on the 29th, and I also received an application today that was being completed for 1 Hobbs Road, aka 61A Local Street, and this is for a shared living facility at that address that I mentioned. And shared living is to be a dwelling, inside the dwelling would be six bedrooms, each of a bathroom, and this is for people who have intellectual disabilities, and one of the units will be for someone who can stay overnight. And so this would hopefully be a smoother site plan to go through, but it is also considered a Dover use, as an education use, but at this point, my understanding is the applicant is not asking for any crazy waivers under the Dover use, but it just happens to also be one of those uses that the town could consider. Very limited traffic, not many cars running in and going, maybe a van once in a while. The people who live there will not have cars. They'll use, potentially, a van to get to work. If they have jobs inside of Wayland or outside of Wayland. But I think this one will be mostly about stormwater, making sure that that's correct. Silvo and all of that, those kind of issues, traffic will not be considered an issue. We already put out a request for quotes for different companies to quote for the peer review. So, we should hear back very soon. And I slated that one for May, the first meeting in May, May 13th, just knowing how much we have going on before the town meeting and to allow time for the peer review to hopefully, hopefully be done. Very nice. So, I had that down on May 13th for the public hearing. And I already let the applicant know that most likely it's going to be May 13th. And I will confirm with him later this week, once I have this meeting, once this meeting's over, just to know where we're at.
I think it does a lot. Sorry. It's okay. Do you have more? Is that it? That's all I want to discuss now. I do want to circle back around later about the public hearing. But we'd like to know where, at the end of the night, we'd like to know where we're at with the Carol School. We'll do that at the end. For the Duncan site plan, make sure that they have copies of our guidance document for outdoor seating at restaurants, because that's what we'll expect to see. Okay. The Finance Committee has decided to withdraw its vote in favor of the article on the mixed-use development. And they're reserving their vote to town meeting. When I learned that, the person who's in charge at the Finance Committee let me know. I asked to be on their next agenda so that I could talk them through why we're doing this and what the benefits are.
It'll be a good dry run for town meeting. Okay.
And if people want to come, I'll let you know what the date is. You can let me know, and then I'll post. Otherwise, you know, you're certainly welcome to watch.
We have a note from the EDC, and we received materials from the EDC.
I'm not quite sure how to deal with it. I'm sure that they have the best interests of the town at heart. However, this is an – the MBTA zoning is different than all the other zoning that we have. You'll recall that we had to do modeling, and in the modeling, we needed to show how many units we could produce. And we also went through – created some performance standards in regulations. We decided not to do it in the bylaw because we wanted to make sure that the bylaw would pass state muster. And then on our regulations, we followed the guidance from the state. But we were much more in-depth in what the state would have suggested we put in zoning. So we wanted to get through. We did get through. We have an approval on our MBTA districts. The kinds of changes that are being proposed by the EDC, I believe, would require remodeling. We don't have money for remodeling. We don't have a consultant for remodeling. And Robert, with the change that we were making, with just the change in number of units and the change in the height, Robert checked with the state office of housing and was told that because of those, we would not have to be remodeling. Because it was just a straight up, and it was definitely an increase, and that would be fine.
Also, you know, the bylaw, we had hearings. They were announced. They were public. Nobody came. We talked about it at several meetings of what we were doing and why. And I'm not sure, you know, what to do. I don't want to particularly enter into a long conversation. I mean, I don't know what the thoughts of the board are. I'll let you give some thoughts first before I give mine.
Just to confirm on the modeling, I think you said that since we're increasing the number, it's not a really big deal. Right, because they want more. Right. Right. The issue becomes the step backs. We looked at that, you'll recall, when we were doing the bylaw and the regulations, and we decided that we couldn't deal with it in the modeling exercise. So we would talk about it, and we suggested in the performance standards, we talked about stepping back on that kind of stuff, but it wasn't the kind of step back that you would put into a zoning bylaw. And also writing it, I think it would be very difficult. And what is the percent increase in number of units with the added height or number? I don't know. Yeah. It would depend on how many, we don't have a project. It would depend on how many one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, you know? Yeah. I mean, the zoning change allows them to consider how they would develop it. And then they could tell us how many units they thought they could fit. I assume the reason for it is to add another floor.
I would assume, yeah. So if it's generally how we set up things, they're three stories high? We have 35 feet in general, except for the town center, where I think we went up to 42 feet.
And they have, are they three stories high? I don't remember what that was. I don't think so. No, I think it was, they were, they wanted 11 feet per, the town center people wanted 11 feet per story. So, yeah, I think it's more. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, I assume they're doing it for another floor, which would, if it's two, it would now be three. Or if it would typically be three, it would be four, which would mean a, either 25 or 33% increase. I don't think we actually know that for sure, because we don't have a. I know, yeah, we don't, but it's not 100%, it's not 50, it's not five. Yeah. But it's probably somewhere in there.
Trying to understand the magnitude. I just think it's odd, this, this desire to make an amendment on the floor at town meeting, where there's a project, there's a, you know, a guy who wants to develop it with these specific dimensions, because that's what he thinks he can make work. If they make these amendments, then what if he just walks away, and then there's no development, which does not benefit the town. You know, like you said, Annette, we had a public meeting, nobody came and said boo about it. And now, you know, we've got somebody who's willing to come in and do development, and these amendments may very well nullify that process, the prospect of this project. I don't even know that the amendments can be done on town meeting floor. Right. Because the changes are significant enough that it's a different bylaw, and we will not have had a hearing. Yep. But as a developer, if they felt they needed that going in, they wouldn't want to bet purchasing the property and asking for an exception, would they? The issue becomes you really, technically, you can't ask for an exception. Yeah. The Alta Oxpo got one, but I don't know that it was totally legal, and I think if somebody had wanted to appeal it, it could have been appealed, because it didn't meet the criteria for a variance. Right. There are specific criteria. So, as a developer, they would need this assurance if they thought this was the minimum they could do. Right. And it isn't even just one project, it's in general. I mean, having looked now at Alta Oxpo, since everybody's been raising the issue, Alta Oxpo, there was an RFP from the town. The town owned the land. People bid on that with set criteria. And we had a bylaw that was designed around those criteria, not by the planning board, but by others. And then, after they bid, after they got the go-ahead, then they changed their project as well. Their project was supposed to be, what was it, 35 feet at one place and then a little higher someplace else, but it's not. They got a variance to go up to 52 feet, 53 feet, and 48 feet. And that's not what we had in the bylaw. In addition, the bylaw said that they could have, I think it was 190 units. And you'll recall we went back to town meeting twice, because it didn't pass the first time, then they had to bring it back the next year. And it was a higher number that didn't pass. Then, when they came back, they went down, they went, I think they went from a 200 and something down to 190. Then, after they got the property and went through the process with the zoning board asking for a variance, they increased the number to 218, which is not what town meeting agreed. So, there are several issues here. One of them is, if the town is being asked to vote for something, then that's what they should get. I mean, I think the town people should know. And, again, I don't really think that a variance is necessarily doable.
Normally, when you've got a bylaw, you've got a bylaw. Do you know why they wanted the extra high? I'm assuming now, from listening to others and the people who asked us if we would make this change, that in order to make it work financially and in order to finance it, they needed to show a certain amount of return. And the way that they could get that was increasing the number of units. That's what I'm assuming. And I think that's why they had to raise the height and raise the number of units. I don't know that, but that's what I'm assuming. At the time, I thought it was just piggy, but I guess, you know, it doesn't work with the financial pieces. And when we did the MBTA thing, we weren't worrying about whether it was buildable or not, because that's not what the state told us to do. They said, just zone and they will come. So, we zoned. And they're not coming. No one did. Yeah, I mean, if they can't get financing, they can't come, and they need a certain density to get financing. Right. So, it's just a lack of familiarity with this environment that stops the, when you have a home, we all know what those heights are. But when you go to these apartment or condo type things, the impact of the height, I don't have a great deal of background other than watching what's being built in Wayland and Sudbury and now Weston. Right. Right. And they wanted to also change the setback according to the, what we got from the EDC. And that also would change modeling. And in our regulations, we thought about all of that, even though it says that the building setback, or it doesn't say building. It says setback, which is structures as well. So, walls and any other kind of structures have to be set back, I think it's 30 feet from the front line. And in our regulations, we talk about needing approvals from the police and fire. And we know already that the police and fire want to be able to walk around a building. They do not want to be, you know, chock-a-block next to a wall. And if you look at Route 20, we have pretty high area there. And, you know, you wouldn't put windows, you wouldn't have a building with a flat side and no windows. You need to have windows in a residential building. I mean, we went through all of this and we went through trying to figure out if we could say how often you had to break the facade and all of that stuff. So, we did our best and I just, I don't, I don't think this makes any sense, actually, particularly now.
What does everyone else think?
I agree. Go ahead. No, I totally agree with what she's saying. So, would you, I mean, I can reach out to the EDC and either put it in writing or ask to go to one of their meetings. And if somebody else wanted to come with me, that would be great. Or to talk to whoever offline and explain where we are and why. But I think the EDC needs to understand at some point in time what they're dealing with. And that the planning board is the planning board. And the planning board thinks these things through, a la the planning board. We had a public hearing. And we have constraints as well. Yeah, that's what I mean. It's the constraints. And, you know, some of us have gone to training. I'm a certified whatever it is at this point. I've gone to all the trainings, one and two levels.
It's not just, oh, this looks good to me. You know, I really like to do this. And it's private property as well. But the way that the MBTA stuff was set up, they do not want us micromanaging projects. And I think the importance of understanding that if they make some of these changes, it's going to kill this particular project. Well, as long as we're dealing with the project, it would kill our MBTA approval. Right. Yeah, yeah. Yes. But, you know, it'll also kill this, you know, any project at that site. If funding is dependent on a certain density, and these changes eliminate the possibility of achieving that density, then no one will be able to develop there. That doesn't count. And no one's going to want to develop it. Right. I don't think town meeting is the right place to hash this out either. No, it's not. If more than one of us go to their meeting, do we have a public meeting issue? Not necessarily. We would be a subcommittee, and we could post.
