Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening. Happy new year. Um, I'm calling the planning board meeting of uh January 12th, 2026 to order at 7:01 p.m. Um, this is being conducted via Zoom, but it can be accessed via our um our agenda. And there's also a simple call-in number at the bottom of our agenda as well that can be accessed. Um, okay. Nice to see everybody. Um, take a roll call. Uh, as I see you. Rich Gazardi. Gazardi present. Thank you. Cindy Marowitz. Markitz present. Mark White. White present. Chris Douty. Gouty present.

And Verer present. Thank you. Um, okay. 7 o'clock. Um, I' I'd like to invite uh any members of the public that are on uh the call tonight if they want to speak or ask any questions about anything in particular that's not uh listed on the um agenda. Uh please go ahead and raise your hand. Uh [snorts] you can also uh press star 9 if you can't um access the Zoom feature. Okay. And I'm not seeing any hands break. Um, Alec, why don't we kick off with some meeting minutes? [laughter] We got a lot of them.

Sounds great. Yes, we do have a few. Um, I wanted to thank real quick on the recording Mary uh and Kristen for uh hammering away a bunch of those. We had a busy fall. Good to get caught up. Um, starting with October 14th. Um, I will note uh I don't know that this one was included in your packet till today, but you'll see that it is a very very simple set of minutes um specifically from the 6 p.m. meeting you had immediately before special town meeting. Alec, if it wasn't in today, do you think we could just hold this till next time and we do have a number of other menu minutes to go through?

Absolutely. That would bring us to October 20th. Okay. Does anybody have comments on the October 20th? I do not. Meeting minutes. I do not.

Um I had a minor comment on the line nine. Um attorney Adam Costa um he's actually special land use council. I don't know if that I think we should just uh correct that. not town council. And um on line 31, the hearing notice uh was maybe was transposing correctly, but it showed 894 mass. It should have been 984 mass. I don't know if that was just a transposition effort uh error. Uh line 37 says Paul Robertson attorney for the instead of submitting party I suggest applicant um let's see uh line 80 I would insert before the word based upon I would say according to attorney Robertson based upon that written opinion just to attribute that correctly. Uh line 109, the word to should come after the word repairs. Says intends to do some repairs to save the structure. Hopefully my line are lining up. Um line 113 should say file with the conservation commission. I think the word commission was left off. where the was left off.

Where, Cindy? Where is that? Oh, that was line 113. Yeah, it's I don't know why yours don't line up. Oh, well, I save these and then do my on track changes. So, uh, did you find that line? Uh, I'm not finding it right off the bat. Um, Cindy, if you want to send me the word version of your minutes, um, I can import those. Um, is there anything substantive or are they all spelling and, uh, administrative like this? Um, I think that was all I had.

Okay. Uh, those all sound fairly administrative. If you want to send those over regardless of the line numbers, I can go ahead and, uh, adapt those changes before we post them.

Okay. Uh, I just [clears throat] have a couple quick changes. Uh line 148 uh the last word should be plural properties. Um and then line 150 151 um my concern was also with um the potential for leeching into the groundwater and and surrounding wetlands. So I'd like to add that. Um I think that's it for me on that. Terrific. Anyone [clears throat] else? Okay. Hearing nothing, um I would uh entertain a motion to uh approve the October 20th, 2025 meeting minutes uh as amended.

So moved. Thank you, Rich. Have a second. Okay. Moved by Rich, seconded by Cindy. Uh roll call as I see you, Mark White. I'll abstain because I was recused from that meeting pretty much all of it. Okay. Uh, Chris Dowy, I was just going to ask, did do we need to massage the wording of the motion to let um, Alec make administrative copy edits? No. Okay, then. Yeah. Good. I Okay. Um, uh, Rich Gazardi, Gazardi, I, uh, Cindy Marowitz, Markitz, I,

and Verer I. Okay. Thank you. We got through one. Uh so noting that at 7:07 p.m. we can open uh or continue the public hearing for Beaverbrook Road OSCD uh special permit. In accordance with MGL chapter 4A in the Boxboro zoning bylaw 7.5 open space commercial development and 2.3 special permits. The Boxboro Planning Board will conduct a public hearing to review the applications submitted by property owner Campignelli Trigate Sub LLC to amend OSCD97-01 and OCD01-01. Um so to start this off, I'd like to go ahead and um see if there's any public comment related to this particular hearing. If so, raise your hand, please. Okay, I'm seeing none. Um, Alec, uh, I'm going to toss this over to you first because, um, the the board, uh, received, I think, five versions of this, uh, decision. Um, and, um, it was a lot, right? So, I'm I'm sure you were trying to be very transparent with your process um by showing us every step of the way, but I have to admit um it was a lot to absorb and try to cross reference and try to track um comments. Um it was it was kind of hard to tell where the comments were coming from sometimes. And um so I just I wonder if you could just describe your process and kind of what's been going behind the scenes for the board um before we jump into we'd like to know where we are right now. I guess

absolutely. Um thank you madam chairperson. So after the board's last meeting which was if I remember correctly December 1st uh so 1st of the of the last month prior to the new year um we had resolved a variety of comments that had been left on the document. There were still some outstanding items for proofing with legal counsel and I myself had a lot of cleanup to do uh from all the red lines we had made over the course of the last several uh public hearing sessions. So, um, between, uh, December 1st and December 18th, I went through, cleaned up those red lines, evaluated each section, um, to confirm if there was any additional outstanding comment from, uh, from either town council or the applicant or, sorry, special land use council or the applicant. Um, made specific note of those items and on December 19th circulated uh, copies of that draft decision. So, it was a draft decision with the remaining red lines and notes for councils. Um, as well as a couple highlights just where the board still needed to render its decision, namely the length of the development period. Um, of particular note, there were a couple conditions that needed word changes. There were a couple findings that uh we had asked attorney Costa to review and consider for consolidation, if not outright removal. Um, and there were a couple remaining board comments. Um, simultaneously, a member of the board, uh, board member Mark Witz did have a couple questions for special land use council. Those were forwarded on and responses were were forwarded back to the board and provided to the applicant afterwards. Um, on January 5th, uh, the, uh, the applicant's team provided some responses uh, cleaning up some additional language, namely around traffic, as well as providing commentary on some remaining conditions and items. Uh later that week, Attorney Costa provided uh both a clean and redline version of the decision in its final format back to the board. So the copies

you received on Friday, as noted, um were the most recent and up-to-date. Those represent a clean version of the decision. Um, I will ask um before we go too too far, um, I will of course ask if the applicant has any additional comments or questions they want to raise um before we dive into the real meat of your meeting tonight, which will be the development period. Um, whether that's any of the findings or the conditions. Uh, but you have both a clean and a minimally redlinined copy. Um, those representing a what I call final draft of your decision saved for any changes you may make tonight. Um, we had a good month and a half to tackle this. Um, chipped away real team effort. So, thank you to attorney Costa um and attorney Schneider for working through that and uh glad we could get to this point for you. So, um, Madam Chairperson, if you have any questions about the substance of the decision, um, between the three of us, we should be able to answer just about anything.

Okay. Yeah. Before we turn it over to the applicant, I just want to just make sure that so the the clean version that came I know it was labeled eight from attorney Costa. That's the the most recent version, right? That's what Okay, thank God because that's the one I was working off of. That's the one I read. That's right. [laughter]