Do we know when they move out? You know, if it's at a time when I can go, you know, a night when I'm free, then I'm happy to go. Go, I'm sure it'll make them particularly happy to see me, too. Okay. Is that okay with everyone else? Yeah. Yeah. But I don't think we should send just one person. No, I don't either. Yeah. I guess let us know when their meeting will be by email, and then we'll figure out who can go. Okay. And I can post, and if I know if I want to go, that's fine, too. Yeah. Okay. So that was the EDC thing, the Finance Committee, and then EE. I don't know if any of you have had an opportunity to look at what the Select Board submitted in Article EE for the appeal thing. Robin, as we know, agreed to take a shot at doing a report, you know, just put something together first before the hearing so that we could deal with it. And maybe that way we can all see it and know, you know, what the facts are. The way it's crafted, it doesn't exactly work.
Robin, shaking your head. Well, it has some issues, let's put it that way. So we'll decide. I'll decide tonight whether we'll do it on the 25th, or not the 25th, on the 15th or the 29th. We don't have to do it either, but it's probably a good idea to try and do it. And the reason we don't have to is because of the time frames that we have. We have 65 days, and it won't have run. But I'm assuming that we want to try and have a hearing on it. Yes. Okay. Is there anything else? Does anybody have any other comments or concerns right now? We have two whole minutes. One quick thing, maybe. How open are we to having the town center owners come here and just talk about what their plans are for town center? They ask them. They're coming next meeting. Okay, good. Great. No, not the next meeting. They're coming on May 13th. I have April 15th. You and I talked today, and you said there was a choice, and I said better on May 13th. You gave me the dates. I thought we were on April 13th and April 29th. April 15th and 29th is when we have the meetings. April 15th and April 29th. That's when they wanted to come in. Yes. But I think it should be pretty brief. I don't think we have a lot of time on the agenda. Well, it's going to depend on when we have the Carroll School. Okay. But, yes, it would be great if they came in, and Robert has been talking to them.
I'll put this on the side, and then we'll figure it out after we figure out what's happening with Carroll School. Thanks for asking, Jesse. Yeah. Yeah. Robert just told me today.
Is there anything else?
Okay. What are the people? Yes, there's Bill Perea. Why don't we move on to PB 2503, Continued Public Hearing, 3745 Waltham Road, the Carroll School Site Plan Approval.
And can you elevate Mr. Perea and whoever else he wants up there?
Good evening. Hi, Bill. How are you? I'm fine. How are y'all? We're just great. So just for the record, it's Bill Perea for the Carroll School this evening. Chris Rennie's here. Renee, I think Carrie's. Yeah, Carrie's here, too. So I see Jason. That's great. So, Madam Chair, how you would like to proceed? If you will just briefly say what you submitted. The board knows, but we'll make sure the public knows. Um, and, um, that would be helpful. Yes. Um, so we had submitted a couple of things. One was a little, a little brief on whether certain conditions could be included in the site plan decision, whether the board had the authority to do that. We also submitted a reply to the primrose case email that had come in before the last meeting, then revised conditions for the site plan approval. Uh, those were the three things we had, we had sent in to the board. And didn't you send in new site plans? Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. Um, yeah. Um, we, we tried to pull together the whole package with all the revision dates. Uh, Jason was very helpful with that. Robert as well. Uh, so we think we have everything in there, but we can discuss that. Okay. Just to make sure we do. And everyone else that has looked at them can, can agree or disagree and let us know what we're missing. If we are missing anything. That's great. Robert, um, can you speak to that now? The site plans? Yes. I have a, I have a group of site plans. The only thing that could not really, was harder to find, was some kind of index. I don't think we, I don't think we ever received an index for a cover page. And that would be really helpful just to know what we're, all the pages. Cause, um, there's just so many pages attached to the site plan. And it's been really, it's really kind of difficult to track all the, all the plan sheets. And so I think I, I did reach out to the, the Carol school team, just in asking for some kind of index, just on the, on the, on the first page. So we know what we're looking at. Um, but we do, we do have a group of, of the updated, the updated plans based on all the discussions that they've had with, with our peer review. And they seemed okay. As far as I know. Yes. When I reviewed it. Yep. Okay. Um, and where are you with the conservation commission? And that's still happening tonight or is that done? Yeah. Uh, I could speak Carrie DeLeo, a school or consulting. Uh, we just, uh, the conservation commission just closed our hearing, uh, tonight. So, um, uh, determination, uh, negative determination for applicability and then a chapter 194 permit, um, were voted and approved. Okay. And based on the last set of plans that we saw. Uh, and, and, and, and just so you're aware of that, we did accumulate all of the sets with, and I will thank Jason too for his review. I, um, I do have an index, Robert. I want to make, that's what I used to put together the set I dropped off. I did drop off an 11 by 17. Hopefully that made it to you. You were not in the office when I dropped them, but I have that. It's just, I'll, I'll make it look a little nicer. So you have an index, but I do have a record of all the, not only have you those submitted, but also the dates. And then also what the current is, um, yeah. And you have plans to go with all that. So I'll, I could start doing that. Um, are you going to submit a larger plan too, so that we can, um, actually read the thing? At least one. Yeah. So you have on record all of the current full size plans. Okay. And then when I was speaking, actually speaking with Linda at conservation, she was just, um, talking about the stress of getting all those plans into a file cabinet. So I printed 11 by 17, got it, get so that it's easier to find it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
Um, uh, I'm assuming that, um, well, has the board read all of the, uh, information that Mr. Perea submitted and read Robert's, um, statement on it as well. Um, there were two questions that I had to go to town council on, um, and I was able to speak with her. Um, um, with regard to, um, including anything from apple tree lane, uh, the 10 a property, we can't do it. It's not part of the application. It's not part of the site plans. We can't do that. We can include the, uh, information about how you get there. Um, and that we can put in as a condition, but we can't deal with that other property. If you want to enter into a private agreement, that's great, but we can't do it. Um, yeah, I didn't, I read the document, uh, bill sent, but I didn't see Robert's notes or I missed that. He sent it to us on, um, March 20th, 2026 at 825 AM. Um, the gist of what Robert sent was, uh, because the assessor's office shows the barn as having been built in 1965, uh, and it's been there and been in use. Uh, and barns routinely, uh, and barns routinely have equipment and vehicles stored in them, uh, and the barn appeared on a plan at the, uh, a 1979 plan at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds. Uh, those are longer ago than 10 years. So the thing, the building and has been there, uh, for more than 10 years. And there's a statute chapter 40, a section seven, that says, if you've had a building in existence, uh, for more than 10 years, even if it was a zoning violation, it can stay. And it becomes what they call, uh, legally non-conforming. So the building seems to be fine where it is. Uh, Mr. Perea was referring to, um, the accessory dwelling unit, uh, bylaw adoption. Um, but because of the way it's written, um, it talks about, um, things, uh, it talks about the accessibility. The accessory dwelling unit, um, thing, I think it says, uh, not, uh, for things that are built after June 1, 1982. And these were built before 82. Um, if one wanted to even look at it now, um, it exists, it's part of the Carroll School and, um, they're allowed to continue to use it, uh, and they wouldn't need necessarily a site plan. And they didn't have any approval for it anyway. Um, so that's the first, I can see your hand, Dan, but I'm not calling on you right now.
Um, the other one was on the, um, transportation, uh, what we could do for, um, what we could, what we would be allowed to do in order to, uh, ask them to pay for more, uh, traffic work. Um, and, or roadway work, um, going forward, uh, and town council said, we can't do that. Uh, if they're willing to give us the, um, the $5,000 and we're willing to take it, that's fine. Um, but we would have to put something in like, this is again, a paraphrase, something like, um, within, uh, we could take the money now and then say that, um, we could use the money after, um, completion of the project, uh, to assess, uh, the area and, um, entering, exiting, those sorts of things. Um, and if we didn't use it within say 18 months that we would return it to the applicant.
So, um, I, for the board, I just want to make sure that you can ask what questions you have or concerns. And then I want to ask Mr. Perea, his, are you, I, Jesse, you're. Yeah. Sorry. I was muted. I guess I think like, how to like, who holds that? Where does it go? The money. Yeah. We have a gift fund. Um, and, and Robert had said at the last meeting that he'd prefer not to hold the money. I remember that. Yeah. To build them afterward. Yeah. But normally when you, it's tough to get money after the fact. So if we do want it, um, Robert, I talked to him, uh, about it and he said that it would be okay. He'd have to have written agreements and it would be clear that, um, if whatever was left at the end of a set period of time, and it wouldn't be a long period of time, would revert back to the school, um, because Robert needs to be able to get stuff out of that gift fund so that we're not carrying it for 20 years. Yeah, right, right. Yeah, of course. Makes sense. Okay. I think, I mean, I think a time period would be helpful in writing so that if the, if, you know, let's say that school actually does completely forget and they don't ask them money and like, oh yeah, we, we gave them five thousand bucks and then I wonder if they ever used it five years later, they can look back and say, oh, we, we, we want, we let our money back and then they can actually submit a request back to town. And then we would have some document on record saying after 18 months, it goes back just to the treasurer can say, yep, they, they are, they are, they have deeded back. The money is right there. They're theirs. So we see, we need something strong. That is that, that would be able to be tested over time. Regardless of who's in, you know, in what position in town. And I would have concerns with what we chose for a time period because, you know, like 18 months, they're just going to be finishing completion of the construction probably. Or it could be like 18 months after completion of the construction or something. Yeah. Select a timeframe. I'd be curious to hear from the applicant when it is that they expect to, from the time we approve or, you know, from the time they break ground, how long before they're up to their full student body that they anticipate, you know, sort of what are they looking at for a timeframe so that, because that would need to be basically the timeframe. True.
I can speak to that. I think growth is, it's not going to be immediate. There'll be a couple year ramp up, um, before we get to our, uh, our, our ideal, uh, enrollment.
Okay. I would say two to three years, uh, would be a, uh, two, two to three school years. But you would want it.
You would also want a period of time to see if it were three years to see how it was working at three years. So that would be more, I don't know, we can talk about it, um, as getting along. Yeah, it's getting really long. You're really looking at like five years between everything. That's not great. Okay.