I mean, I was trying to cross reference things back and forth just because I noticed changes that um were new to me that I I hadn't even seen in the decision and I was kind of trying to piece together where did those things come from because I don't recall us being part of that discussion. Um so I guess it would be helpful um for me and board members please speak up. I mean can the things So I I understood that we were going to send this off to you Alec. you were going to um clean it up based on all of the the great feedback and the diligent hours that the planning board put into getting all of that um completed last hearing and that you were going to run that by um our attorney Costa. Um I was unaware that it was going to the applicant at the same time. So I guess what I would like to understand is um what was the additional feedback that we got from the applicant because there's there's chunks of of there's pieces of information in that document that um is new to me altogether. So I just um if you could walk us through kind of what um the applicant changed or suggested changing that would be helpful

for me. Absolutely. Um good good com chairperson. So, just for clarification, both for the board and members of the public, um when we deliver a midpoint deliverable like this to the board as a whole, um that document um becomes a matter of public record and so as not to run a foul of open meeting law, we do also release that to the applicant. Um and then shortly thereafter post that on the website so it's available to the public. Um hence why the the applicant's attorney was also weighing in. Um, further and candidly, there were some items that, um, would have taken me additional hours to do research on where I knew the applicant did have immediate information available to them. Um, so, uh, Attorney Schneider, would you want to would you want to help me with this part? Um, I was originally going to pull up just the most recent clean copy, but I'm wondering if it makes sense to go back a draft to red lines um, from January 5th. Do we want to walk through that one?

Madam Chair, if I may respond to Alex's question. Go ahead, Johanna. Yeah. Um, Alec, my concern with going back to January 5th is that I'm not sure that it will provide the board with the benefit of attorney Costa's comments because I think his comments were only just received toward the end of last week. Obviously, I'll do whatever you and the board would like and if it's helpful. Um, you know, we can we can add some flavor as we go along. Um, but I'm a little bit concerned about going back too far because the draft has evolved since then as a result of special town council's or lease council's comments.

Yes, bear with me. I can pull that one up. Um, that's a good point. uh Adam Costa's red line should also have uh your comments and items or the outstanding items. So bear with

I don't want to go through like if it's not substantial enough to talk about let's let's try to save the the air in the room. So um but if it I just want to understand any kind of larger changes or revisions because you know I I would have preferred probably having this discussion in a hearing setting where it could have been a discussion um and something that the the board could have understood I guess the changes as they were going we were going through them.

Uh absolutely. Let's do, you know, I think the most um the most pertinent and the largest element here um is specifically related to the transportation component. Um otherwise, everything else is summarized in attorney Costa's version, which we'll be working off of later tonight. So, why don't I jump over to that section? Um, and attorney Schneider, you can you can expand on that and share the substance of it only because that is a rather meaty chunk of the the section. So bear with me. Bring this up now. So uh this is notably uh under item B uh traffic flow and safety. Um the applicant was asked to make uh several changes and revisions to the section or at least to review it. Um at which point they went in and added clarifying language um to the findings from the NEEPer review and such.

Yeah. And I will just comment we didn't really draft anything new here. Um what Alec had asked us to do was to confirm or to correct the um drafted summary of the section 61 findings. And so what I did is I went back and I compared what was sort of a summary of, you know, a highle summary of the actual language of the section 61 findings and I added some details to make sure that um that the recounting of what's in those section 61 findings was complete.

Go ahead, Cindy. So, I guess um what I was struggling with um was understanding the version that we finished on December 1. Um we never saw an updated version of that. I think there's a reference to a December 19th version. I don't know that the board ever got that. Um what Attorney Schneider just mentioned sounds like she created some kind of a red line and I don't know that we saw that. So, I I you know, I I appreciate that. you know, any substantive changes I'm sure will get called out, but it was very frustrating to try to go back and understand what happened since the December 1st edits. And um I was also trying to go back and do a side by side by side. Um but we have eight nine versions now. Even the Adam Costa Clean version was came in at version eight. Alec, I think you might have reumbered it version nine. So, my head was spinning and [laughter] uh I'm trying to do the best I could, but um it was very frustrating and I I hope that as we go through the decision tonight, you know, any substantive changes that got made um will be called out because uh it was just too hard to try and go back and recreate where we were.

Yep. Absolutely. And and for reference, everybody, so uh we had a December 19th draft. It was sent to the board on December 22nd. Um so, uh right before the holiday season. entirely understandable. Um, that one myself I was eager to get out the door and then probably forgot about. Um, and then we did have changes as I noted on January 5th that were included on your packet um, for January 8th. So, that's just the timeline of of items, but understand that we definitely threw a lot at you. So, thank you for your patience and we'll make sure to call out any substantive changes to you tonight. Go ahead, Brit.

Yeah, I I don't know what the confusion is, Alec. You didn't throw I mean yeah there's a lot of versions but it the message to me was pretty clear you consolidated something you provided that to uh the uh attorneys from the applicant and then that went to Adam Costa I reviewed the version from Adam Costa I'm good with it like I mean we can go through there there are I have some clarification languages and things like that but unless I'm lost there's no reason to go back and look at the eight copies Is there I thought it was all consolidated into this one copy.

I Rich, I don't think anybody's suggesting going back and looking at the eight copies. I think we're all relieved that the one that we looked at was the one that we were supposed to look at. It was just confusing that we got so many um and it was tough to track what the process was. So that's why I asked Alec to speak to that up front. All right. So I mean at this point from my perspective, I'm looking at what I looked at the right one. It was the one that Adam commented on. It included Attorney Schneider's comments, right? So, that's what we're working with. Yes. Yes. All right. Let make sure I got it. Okay. Alec, are you going to bring that up again, please?

Yes, absolutely. Uh, madam chairperson, just one last item. Do we want to work off of the clean version or do we want to walk through Adam's responses? I think unless [clears throat] others think differently, maybe um opening the question and answer or maybe the comments because I guess that would help um walk through uh what um Attorney Schneider has um suggested as well and we can see the recommendations. I mean, I read through um all of his comments. They seemed more or less straightforward to me. So, um we could probably cruise through those pretty quickly, I would think. Absolutely.

Right. And in the packet, that's the one called version 9 with AJC comments redlined. Yes, that's correct. Make sure I have the right things open. Thanks. Yep. All right. So, uh there was a note here regarding the uh the parcels and whether or not the removal of certain parcels either through donation to the town or through donation to the Harvard Conservation Trust um whether that would ultimately affect the applicant's uh calculations and whether it would impact their potential development. Um Attorney Costa, do you want to speak to this comment?

Uh sure, I'd be happy to. Um so uh so yes I mean this is not unusual in the context of uh an open space commercial development, an open space residential development, any sort of development that contemplates the issuance of some kind of a a master special permit. Uh not unusual for there to be land within the development plan that is either going to be conveyed to the municipality, sometimes conveyed to a conservation commission or an open space commission. Other times maybe the ownership will be retained but there'll be a conservation restriction or open space restriction placed on the property which might be held by a municipal entity or nonprofit entity. Uh the general rule is that that land can continue to count toward the development plan for purposes of everything from the issuance of an approval like what's before you to the calculations that that are sort of part and parcel of that of that approval. uh uh areas of open space, lot coverage percentages, um uh potential development potential in terms of density. So um so I don't have any issue with these properties continuing to be included as part of the development plan, but the property continues to be subject to the permit. So there could be no no future development in a manner that would be inconsistent with the permit. Now, that's not really a problem here, but I I've had cases in the past where that land, you know, is isn't conveyed to the to the city or town, but it's retained by the developer and 10 years go by and it gets sold off to a different developer and then there's a future attempt to do something additional with that land. That can't be the case if the land is being utilized for purposes of calculating um zoning compliance in accordance with this uh open space commercial development uh special permit. Okay. Thank you, Attorney Costa. Sure.