Any other comments from the board?
Um, how about Mr. Perea? Would you like to, um, tell us your thoughts? Yeah, sure. I mean that, I mean, we did offer to, you know, provide that amount of money. However, the town thinks they need to, you know, fashion some period of time. I think we can work with the town on that. I mean, we want it to be useful to you.
So I think, you know, if town, the board or staff or town council draft something, you know, we could just take a look at it or react to it or, um. Right. Because if we're not going to use it for two to three years, it doesn't make an awful lot of sense for us to have the money just sitting there. Yeah. Either. Um, okay. That's sort of why that I kind of drafted it to be related to it gets payable later at some point. Right. Yeah. And then if what Robert would like, or the town would like, there has to be an end point to that, then we could do both, right? Right. Yeah.
Okay. Uh, Robert, I just saw something flash across my screen. Dan Hill said something or other in an email to you.
Say it again. Dan Hill just sent you an email. Oh, I did not. It flashed across my screen, but I can't get to it. I did not get an email recently or? Just now. I did not get an email from Dan Hill now. Okay. Yeah, he did just send one. Can you see it, Robert? Yep. And, um, your, says Robert, your webinar for the planning board meeting taking place right now is only allowing attendees to see the speaker and not the entire planning board meeting. Dan, I think that's your settings. If you go to your view settings, um, you can change your view. It, it's not the settings for the meeting. It's the settings for your computer.
Okay.
I thought that's usually what you can do. I thought you usually can only see you speaking at the, at the moment and it switches over. Unless you're, unless you're a pan less and then you can see everything. No, up in the top right corner, there's a little thing that says view and it has nine squares next to it. And you can choose whether you see the speaker or the gallery.
Hope that helps, Dan. Um, okay. Um, did everybody have a chance to look at all the materials that were submitted? Were you able to look at the plans as well?
Yes. And they looked pretty, I mean, I, I have not done a fine tooth cause it was so small. I did a fly over. Same. Okay. Um, we also got the, uh, markup. Uh, of, uh, what they're looking for, for conditions. And I just want to say first, um, when we draft a decision, um, we'll have findings of fact, and then we have conditions after that. We list, um, all the pertinent procedural things first. Then we have, uh, findings of fact, then general conditions, construction conditions, specific, if there's something extra special. Some of the things that you've included in the proposed conditions are, in my mind, findings of fact, and we can include some of those and some of the things we can make conditions. Some of the things we can, I don't believe we can make conditions, and I want the board to discuss them so that, uh, we're all on the same page. Um, so, um, if, Robert, you could put up the, um, March 18th markup, if you're there. I can do it. You can do it? Don't you have to be, doesn't he have to give you permission to do it? I don't think so. Oh, okay. Let's see, I just have to find the right. Oh, he's there, Robert. Can you do that? What do you need? I'm sorry, let's have to tell you for a second. The March 18th, um, proposed conditions, the markup. This one. The markup, though. Um, so, I'm not sure that the markup and this one are the same. One of my issues is that it's not always clear, um, who's done the marking up and whether the markup is sort of mutually agreed upon or not. I think this one was the last one. Yeah, this is the one. The one, uh, Dan Hill. No, I don't want Dan Hills. I want the one from Mr. Perea. All right, let me open that one up. I have to open my emails and get that one.
We're going to go over it first with the applicant and make sure we all know what's up, and then we'll, uh, speak to the, uh, neighbors, the council.
You having trouble? It's in the packet. Oh, did I put it in the packet? Yeah. Thank you. Well, hopefully you can all find your own, and we'll start, and, uh, then when Robert finds it, we'll see where we go. Um, in paragraph 3b, you still can't find it, Robert? I think I found it.
I was going to find it.
I believe this is it. No, I think that's the one from Dan. That's Dan Hills. I would do it. And that wasn't in our packet. That just came late. Oh. Oh. Wait. I'm sorry. I believe it was in the packet. I'm just looking. It is, but it's the one I had put up there a minute ago. It doesn't show. It says clean and track changes, but it's just, it's a PDF document. It doesn't show. It's the, um, it's the second part of it. I put, I put the one as one document, just so it's easier to understand. I found it. Here's the one, here's the one that track changes.
Thank you. This is what you're looking for. Yeah. Um, go down to 3b.
Okay. Um, and these are things that were added by counsel for the, uh, school. I think that we can, until we get one, two, three, four, fifth. At the end of the word property in the fifth line, where it starts with the garage may be used for, that's not a planning board thing that we can deal with.
I think the beginning part that we can, and, um, if it's okay, Mr. Breyer, we'll, we'll say it. I don't know that we'll call it the accessory garage use, but we'll call it something and refer to it as an accessory use. Um, but I think we'll refer to it more as the preexisting, uh, approved use or something, if that's okay with you. Um, yeah. I mean, it's, I don't think it's, I mean, I think it's, I think it's currently compliant with the bylaw. It is, but it doesn't match the way that the introduction to the bylaw is, because the introduction to the bylaw talks about accessory uses after 1982. And this accessory use started in 1965. Okay, uh, we'll take a look at what, what you're proposing, but I, I, I hear what you're saying. I thought, you know, I know you got some advice from town council about the garage. So, I mean, I tried to make my case. I think it would be helpful for everyone to have it included, but if that's the advice you're getting and the direction you're going, I can't. Right, and again, you can do it if you want us to, with whatever separate agreement you come up with, you want us to attach it to the decision, we'll be happy to do that and just refer to it as what it is. Um, and then, um, in 3C, going back and forth between condition 14, condition 3B, again, um, in, I'm, I'm speaking for me and I shouldn't be. I should be waiting to hear from what other people have to say. Uh, why don't I, before I go through this, um, does the board, do people on the board have specific things they want to talk about in the document? No, only, other than noting that there are certain things that, we have to separate this out in terms of what are actual conditions that we can have, and things that should be separated out in an agreement between the, the abutters, you know, the neighbors and the school. That's my only comment. There's certain things that are going to have to get pulled out and be separated. Right. Does anybody else have anything? No. Okay. Okay. So, well, in, in 3B, the second part of that would have to be pulled out, um, in 3C, um, we're at three and it refers to condition 14 and then it refers to condition 3B. Um, I don't necessarily think that there's a problem with it, but we might rewrite it so that it's, we're not bouncing back and forth between different provisions that come later.
Um, with regard to, in that same section, uh, 3C, uh, with regard to the, um, storage shed, where is that depicted on the approved plan? And is it in fact there? Mr. Hill had asked about that. He didn't see it. Um, yes. So there's a reference to a, what do we call it? A mechanical pen, I believe we called it on the plan set. And so I think we should reference that. That's where that storage shed will be. It's, you know, adjacent to where the, um, HVAC pad will be and things like that. It'll maybe a lot of transformer, but all in that area to the west of the new academic building. Okay. So we, that's, that was an, is an answer to, to Dan's question. And we could refer to that in the condition.
Okay. But in, you know, I don't know, maybe it needs, if it's not on the plan, there should be some reference. Shouldn't there?
You, you, you're talking about condition eight. I'm talking about, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. I went too far. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, I, I just wanted to make sure. I didn't have a, what I did was I just printed out the pages where I thought there were things to talk about, but hold on. And it's double-sided. So again, it's, it's going to be, you know, within that area depicted on the plan as the mechanical pen. I don't know exactly where within that footprint, because that design hasn't been done yet. I don't know exactly where transformers might be or it hit, you know, air handling equipment. Okay. So we tried to create a, you know, a pad where all these things would be put. So people would understand it wasn't going to just be willy nilly put on the site somewhere, but it was related to that mechanical pen that is shown on the plan set. Okay. Okay. Well, we'll look at the plan set and see if we can figure out how to state it, I guess, unless you have a better idea. I'm sorry. I went too fast before. Yeah. Sorry. That area on the plan is called out as a utility and service area. Okay. So you, you could just refer like that. If, if such time there's a shed, it will be located, you know, in the location of the utilities and service area depicted on the plan. Okay. Okay. Going back then. On number four, we're not going to be able to do what the request here is in number four. Um, we can do something with a review of student arrival, student dismissal, parking protocols and trends and other matters. Uh, but we, we're not, we said this before, and if the board doesn't agree, let me know. Um, I think that we said before that, um, we're not, uh, a mediation place. Uh, that's not the role of the planning board. We don't want to be in that role. Um, and to just have a meeting that we can't do anything about and make you, uh, make traffic changes just didn't seem prudent to us. Um, you know, the police departments can be involved, uh, if you're having traffic issues here, if the neighbors are having traffic issues and that's where they should, uh, go. Is that about what we said the last time guys? Yes.
Um, Mr. Hill had a number four, which I'm not going to find fast either.
Too much paper. Uh, well, we'll come back to that. Dan had some comments on number four. He had a new number four, um, with this, um, number five, um, the voluntary assessment. Um, I think that would be a finding of fact.
Um, and then, um, with the, uh, payment thing that maybe could be a condition, uh, separate from it. Um, and then going through, um, Dan had added legal holidays, which I think is fine.
And, um, in number all the way through. Um, and then, um, we did number eight, um, on number nine. Um, I wanted to understand, um, on your last real sentence there. Um, why it says special events, which are otherwise subject to the site plan approval. What does that mean? It means for the note, you know, generally for the notice requirements, that if they were going to be events of certain size, then they would also be subject to that notice, you know, the notice provisions in the protocol.
And that's why we use that capitalized term as a defined term. Um, why, if it's special events, why does it have to say, which are otherwise subject to the site plan approval?
It doesn't have to, I w I just wanted to make it plain that there wasn't, this wasn't being used as an exception to that. Okay. Those, those other provisions. Okay. We'll figure out how to deal with it. It becomes confusing when it says that, um, with a number of these, things, um, it says that things won't, uh, begin earlier than a certain time, but it doesn't say what the latest time is. Is that anything that you've discussed with the neighbors?
Uh, no, these are the provisions that we had talked about and I don't think they had any further comment, but I mean, Dan said, normally we, we provide a beginning and an end period, a window for doing it. So we can ask them about that.