All right. So, there had been some discussion um within this section about uh how we calculate the uh by right alternative. Um and there had been some discussion. I had asked that attorney Costa respond here. Attorney Schneider did so as well. Um Attorney Costa, do you want to walk us through your opinion here? Um, sure. So, so Johanna sort of got to this one before I did and confirmed. So, the the question was sort of premised on um you know what this what this number this 447,300 uh square ft of development uh is comprised of. And so, uh Cindy's question was uh I'll just I'll just read it although you're looking at it. The applicant didn't provide the amount of development that could be constructed by Wright in their application. However, the SEIR did show a byite alternative and had this figure of 447,300 ft of development. And then Cindy noted that that presumably included some twostory buildings. Uh Johanna responded and said that the SEIR is correct and that that is a footprint calculation and where the applicant is proposing as part of the application that's before you the proposal that's before you 446,000 ft of development that is less than the 447,300 ft of development that would be the the buy option under the SEIR. So um you know I have no reason to to doubt those numbers. I've not done an independent calculation myself um based on the plans but um presuming that those numbers are are correct then I think I think Johann's effectively answered the the question. There's curiously there's nothing within the language of section 7.5 of your zoning bylaw that differentiates between footprint and total square footage. So that's I think maybe the the reason or what prompted Cindy's question rightfully so. The the bylaw is a bit vague. Thank you, Attorney Costa. Uh, go ahead, Cindy.

Yeah, I I was looking back at the uh prior decision 0101, and there was a um I'm trying to again, I'm flipping back and forth here, but there was a reference um about a deed restriction uh limiting the development um to a maximum amount. And I'm just wondering, do we need to have a similar condition here to reflect that? Um, or have we already captured it somewhere? Again, the language is kind of it mentions it earlier on about the 667,000 ft, but in the prior decision, there was a limitation or actual requirement for a deed restriction limiting the amount of development on the site to X amount. That was condition 3.10. So, I'm just curious whether we or should we be putting in a similar uh condition on this limiting maxing out the amount square foot development.

Three, madam chair. Oh, yes. Please go ahead.

So, I don't I don't know if there's any harm in doing that if the applicant is amendable to it. I mean, the applicant's made representations that um the proposal is for 446,000 ft of proposed development. uh that comes in under the the buy right option uh which would provide for 447,300 square feet. My recollection is that it is referenced at least twice in this decision although um so that I don't have too many screens open at the same time. I'm looking at what Alec has shared by Zoom and so I can't really scroll here but my recollection is that there is another reference elsewhere further along in the decision to this 446,000 square ft. Uh that is a representation upon which the board is relying. it is a a bylaw requirement. Um without satisfying that requirement, the OCD special permit couldn't issue. So, as a general rule, boards don't typically identify every threshold that would qualify an applicant for uh a special permit or a variance or a site plan approval and make an affirmative finding and condition it on continued compliance. But again, there's no harm in doing so. I think that one way or the other, whether you state it as an explicit condition or not, it's a requirement of the bylaw. The only way that this special permit is issued is if you've determined there to be compliance. This sentence here says that you have determined there to be compliance. And if the applicant in the future were to attempt to develop 475,000 ft of of uh commercial space, you would have basis with this decision alone, even in the absence of an explicit condition, to uh pursue zoning enforcement for non-compliance with the bylaw and the the the representations that were made to the board as a as a precondition of issuing this special permit.

Thank you, Adam. Uh Rich,

yeah, that other reference is on page five. Applicants proposal. Second bullet. The plan includes five new buildings for a total maximum building footprint of 446,000 ft and optional mezzanine space up to 221,500 broken down as follows. So it is a partisan proposal and I guess this is a and maybe you've answered the question attorney costa but like in my mind I'm reading things like called proposals things called findings and all these things that set out what it is. I'm hopeful that, and Cindy, I appreciate your point, but I'm hopeful that we don't have to capture all that again in a in a condition because if it's their proposal that we're signing off on as part of this decision, that's it, right? That's the limiter. I I hope I'm right with that. So, I I I think that you are through through you, Madam Chair, if I could. So, I I think you are correct in saying so. I I will tell you this for what it's worth and and I I think it is unnecessary, but to the extent it provides the board with a certain degree of comfort, you could incorporate a sort of standard condition, I don't think it's included within this decision. Um, I have a couple of other boards, one in particular, that had got burned once a number of years ago, uh, by an applicant that made certain representations and that didn't didn't carry through with those commitments and representations and that the issue got worked out and the violation didn't persist. But, um, it it sort of made the board especially cautious about, okay, what's being represented to us and do we then need to document that in the decision? Because as you can appreciate with any application, especially an application for a proposal as comprehensive as this, the decision issues, the decision gets recorded, but all of the supporting documentation, the all the submitts that have been made to the the planning board as part of the application process and the multiple public hearings, those get filed away somewhere in town hall. And in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years, when