Four, number, I was writing myself notes. So we don't forget. Um, and, um, in number 12, all property lighting, we don't have, I don't think we have a definition of what property is. We've been talking about project. We've been talking about, uh, individual parcels. Well, we did on the heading of this, we can put a definition in somewhere. I see. Yeah. Well, you don't have to say all lighting. Now we'll just pick it up from here. Yeah. Why can't it just say all lighting? Yeah. That's why I was wondering why I think we can just say all lighting. Yeah. Okay.
Um, in a, uh, um, a part of this is, seems to me again, as a finding of fact, what your standard operating hours are, um, and the conditions are conditions. So we can break those apart as well.
Um, and the definition of the school, I know that it's a school. Um, or you just want to talk about the, the, uh, okay. So it'd really be standard operating school hours, maybe.
Okay. Um, in B, I think it's the same thing, breaking it into findings of fact and conditions. Um, there are things that you do. And then based on what you do, we're setting certain conditions. And when on number 12 B, um, in, at the, on page, no page numbers, uh, on the second page of that, uh, it says in parentheses, see student arrival slash student dismissal parking protocol event management plan. Is that one document or is that two documents?
I thought they were two.
Um, I, I think it's one document as it's attached here. Okay. Those are sections of the one document.
Okay.
In C under that same section, um, is it okay if we change municipal public safety departments to officials, municipal public safety officials?
Yeah, sure. That's fine.
Because you don't want it just coming from the general department. You want it from somebody who's in charge. Okay. Um, number 13, um, is technically a finding of fact and it'll be on the plans and then we'll incorporate the plans. Okay. Um, in C number 15, 30 days prior to commencing project activity. What, what do you have in mind? Um, I think any sort of action toward the project, contemplated project and demolition, you know. Right. And you can't do that without a building permit. Right. So normally we would do it, um, commencing, uh, prior to, um, issuance of a building permit.
Carrie, did you have. Or any permit from the building department. And that, that, that is exactly what we were trying to do is get it to align with the issuance of the building permit versus the approval of the site plan. Absolutely. Okay. So however you want to write that, but basically we're just saying when we get closer before we start work and when we're going through that, we will, we will submit both that, um, the sequencing plan and the temporary fire protection standards. Okay. Yeah. Um, and that'll be, um, it'll also include a traffic management plan for construction. Yeah, exactly. And I don't know what else, but okay. Um, that's 15, 16, 17 was legal. 18.
Yeah. You know, the, the attached plan bill is, um, student arrival, student dismissal, parking protocol. I just found it. I couldn't find it before. Um, so it's not, um, the event management plan is something else. I see it's in there. Yeah. It's a section of that protocol. Okay. Well, I think we should just refer to the protocol. Okay. Then I thought maybe there was something new and different that we hadn't seen. Um, okay. And this, um, this protocol plan would just be attached again as an exhibit to the, just our decision because you gave it to us. Yeah. Yeah. The sites, the site circulation plan. Right. Yeah. The student, the, the dismissal and parking protocol. Oh yeah. No, we would, we would expect that to be, I mean, it's, it's a really a condition, right? I would think. Um. How we operate the site. So I would make a finding of fact that you gave us this and that we have included it, uh, as a condition. Yeah. Okay. I just want to find, I have Dan's thing somewhere and I just want to find it too much. Paper is going to kill me.
I can't believe I can't find it. Um, let me just pull it up. Um, Robert, can you pull up Dan's thing now? Anyway, where do you want to start? Um, going down number four is number four.
Yeah. When, again, we, I think we talked about that already today. Um, we're not going to do that. And, uh, number five, um, we can't ask for $50,000.
That's a lot of money. Yeah. And, well, we couldn't anyway. They offered $5,000 and I'm assuming the board would like to avail itself of the $5,000 that's being offered. Is that correct, members? Yeah.
Larry, uh, you said yes. Uh, Jesse, Ira. Yes. Robin. Yes. Jesse. Yeah. Okay. Um, in number six, that's new. Um, here. And I don't, we haven't necessarily talked about that.
And Mr. Perea, have you seen on Dan's number six applicants facilities, including the gymnasium, athletic fields, et cetera, shall not be leased or let to, or otherwise used by any public or private individuals or organizations. Again, I don't think that's something that we can say as a planning board. If you want to agree to that separately, that you're more than welcome to.
Uh, yeah, I saw, we, we've talked about this since last fall, that this kind of restriction on sort of business decisions that, you know, future board or administrators might have to make, we would not agree to that. Uh, okay. Then, uh, moving on past eight, Robert, hold on. Uh, in number nine, there's a footnote, go to the bottom. We don't, okay. That was the shed thing. And so we've gotten that taken care of going back up. Okay, go past 12, go past 13.
Okay. That was, I think, the end, um, of them. Uh, uh, Dan, if you want to speak, Robert, you see there?
Can you hear me? Yep. Okay. So, um, I just want to address the, the Zoom issue. Um, the Zoom screen that we see as participants is not the same screen that you all see as panelists. So I do not have a button on my screen to toggle between viewing all the panel or viewing just the speaker. So right now, all my, my screen, all I see on my screen is basically my name. I can't see any of you folks. Um, and, and this is really not a good practice. Um, I don't know why you're doing it this way. I mean, you have the ability to change the setting on, on your Zoom, uh, format. Um, Dan, I, the reason why it's set that way is so that someone can't take control of the screen. And once you, once you push into a panelist, um, then you can take control of the screen. You, you, you can show stuff on the screen. It's, it's, it's, it has a safety measures on purpose. So someone doesn't Zoom ball in the meeting. That's why. Right. But can he see, he see us? He's run out. He's, he has the ability to talk. Now, if I put him to a panelist, then he has full control. No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that he cannot see our faces. That's just the way that that's just the way the webinar is set up. But normally with a webinar, you can see at least the person who's speaking. That's all he can see. Yeah, that's all he can see. You have to take control of the meeting. I don't. No. That'll worry. Why don't we just try it with him being able to see everything? Well, I think he's concerned that other people can't see everything as well. The issue is not making me a panelist. The issue is that we cannot see everybody in this meeting. All I, all we can see is the speaker. And that is not, that's not something that's typical. I just got out of the Conservation Commission Zoom meeting and I could see all the panelists. That's normally how it is. For some reason, your setting on this webinar isn't allowing participants to see everybody. And I don't know why that is. Can you select Mallory up at the top or not? No, I can't. I don't have that option. No. And I just checked with Adam Curry, who's also on the Zoom. He doesn't have that option either. Can you see content? Yes. I can see when you guys post things and I can see the speaker, but I can't see the panel.
Well, thankfully, Dan, you don't want to see the rest of us.
It's really going in the wrong direction. It's bad enough that we can't see the other attendees. We don't even know who's in the room. Now we can't see who's even on the panel. This is, it's just not right. Robert, I mean, Dan, we have had issues. As you know, all the way along in all of our meetings with Zoom, in-person, hybrid, whatever it is.
We've talked to people about it and we'll continue to talk. I don't think there's anything we can do right now if Robert doesn't know how to fix it. Robert isn't here, is he? You're in charge? No. I'm running out of the host of the meeting. I don't want to interrupt this meeting. I just want to make the point that this is happening. I will ask IT if there's different settings set up that is different, had different meetings. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure how the- One last question. Have you been able to see the way you would like to see it, Dan, in the past? Yes. So there's the answer.
Anyway. Okay. So Dan- Back to the application. Yeah. Okay. So the first comment I had was that Bill went through, or actually I think it was, I'm sorry, the woman, I forgot her name, and I can't see her because I can't see the panel. Carrie, do I know? Carrie. Carrie listed, I think the plans, or maybe Bill listed the plans that have been submitted. I don't see any revised plans on the Planning Board's website, and we haven't seen any revised plans except for the circulation plan that was submitted. So if there are revised plans, I mean, I think the last set of plans we saw was dated sometime in late February or mid-February. So if there is a revised set, if the applicant could please forward those to us, and also if the board can put that on their website, that would be helpful. And then, of course, those need to be listed in the conditions or in the findings of fact.
And then with respect to condition 3B, I mean, I understand the advice you're getting from Town Council. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is. It's unfortunate. The garage is being used as part of the project. It should be part of the application. It should be part of the conditions. So with respect to number four, at the last hearing, we talked about this on February 25th, and I heard your concern that this was too complicated and it was kind of amorphous. And then I reminded you that this condition was actually in the 2016 conditions, and you said, well, why don't you go back and give us that condition and we'll consider it. And so that's what I did. I took the language from the 2016 condition and I stuck it in here. So if you still don't like it, that's fine. But this was a requirement from the prior project. So I don't see really what the harm is in having it in here again.
Okay. Robert, can you put four up again? Yeah. It would be in Dan's. His is brand new.
Yeah. We're not, we talked about it as a board. We do not want to be in the middle of it.
Yeah. And again, it's not in the middle of something if the board wants to actually have the hearing. But again, I'm just. If the board wants to have the hearing, the board can just have the hearing. On its own initiative, period. It doesn't need to be in a decision. Okay. All right. With respect to number five, you made a comment, Annette, that the board can't do that. They can't ask for mitigation or can't impose a requirement for mitigation. I don't agree. This was a condition in 2016. We had a condition in there that said that the applicant must contribute up to $10,000 for traffic calming measures. So are you saying that what we did in 2016 was also not correct? I wasn't on the board at the time. I don't know what the discussions were. The issue that we have is we have multiple Dover Amendment cases happening now at the same time. We cannot look as if we are overreaching in one of them because it will come back and bite us in the rear end on the other ones. So we're happy to take the $5,000 and we can use some of the language that's in number five. But we can't go or number review or whatever. We can maybe wrap number four into number five.
But we can't do we can't we can't take more money. We can't ask for more money, according to town council and really the case law. So I guess I mean, I'll just disagree because there is case law that that in the Dover Amendment context where conditions requiring mitigation payments were addressed. I mean, we gave you that native case. But that native case, I can distinguish from this case on the payment issue. Not in the payment issue. Yeah, I can. That was not a site plan, really. It was a special permit. There were two major things that they had to get variances for. And from my point of view, that's what those things may have turned on. If they even made a decision at all on them, it's possible that they didn't make a specific decision on those particular things because they weren't part of the appeal. Correct. Those those were voluntary conditions. So if you read the case carefully so that the appeal didn't take that issue up. The developer just decided that they would accept some of those conditions, the conditions they did appeal, they won on. And the court had a lot to say about one of the parties putting words in the court's mouth that it had the ability to regulate activity off the site. And the court said, go, you know, just read it. Court said, don't essentially wrong. The court never said that. And you missed you sort of mischaracterized what the court was doing. So that case is not applicable at all to the situation. OK, we've made our our pitch on that with respect to number six. This is something else we talked about the last hearing that I mean, I actually watched the video again just to confirm yesterday that we specifically had a discussion about there that might make sense to put a restriction that the applicant can't basically use the property for something. That's non-educational. And that's that's what this restriction does. It says you can't lease this out to private organizations for some some other use, that the use of the property is is given Dover Amendment protection because of its educational nonprofit educational use. And there's plenty of case law that says that that organizations cannot lease out their property for other purposes. There was a case out of Winchester or Melrose where a church was renting out its parking lot for commercial purposes. And that was held to be outside of the scope of Dover. So that was the point of this restriction was simply saying that the school can't lease out its facilities. I don't know why this is controversial. There are other cases that say that as long as the school is being a school, you can't put those kinds of restrictions on it. They wouldn't get Dover Amendment protection if what they were doing was building a building on their property for some other commercial use. But this is their use and their building. So you think if they leased out their gymnasium or their athletic field to a to a private event promoter that was selling tickets to to like a music festival or something that that that that would be. I don't know, but that's not what this says. This is wider than that kind of thing. Yeah, I mean, if you want a condition that says we won't do anything that we can't do as a Dover use, then put that in. But this says we couldn't even if we if the school goes out of the school business, but they lease the property to another school, which is perfectly valid. We couldn't do it under this kind of condition. I have a question. I have a question. Can we limit it to educational uses only and can we limit it to the standard hours of operation that the school has agreed to? I think the standard hours of operation are are it unless there's a special event. I think I don't know that we can do this. You definitely can't do this because it's not what Dan's trying to accomplish. The intent was to that to prohibit leases for non-educational purposes. So, yeah, if you want to add that caveat at the end, that's totally acceptable because that's that's what the intent was. But if you don't have any condition in here, then I don't know what's stopping the school from, again, using its facilities for non-educational purposes or letting other people use their facilities for non-educational purposes. It's the same as any other use. If someone is using their property unlawfully, then there's a mechanism to enforce that right under the Zoning Act. There is. And this would be an additional mechanism that the board could say, well, not only are you violative of the of the Dover Amendment, you actually are violating a condition of our decision. So it's a it's a it's a tool for the board of the town of Weyland to have that if that were to occur, then they have a more direct enforcement mechanism. And I've seen this happen in other towns where Dover Amendment uses are get used for non-Dover purposes after the fact, like years later.
Then a general condition that says we can't use it for non-Dover purposes. That's that's fine. But if you said that that incorporates a lot of other stuff, there are lots of Dover Amendment purposes, multifamily housing.
There's a whole bunch of stuff in there. Well, that are inconsistent with this site plan decision. That's obviously the case as well. I mean, this is the project that's being approved. Multifamily housing is not being approved here. So that would definitely trigger another site plan review. Right. Right. But that kind of language, I don't think is something we can't just say Dover because it won't work.
What are the board's thoughts on this? If town council thinks it's okay, I would be I would think it's okay to put in a condition that says only educational uses consistent with the application are permitted. And within the general operating hours that were specified and within the general operating hours that were specified.
I agree with that. Yeah.
That makes sense to us. We wouldn't have anything conceptually, I think, to oppose that. But we'd have to see what the language is. Right. Robin, can you repeat that again so I can write a note? That only educational uses that are consistent with the application or with the permit, I guess, are allowed and only during the permitted hours of usage or hours of operation, I think, is what it's called up above.
Standard hours of operation. I mean, I just don't want that to negate the special events that we've tried hard to define and provide notice for. So, again, conceptually. Those are all part of your educational mission. Yeah, but we've had it with the standard hours of operation. So that might need to come out. It's just. Just however it's phrased up above where it allows for special events, you know, in addition to the. We just have to refer back to the provision that lists the hours. Where is it?
Also have. I can't remember at this point. In what you put together, Mr. Perea, did you have hours of construction?
I don't think so. I think that was left for the for the construction plan. OK. Do you have. But there's there is.
Hours shall be. I'm looking at this. No work construction. It says said hours shall be. Yeah. 18. Friday 7 to 4. Yeah. And Saturdays from 8 to 3. OK. Sorry. I couldn't remember that. Yeah. That's 18. Right. OK.
Is there anything else, Dan, that you had? So just on the hours of operation. I don't think there was any language that said that for the special events that those had to end at a certain time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't I don't think there was anything in there and that there really should be like 11 o'clock at night if that's what their intent is. One second. Looking for it.
Do you know? 12 A and B. What is 12 A and B? 12 A and B. 12 B is special events. Or here it's 13.
OK. So isn't Mr. Parade's 12 B? Yeah.
There's no end time, right? Right. Well, there's no end time in a lot of the things that you agreed to already. I think I think that was addressed sort of implicitly on on C, right, because it talks about when the lights will be out so that I mean, we can make that more specific. The idea was those, you know, the the campus wouldn't be lit after 11 o'clock except for those very limited exceptions. So events would be over, you know, well before that. Yeah, I think it'd be prudent just to add a sentence in 12 B that events show in by by 11.
Is that OK with the school?
Chris?
I. Yes, I generally I want to. Yes, I think so. But I feel like I'd like to I'd like to talk about it internally. OK. With respect to the storage shed, it wasn't clear to me how we left off on that. Are they going to add that feature to the plan or because it's not currently shown in the plan? I don't think we have to look at the plan for that. What they said was that there is a utility and service area depicted on the plan. I don't have the plan in front of me. Is that something, Robert, that you can also put up, believe it or not, even though this takes time, you can see the thing better than you could if we were there in person or pay. Blow that up bigger. And so we can see where Robert C401 has it noted over. Or is it the one that's it noted? Yeah, it's plan left right there. It's kind of right there, right at the bottom left corner, the utility service area. And that's pointing into what looks like either six boxes or seven boxes in there is that. Yeah, the idea is that all of the, you know, any of the ground mounted mechanical equipment, storage area, you know, all that is going to be in a large fenced enclosure there. And I think what we would propose is that if we determine we need a shed, that it would go in that same area of the site. Within that squared off area or adding on to the squared off area? Um, I mean, I'm not sure we've thought through what all of those individual squares are, but I think we would attempt to get it, you know, within and could certainly discuss if it's not. But that area will be shielded, I think, from all view, regardless, except from the Carroll School, they'll be able to see it from the backyard, potentially. Annette, if I could suggest that maybe the condition should be reworded to say that an exterior storage shed may be located adjacent to the westerly facade of the new academic building in the, in the area delineated as utilities service area. Uh, hold on. Just reading it back because I have all write ups and markups here. It's the exterior store or an exterior storage shed may be located adjacent to the west. Is this okay? Adjacent to the westerly facade of the new academic building. And then, um, what did you say after that, Dan? Within the area delineated as utilities service area.
Yep. Now, if we do, I'm asking the school this, that would mean that it would have to be in that area, it would have to be within that square, that rectangular area.
Could we say that it would be, or, or behind, or something just out of view from, from the road and neighbors? You know, if you would envision we put a little shed behind that enclosure, that's a six foot fenced enclosure, or maybe even an eight foot fenced enclosure. If there was a shed behind that, nobody would see it except the trees and the school.
Normally we like everything to be on a site plan.
Do you think you guys can figure out where you would? I just, I just don't know how we figure out what we're going to need until much closer to the actual build. That's what I'm, that's what I'm hedging on a little bit is we, we don't exactly know. Um, you know, and in this case, we weren't exactly sure what the restrictions on 10 a we're going to be, you know, so there's like kind of a cart, the, uh, like a circular reference. Right. So, um, you know, I think we could say within, unless we come back to the planning board to ask for permission to, for it to go outside. I don't know what the other options are. I just, I can't, I don't think we can commit to exactly how big it is and, and all that, but I think we can commit to where it would go and the fact that it would be, um, you know, on a, on the kind of Carol side of, of the fence. Okay. Yeah. Um, board, how do you feel about, um, revising it similar to the way Dan suggested, um, and say that, uh, if they, uh, need to make changes, they can come back to, uh, either the town planner or the board, you decide board, um, and, uh, have a minor amendment. I think town planner is fine with me. Me too.
I'm fine with that.
Okay. Thank you.
Anything else, Dan? Um, no, that was it. I guess on the special events, it sounds like the applicant is willing to consider 11 o'clock, but they're going to get back to you on that. Um, so I think that's something that we just need to address at the next meeting. And, um, I don't, I don't have any other comments, so I don't know if, uh, Adam, who's on the, on the call, he might have something else to add, but that's it for me. Um, are there any public comments?
Catherine Cooper?
Hello, this is Andrew Cooper with my wife, Catherine Cooper. Um, I would just like to make a comment. We're at five Apple tree lane. I'd just like to make a comment on the garaging at 10 a. And the three B condition. Um, I perfectly understand that 10 a. Has been an accessory, uh, and is grandfathered in as such. I'd point out that it has been an accessory to a private residential address. It now seems that it's becoming an accessory to a larger sort of somewhat commercial enterprise. That to me feels like a change of use. Um, and it's not just grandfathered in, uh, because of that change. Um, that, as a layman, is the way I would see it. And therefore, I don't understand why it isn't included in the site plan. Um, uh, unless its use is not changing at all. We have no desire to see the garaging taken down. We have no desire to see access prohibited to it from Apple tree lane or anything like that. But we want to be protected from it becoming a much busier hub of operations for a more commercial enterprise. It's been, uh, an accessory to a private residential address at 10 Apple tree lane. It is no longer going to be that if the school are going to use it for much more, um, commercial purposes. And I therefore don't understand why it's just getting a grandfathered nod and the school can do whatever they want with it. Um, to respond, it was part of a farm. All of your land was part of the farm and as was the schools. Uh, and, uh, the barn has been there and it serviced the farm. Then there was a site plan or an A&R plan that divided property. Um, A&R is an approval. It's strange, but it's an approval, not required. It means that, uh, the board approved the planning board at some point approved the division of the property into various parcels. Uh, but didn't review it because it didn't have to. This is a very strange thing that Massachusetts law has in it. Um, so that it has always been a, essentially a farm use. And that's how it's listed at the assessor's office that that building was there. And the way our zoning works is for structures, including buildings that were in existence for more than 10 years, they're, they're outside of zoning. They just stay there the way they were, the structure does. But it was already an approved kind of structure and use in that area. Uh, I would suggest that farm use is different to school use in particular because of the amount of impervious surface, uh, that the school has as opposed to what a farm would have. Uh, and therefore, you know, my biggest concern all along has been, uh, dealing with snow, um, because. Really, I don't mean to cut you off, but it really has nothing to do with that. And that's not, unfortunately, I, I know all of these cases are very difficult. Um, I know that neighbors get very upset. Uh, I get upset myself at different times, uh, but it's not something that we can control. I'm sorry.
Well, are you saying we, meaning the town of Weyland has no. I'm saying we, meaning the planning board under zoning provisions. Right. So my question would stand as to who in town, um, you know, does have any sort of jurisdiction or say over it. Private property owners, um, have the right to use their land as they wish to use their land, as long as it fits within zoning and public safety requirements. I, I guess my question is still, I don't understand, understand, understanding zoning. Well, who do I talk to? Talk to your council. Who is my council? I thought, I thought Mr. Hill was. Oh, well, I'm asking who in the town I would talk to. You don't have it. You have to talk. It's a private matter, actually.
Are you saying the town's not involved? Only via zoning. That's correct. Or if there is a danger and the danger is, uh, an imminent kind of danger, fire, something like that.
So is there a zoning board in Weyland? Yes. Oh, okay. So presumably I could talk to them. Now on a separate matter. Well, yeah. On a separate matter, um, at the last meeting that I attended, um, Neighbours was struck out because it had no legal definition and it was just left as a butters. But I think later on in that meeting, I got the impression that a butters must live in the same town and therefore, for instance, 109 Old Sudbury Road would not be considered an abutter to the Carroll School because they live in Lincoln. Is my understanding correct? Is my understanding correct or not?
Robert? Yes. Can you deal with this? Because we're talking about apples and oranges again. Well, so under site plan, it's only abutters, it's only abutters within the same town. Now, if you're dealing with a special permit, which is not a site plan and it's different, then you would cross over and you would have to notify the abutters in different towns. So, so site plan is not, it's not actually found under master in order for EA, it's actually, it's a, it's a, it's a town is allowed to adopt local regulations on it, but it's not actually, so when using it, the word abutters, it's, that's why we didn't notify the abutters in other towns because it's not legally required. And we're also not required under site plan to, to actually attack, to actually send to abutters, but the town of Wayland goes ahead and goes further and actually wants to be as consistent as possible.
So. Yeah, that's all fine. I don't, I don't want to relitigate what, who has and who has not been previously notified on anything. Mm-hmm. with special permits. And that was why we said what we said. It's very complicated. This is not easy stuff. There are multiple different kinds of permits with multiple different kinds of standards that we have to deal with. Yes, and that's fine. I'm, I'm, I'm referring to the use of abutters and neighbors as terms in the conditions that we have just discussed through this meeting. Where in the conditions, will you point out exactly where your issue is, sir? Um, I, I don't have the, the copy in front of me, um, because there's been so many reasons to this. So, but, you know, if you did a word search on neighbors and abutters, you would find it. But I am simply pointing out that if abutters has, is used with a legal definition in these conditions that they have to live in Weyland. I am concerned for my neighbors in Lincoln that they need to be included in some fashion if they're not included under the term abutters. Excuse me, Mr. Perea, can I ask you and Mr. Hill, I, I have multiple different pages in front of me. I thought we had dealt with this and I didn't think that it was an issue. And I think that the provision that you're, uh, that the, this gentleman is speaking about is something that we took out anyway. But I could be wrong. I don't think we reference neighbors in this anymore. The only references to neighbors is with respect to the sort of the email chains from the school and the school's efforts to notify neighbors. Yeah, but that isn't limited by distance or anything. If people want to be on that list, they can be on that list, whether they're legal abutters or neighbors or whatever. It's, it's available to anyone that might have an interest in the neighborhood writ large kind of idea. So we're not limiting that at all in this decision. I think all the other provisions relating to neighbors have been stricken. Right. And I think it was probably provision four, uh, which we said that we couldn't do. Right. Well, number four says party of interest. And it, well. As it's been in Mass General Law 4811. So a third term, so we have neighbors, we had abutters, now we have party of interest. So it's, it's, there's a lot of different terms being thrown around. Party of interest is defined in 48 section 11. So it's, that's actually a defining term. What are you reading? I mean, which, which condition are you reading? Under the new four, which was. Dan's new four that we were thinking about and haven't done yet. Correct. But that's where they use, Dan uses the word party of interest, which is a third different term. That's a different term than, than abutters on neighbors. In that term, it would include neighbors in Lincoln as well as Will and I. Yep.
Because you're saying 4811, which is talked about the special permit requirements of notifying party of parties of interest. I have no idea what anyone's speaking about now, but I thought we had taken it out. We did, but, but I'm going back to Mr. Cooper's comment about neighbors and abutters. He, he, he discussed that and just was trying to get to the bottom of that. And it's very difficult when we, when we have all these different terms that'd be thrown out and they mean different things. And some are legal terms, some are just terms like I'm a neighbor, neighbor to what, how far, what are the, you know, it's, it's, we need to use defined terms that are actually, you know, defined. The bottom line is that the only place that it probably will be referred to in here is with the getting on the list of the school to receive information about special events and other things.
Annette, can I make a quick comment, um, on that 10A apple tree lane issue?
Yes. So I understand your rationale for not including conditions on the use of that, of that structure because it's not within the site plan, uh, application. I, I just want to state for the record, I, I don't agree with the, um, justification that I think town council provided to you that because the structure has been there for more than 10 years, it's grandfathered, um, that does not protect the use of the structure. It only protects the structure itself. And Andrew is correct. Uh, there's a distinction between uses and when the structure is being used for a new use or for, for any use that's non-conforming, that isn't protected under, under 48 section six and that, and that 10 year statute of limitations issue. So I will use, it's being used as a barn and it was used as a barn and in barns, they park equipment, trucks, uh, hay, uh, farm stuff. If you need fertilizer, I mean, that's what you do in a barn. So I don't think that this is any different. But, but you don't build a salt shed next to it. They're not building a salt shed next to it. This is what we want in the conditions. I'm sorry, sir. I'm going to, I, we are not, we will not put something in on a property that was not part of the application. We cannot do that. The reason that you have public notice and notice in the newspaper is so that everyone, knows what you're doing. We can't just change horses in the middle of the stream.
Is there anything else that we can try and clarify for anyone? Is there any other public comment?
No, I don't see any other hands raised.
So, um, Robert has started drafting the basic part of the, uh, decision. And, um, if you think that the plans, Robert, are the way that they need to be, and, um, I guess I should ask Jason as well. If you had an opportunity, Jason, to look at the final plans.
Jason, I'm going to ACT. Um, Madam Chair, we reviewed the final plans piecemeal on the last package that they had come in on, that's why I had assembled the, I assembled the, uh, the second attachment to the letter that we provided that listed the previous versions, the most current version. So we did see that we have not, we did not see a full complete package with every document prior to the completion of this. So that's why we pulled that, we pulled that together and I wanted to make sure that when the board received it, that they received the various boards, commissions all received one package. So the answer is we, we, we've seen the final versions, but I've not seen them in a complete package. My concern is I just want to make sure that what we have in front of us is in fact, everything that you have reviewed and I don't know how one says that unless one sees it with the final date on it.
Um, and now I can, I can comment. So Jason had sent us a list of all the things he had reviewed and we confirmed that he had the latest and greatest. And going back to Dan's question earlier, there's not a new set of plans, right? That February date was the last set. That's what was submitted. There were some that when we were resubmitting did not get resubmitted. So for example, like that original set of floor plans, like those didn't get submitted each time, right? So everybody who has been in receipt, both, you know, Robert and Jason, we confirmed that those are all the current. I have assembled that set. Um, I can send it around electronically, but those submissions have, have all been confirmed. And, and, and Robert, I just emailed you the, the list of, um, I basically cleaned up Jason's list and confirmed it, and then put that in a, on a header that just shows the kind of each issuance and then the, what the current is.
Well, how do you feel about, um, the plans at this point? Do we need Jason to just confirm one more time that everything is set? Because they all have the date of March. I forget what the date is on them. February 23rd. No, there's a final date on the plans that you submitted. That was March something. There were some, um, that were for board of health. I believe that have a March date. No, ours. Well, whatever we got had a March date. I could be wrong, but that's what I said. You're correct. It's the carry. It looks like the final set that came from.
I apologize. Let me see. It looks like it came in.
Okay. So the set that came in on, I believe, March 2nd, at least on the drawing, I'm looking at how to March, how to February 10th date on it. Yeah. Um, am I able to share? Yeah. I, I can just show you what I just put together. That might be helpful. My concern is, um, with your engineer, he's doing other projects and we've been told that he made all these changes on other projects and they weren't made. Yeah. So this, these are all, this is everything that's been submitted in, in plan form, right? All the way up through that last site circulation plan. The first time it was submitted each, um, each time after that it was submitted. And then just for reference, you know, what the latest and greatest is. But Robert, in the plans that are in our packet, they all had a date and I thought it was March.
I'm looking. Okay. Cause it's so small. I had to use them.
Oh, I couldn't get it that big. It's so, so big. Um, February 23.
This is in the packet. What you sent us in the packet.
It's February 10th. They, they, they, they changed each plans. February 23rd. They just depends on where they've been revised or not. February 10th. They just, it, it goes back and forth. Hold on.
They don't have, they don't have, they don't have the same date as, as the index that carries showing on the screen. They all have different dates on. I see. This says, okay, February. This one is February 26th. Got it. Somewhere, somewhere February 23rd or February 20th. Okay. I thought that there was something that was March. I was looking at. Okay. Okay. There should be, I think, two drawings that were, um, the last round with, um, that went into Board of Health that were a March 12th date. C-602 and C-603, which were final details. And the circulation plan had a March date. And the circulation plan was a March 18th date. It was the same plan. We just needed a date because we wanted to reference it in the decision. Okay. Okay. Um, I think that we will leave the record. Well, I'll ask the board. Do you want to leave the record open before we deliberate and have Robert just put the document together, send it to us before the next meeting. And then at the next meeting, uh, go over the final document and you can send them comments in between, but go over the final document, um, and then close the hearing or close. Close the hearing at the next meeting. I vote for that.
That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Um, our next meeting is, um, April the 15th. And, um, we have to have the decision done currently by April the 17th.
Okay.
So we need the plans and the draft decision to look at before the next meeting. I assume. Yes. And we've got the plans, I believe, but then we're going to get, um, an index, which will be helpful. Right. Um, and, uh, yeah, because we have, we should be able to do that.
Okay. Um, is there anything else that the board wants to ask any member to make sure that they're comfortable?
I'm all set. Yeah. Can't think of anything. Okay. Um, for the conditions, Robert, I asked him to, uh, go back and look at Veritas, the way we put that decision together, because we made some actual real findings. Um, and, uh, also, uh, look at the, uh, more recent, uh, Coptic church and use the conditions, you know, for timing as we state them. Um, that was another thing, Dan, you, on some of these things, you did not have, uh, end times. You didn't want, uh, certain work starting before a certain time, but normally we have things that say you can do deliveries between X, Y, Z and X, Y, Z hour, that kind of thing. Um, are you there, Dan, Robert? Yeah, one second. Sorry. I was, I was on mute. Um, yeah, I, I don't know if that was actually, was that my language on the deliveries? I thought that was in there already. Well, there's one, I, no, I don't know that it, I wasn't even paying it. It said we normally do that, but for example, on trash removal, uh, they can't start prior to a certain time, but otherwise you have no problem when they get the trash.
Well, I'm sure we do. I don't, I don't think those guys normally operate at night, but yeah, I mean, it would make sense to put a, an end date and end time as well. Um, I don't know if we feel strongly about that time. I mean, five o'clock seems reasonable, but. Well, there are several ones here and on the deliveries, it's not before 7am on weekdays. And yeah, these are all essentially before times, nothing after.
Yeah, we, we can think about that. I can talk to Bill about it too. Um, like I said, I don't think we have a strong concern. I don't, I don't think it's going to happen at night, but we can, I can talk to Bill about a time. Um, I would just say whatever you've been using on your other decisions here. Okay. And if that's fine with Dan and his group, I think we can live with those. Um, because, um, what we put together will not be a board document. Um, I'm not sure, um, we had, someone had asked before, if we normally share it with the applicant, we'd normally don't share it with anybody. Um, but we'll think about, um, whether or not to share the conditions part, uh, in advance. Uh, but you would be looking at it probably at the same time as the board. So it would not be a board document. It would just be what the most recent proposal is.
What do you mean? It won't be a board document. It's going to be drafted by the town, correct? It's going to be drafted. The draft of the, the draft of the final is what I'm talking about. You said, well, you and, and Dan both said, oh, well, we'll look at it. Well, if, if we're going to, if we're going to be able to share it, um, because of the timeline that we're on, the sharing would be, you would be seeing what Robert and probably me looking at it have put together. It will not be what the board has finally agreed on or thought about. I get it. I understand. That's what I was saying. I understand how your process is working. That sounds normal to me.
Okay. Um, so, uh, can I have a motion to continue? The, uh, hearing on the Carroll school site plan until, uh, April the 15th at one minute.
So moved. Now I have to pick a time. Oh, uh, one second.
April the 15th, April the 15th at Robert, excuse me for one minute. Just interrupt interrupting. Um, that would mean that the, um, what were we talking about? What were we talking about for hearing on EE? Uh, that needs to be 15 at 29th. And that really depends on what, how much time we need to, for this public hearing. I think the 29th then. Okay. So, um, April the 15th at, uh, seven o'clock. And do you want that, um, hybrid or do you want that, uh, remote or in person? I think zoom. What does everybody else think? Zoom is fine. Yeah. Okay. Hey, go ahead with your motion. I move that we continue the hearing on the Carroll school application to the meeting on April 15th, 2026 at 7 PM via zoom. One second. Yeah. Um, you said you wanted the town center people to come in then Robert. Yeah. After, after, after, or before, um, how much time, whatever the board wants. I mean, I think that'd be flexible, whatever they can get there. Well, if I'd rather do them and then get that over. Then let's push it. Just push the, um, do they only need like an hour?
Uh, boyfriend minutes. I mean, give, give whatever timeframe that I will get back to them and say, you have this much time. So I don't want to, for your minutes, let's say, let's say half an hour, for your minutes. I mean, or we, or we can just, we can just schedule for seven 30 for, for the care of school. And if, you know, if, if it ends alert, we'll start. Okay. Um, so for the Carroll school, um, at, at seven 30. Okay. So I move that we continue the hearing on the Carroll school application to the meeting on April 15th, 2026 at seven 30 PM via zoom. Okay. Second. Who's seconding. He said, give it to Ira.
Robin Borg said yes. I remarked you yes. Ari Kiernan. Yes. Uh, Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Thank you, everyone.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
No, Robert getting back to, um, the, uh, hearing on EE. We'll do it on the 29th. Okay. Perfect. And that will be, uh, and then you want that hybrid. Cause we have this, we have the COA for them for that one. Yeah. Sorry. The new, the new COA. You're going to get the microphone. Um, can they make it work? I mean, I only want it hybrid if it can work. Otherwise they just want to zoom. I mean, we can do zoom too. I mean, we have the microphone. We just have to tell them to leave it out and not lock in their cabinet. Duncan's coming in that evening too. Uh, Duncan knows. Yep. It's on the agenda too. Yep. That shouldn't be, that shouldn't be too long.
And potentially if, if the towns and town centers offer to come to both meetings. So if you give them like half an hour for the first, for the service meeting. I'm sorry. What was the other thing? The town centers owners are willing. I think they're willing to come to both meetings. I think they're just trying to get, we just need them at one meeting. Yeah. But they may, they may come back or something, but, but, but I can, we can, we can do a follow after if needed. Okay. So on the 15th, we have town center at seven, seven 30 for the Carroll school. Then, um, on the 29th, we have Duncan and then the hearing on EE. And, okay. And then minutes. How do you want to hand, I, I, I've not, I've advertised, of course, I've not done the legal ad for the Dunkin' Donuts. How, what order do you want? Do you want, do you want, do you want that, do that first and then do EE or do EE first and then do the same plan? I want to do EE first. Okay. At seven o'clock. So what time are you going to do Dunkin' Donuts? Uh, I have not decided yet. I mean, I was waiting to see what comes up tonight's meeting to go and move forward. Okay. So for the hearing, I don't know how much time we need for that either. I don't think too much, to be honest. I mean, they're going to. Well, I don't know.
Uh, let's get, we haven't seen the Dunkin' application even. I mean, there are, there are dining, it's going to be, everything, if things should be built, they're just asking to put two tables and a few chairs on the patio that they already can, are going to construct.
That's, that is what the site plan is for.
Um.
45 minutes for, 45 minutes for the, uh, uh, article EE. Sure. I don't want to, I also want to put too much time in and get stuck, you know. Yeah. Well, we'll see how it goes. But yeah, I, I, I, do you think that's right, guys, just doing that hearing first and then moving on to Dunkin' Donuts? I don't know. I think, I think it makes, makes sense to do Dunkin' first because it's specific people who have to show up and do that. And then we can open the hearing on EE. If nobody's there, we can close it and move on to other business. Okay, that's fine with me, I guess. Um, so if we did Dunkin' first, that would start at 7, oh, something or other. Oh, we have to decide if we need, um, uh. Half an hour? 7.05. I don't know about half an hour. I don't think so. I think more like a half an hour. We can do 7.05 and do 7.30 for, to make it a little bit easier for the, yeah. Uncle E, and that will allow, if it, you know, overrides, go by five minutes. We still have, you know. Yeah. So if you do Dunkin' Donuts at 7.05 and then the hearing at?
7.30. I think you need to allow more than 25 minutes just in case. 7.35. That's half an hour. Either 7.35 or 7.45 and then we could in between do minutes. All right, let's do, let's just do 7.40. I'd rather just do even, uh, easier numbers. So let's do 7.45 and then 7.45 for EE. Okay.
Okay. Um. Um, do you want that, how and how, what kind of format do you want that meeting? Hybrid, Zoom, in person?
Fellows? Thoughts? I know you usually do the zoning hearings in, um, hybrid, but that's been when we have like five articles and it is, you know, very important to have all this feedback. But if we have one article, I'm not sure if it has to be hybrid or not, but I booked the room in just in case.
I have no opinion. The only thing I'm concerned about is, is are other people out there going to have the same problem that Dan's having or that, can that be solved by the time we put? I'll look into them all. I'll have them. I'll ask, I'll ask Seth from IT. I think it's just settings. I really do. Yeah. I think we can resolve it. I just don't, I don't know where the settings are. I'm not going to run the settings to figure it out. I can choose to view gallery or I can choose to view speaker. He can't, he said he couldn't see that though. Yeah. You can only see that. I think you only, you only see that if you're a panelist, if you're promoted as a panelist. You can't go log in as a non-panelist. Yeah. There you go. Um, so I heard, I, doesn't matter. Anybody else? I mean, for the Carol school, the next one, the 15th, we're doing that by zoom, right? Correct. Okay. And then, um, don't get insight plan hearing. Do you think that we should try and do it in person number on April the 29th for the Duncan plan and for, um, it'd be easier. It'd be easier if you do it hybrid or zoom than, than just in person. If that's right. Yeah. They didn't mean just in person. We would have to be in person. I know. Um, I know I won't be able to make it in person for that one. Could you make it on hybrid? Yeah. Zoom? Yep. Why don't we do it on zoom then? Seeing this as the first meeting with them, maybe it makes more sense to meet in person,
but maybe not. Well, if we did hybrid, can you, you can make it Jesse on the zoom thing? Yep. Larry, can you make it in person? You're muted. Yes. I can. Okay. Okay. So why don't we try it in person and Jesse will be on in zoom? Sure. So we'll do hybrid. Yeah. It just, it's easier for me when, for the minutes. So there's actually a recording. So, so one of us can go back and actually make sure the minutes. This thing better be good. I mean, I'll have a, we just can't hit. Oh, the COA is, is usually, the COA is a lot better. Or if you have the microphone and we make sure we have, we can actually share the, the zoom. That room is the best one. It's the best, most technology best, but you just need to make sure there's a microphone. Like it's actually not locked in someone's cabinet. So I'll make sure that my silly is unlocks it for us. I have just returned from the land of the non-panelist and I could not change to a gallery setting. I could only, it only came in as a speaker setting and I couldn't change it. Okay. I'll ask you to, to see if we can readjust that for next meeting. Yep. But it's, it's something, it's something in the back end. Yep. And don't forget that town meeting begins on May the 4th and we have zoning articles. If you, you have to get your little speeches together, you know, I believe we, the moderator's rules tell you how many minutes you've got for the main speaker. I can't remember. It used to be seven. I don't know. Oh, I thought it was much less. That was like two minutes. No, it's not two minutes. It's not, it's seven anymore, but it's, I don't think it's two. So I, it's really low. Not for the main speaker. Yeah. I, from last year, I'll pull up the emails from last year. I think I only had two minutes. Who's, what is the main speaker? Just someone who introduces what we're going to. If you're, yeah. If you're speaking to your article. That's the main speaker. Yeah. Oh. So when you present the housekeeping article, Ira, you're the main speaker. Seven minutes. I don't think I can do it in seven minutes. Yes, you can. All right. I need to look for, I have a cheat sheet somewhere.
Seven minutes is a long time. Yeah. Well, it used to be seven and I don't, they cut it, but I don't remember to what. Because if it's complicated, you know, you're going to get tons of questions out anyway. The questions don't count. This is just your little spiel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I understand.
Here it is. Seven, yeah. Any person who wishes to offer the principal presentation in support of the main motion under an article has to notify the moderator prior to the session at which the article is called and complete the same within seven minutes or less. And they have to do it within the time used by the proponent or with three minutes, whichever is longer. Okay?
Okay. You don't have to talk for seven minutes. But you need to make it clear what we're doing, why we're doing it. And if you want to put something together and run it by me, I'm happy to look at it.
Can you use somebody else's time if they don't speak for seven minutes? No. No. Oh. The moderator won't let you.
These are, again, in the back of the warrant. Each of the warrants has moderator's rules in it. Okay. Moving on.
Oh. Well, you can talk about it again, I guess. Think about, well, Robert will think about, Robert, when you're drafting, think about the start time. For doing, taking the money for the traffic and for giving it back, how you want to structure that. Right. Yeah. I'll think about that. Okay. I just, but I think overall, we just got to be very clear when, not for you guys, but for staff has to be very clear. And some kind of number that's tracking this all, when they came in, what is it for? And some big description said 20, 30 years, someone can pick it up and know exactly what was it for. For any project. For any kind of project. So it's not a mystery of why you take 45,000 hours and then you do a goose chase around to figure out, oh, that's why. Or you make a guess why you don't actually figure out exactly why. Or you have to search for documents and documents. I just want to save myself or anybody else in the future time. And it's just, it's ridiculous. It's not fair. Okay.
Moving on. The next item on the agenda is the Route 20 Planned Redevelopment District Zoning discussion. I took what we talked about last time and fit in those things that you all added.
What I'd like to be able to do, so I'd like to just go over it again and see if there's anything more. I'd like to be able to send it to the select board and say, you know, these are the kinds of things that we need to put together for zoning. And we would like assistance in drafting the zoning. And so if we need to, and we need to find someone to assist with it. And it's not just zoning. They need to help us think through how to write the zoning to make, to reach the goals.
So if you want to go through it section by section, we can do that. If you've looked at it in advance and you have comments, we can do it that way. However you want to do it, people. I looked at it. I think you did a good job capturing what we talked about. Yeah. And I like the plan.
Larry, Ira, anything? Yeah, I like it too. Yeah, it's what we talked about.
Okay. If somebody gave this, think about also, if somebody gave this to you and said, you know, we need you to do ABC. Do we have enough in here so that somebody knows what we're talking about?
My guess is when you kick this over to the select board, they're going to want to be briefed on it. Yeah. It's almost like we're too close to it to answer that question. Well, no, because some of the things we haven't said, like height, we haven't said what the maximum height should be. And we haven't said how to get those little pathways in there to get us the connections that we want to have.
Right. But if you put this together with someone, a consultant, and someone to write this, they could actually help you to figure out what is the correct height or what they would recommend for height. Because we didn't really get in too much detail when we did the plan of Route 20 by beta. But if someone actually was able to craft this, either a lawyer or a consulting consultant that had a lot more experience on actually drafting this, they could actually give you some recommendation based on things that they've worked on. Or they can do, you know, some performers to figure out you need X, Y, Z, you need X height to make this work. So I think this is a good start. But I think it's a good professional consultant would actually know how to take those, you know, information and actually expand on it a little more. And they would also, a professional would know to look at this and know what to come back and discuss with us. And to seek further guidance on or to at least have, you know, some engagement on. But I assume to a professional, this would all mean something. Yeah, I mean, it's good enough to give them a start.
Okay.
Okay, we'll put something together with a little memo to the select board.
I'm not sure what the cost. I'm not sure how many hours it would take or what the cost might be. I was trying to figure out how many hours it would take. And at first I was thinking 40, but I think it's more than 40. It's going to have to be a little bit of research in there, too. Anybody have any thoughts on numbers? No? I know how long it takes me to do something.
I was just thinking about going back to the MBTA stuff. I mean, that took a long time to pull together. I was just thinking about this town meeting is May the 4th. At the end of town meeting, that's when the new people take over. But, Larry, if we've – oh, but we don't – okay. Sorry. I just think we don't have any special permits. They're all just site plans. Because normally, if you're in the middle of a special permit, you have to stay on the board until we finish the special permit. But we're not doing a special permit. We don't want to make it worse for you, Larry.
Just for ourselves. Yes, right.
Do you have anyone running as associate member? We have an associate member already. It's the full position. Larry is leaving. And Bill Sterling, we said that the last meeting, is running for that position, the full member position. The associate member position is not up for re-election. So Nick is – as far – as long as Nick wants to finish up his term, he's the associate member.
Okay. Is there anything else that we haven't discussed and we need to discuss this evening?
No. The only thing was, you know, the issue with the Dunkin' Donuts signage and stuff like that. Yeah. And when design review meets, you know, with that particular one, we noted that their sign was too large and it was not lit properly. And so in our finding, we recommended that the zoning board apply the zoning bylaws. But so many times we note that a sign is too big or something like that, and they – the zoning board gives them – allows them to do it. And so what we have been doing is saying zoning board should apply the zoning bylaw and make sure the sign is compliant. And I assume that if they allowed that sign, it was because they wanted to allow that sign.
Oh, I don't know. It would be better. Oh, yeah. I mean, I think it would be helpful if rather than just saying apply the zoning bylaw, the zoning bylaw says 40 square feet. It should be 40 square feet. Or if you think it needs to be slightly bigger, then no larger than or something because it's really big and it's orange. Yeah, I think that every time we've tried to be more specific, they allow it anyway. So I think we're kind of frustrated by that. Well, don't be frustrated. It's your job. I mean, that's – Keep doing it. Right. That's why we created the design review board. Right. We also asked them not to brick up all the windows on the south side, which they did anyway. Well, they probably need to do it to have working surface. They said that they could leave them there and cover them, but instead they bricked them up, which is what we asked them not to do.
And that's in the decision. Yeah. I don't know that we have control over that part, though. I mean, that's different. But the signage isn't – I mean, it is in the bylaw. Yeah. And they had to allow them to put sign on the side, too, additional signs. So, I mean, they've got a lot of signage on the building. And when it was Bank of America, it didn't have it on the side. Oh, I only saw the sign on the – it's on the side, but that's because it's the only flat surface of the building. It's not on the post office side also, is it? No, not on the post office side. It's on the parking lot side. Yeah. And then I don't know if it's up yet, but there was – what they submitted was on the Route 20 side as well. It was slightly smaller. Well, we didn't see anything for the Route 20 side. I think you did, because you sent it to me, and otherwise I wouldn't have known it. I didn't remember seeing that. We were mostly just shocked by the size of the – what they put up on the side of the building. Right. So.
Yeah, well, don't get frustrated. Just keep telling them what you're telling them. Yeah, but we're going to have to have changes to design review. We're going to have to do something. I don't know what we're going to do if we don't get more bodies, because it can't be a mini planning board. No.
Okay. Is there anything else anyone wants to discuss?
We're up to date now in the minutes, right, Robert? Yeah. And then we'll just have these minutes at the next meeting. Mm-hmm. Yep. Cool. Would you like a motion to adjourn? Sounds great. I move to adjourn. Oh, one other thing. Sorry. We got a note today from somebody about the Coptic Church. You guys get to read it. Okay. Yeah. I was thinking of taking – if it's okay with you. I talked to Robert about this. Taking what we sent or what I sent to – To Laurie Hamill. Yeah. And then just modifying it slightly and then sending that. That works. Yep. Yeah. Okay. I move to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor. Robin Borgestedt. Yes. Larry Kiernan. Yes. Ira Montague. Yes. Jesse Newberry. Yes. Annette Lewis. Yes. Good night, everybody. Bye, everybody. Good night. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.