there's a question about, okay, it says this, it says that, those supporting documents are not always easily accessible. And so in this other community, I have sort of a standard condition that I drafted for them that indicates that the project needs to be uh constructed in substantial conformance with not just the documents and the plans that have been submitted, but all verbal representations that have been made and anything else that may be documented as part of the public hearing process. Um, and so you could incorporate that kind of a condition. Again, this is an express finding here. So, if you were to hand this a decision like this to me in 5 years in its current form and say, um, Johanna's client is not in compliance because they're building out 475,000 ft of commercial space. What do we do? Do we have grounds for for pursuing enforcement? I would tell you based upon what's what you're looking at on the screen here that yes, you have grounds for enforcement.

Thank you.

Yeah. And if I may just uh again I as you can tell from the questions that I submitted to attorney cost I went back to review the prior two decisions and I was trying to mirror any language to make sure something didn't get lost. So it was really more of a belt and suspenders question. Um and when I saw that it was a condition of the last permit that it be part of a a deed restriction that felt you know um solid to me. But um I certainly will defer if the attorney cost feels we have enough in here. Um I'm I'm okay with that. I just again trying to be as thorough um and useful for the future boards who are reading these things um to have those uh clearly spelled out.

Thank you Cindy Johanna.

Thank you Madam Chair. Um just chiming in briefly. Obviously as has already been discussed this permit does authorize us to build up to what we have proposed to build and this is a record document. Um if the board wishes to incorporate some sort of condition along the lines that attorney Costa outlined, you know, just saying we've got to comply with the terms of the permit and the plans. I don't think we have an issue with that. In terms of having a separate standalone deed restriction, I would find that to be quite unusual in my experience and something like this sort of belt and suspenders approach typically. Again, in my experience and attorney Costa, you may have a different experience,

but normally it would be captured in the conditions and the board's decision, which is a record document rather than having a separate standalone deed restriction. Thank you, Attorney Schneider. Okay. Um, sounds like we're able follow up on that. So if we were to write a condition um just saying just noting the uh amount of limiting the development on the site to uh whatever the total square footage is you know would the board be um uh you know amendable to that just to sort of close this loop if we were to do a a condition on what that attorney Costa described.

Yes. limiting the you know um identifying the amount of total construction uh associated with the master plan to whatever the 66 7,000 number is. I'd be supportive of what attorney Costa proposed. I I'm Cindy. My only hesitation is there are a lot of things we say in this and I'd hate to have in the condition where we captured two of them but didn't capture five of them. So, I'd rather have just a a general condition like attorney Costa described that we're that the applicant will be in compliance with all of the terms of its application, its representations, etc. Whatever that language is, I'd be supportive of that. Okay. Me, too.

Can we add that language if it's not already in here, which I don't think it is? Uh, attorney Costa, I've made a note here roughly with the language that you described. Um, but uh, when we get to the conditions, I'll pipe back up if you want to give us the explicit language then. Sure. All right. Thank you. You've highlighted it, Alec, in in the document someplace. Uh, yes. I have my I have my little note card here going with all my my items before we close this. Okay. Terrific. Okay. Is the board comfortable moving to the next comment? Yep.

Yes.

Great. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh there had been a note here about um the selfcertification. Um attorney Costa uh did provide a condition that would address this uh condition number 18. Um, we'll get to that at the back end. That'll be shown in red line. This section, uh, we had left a note to have attorney Costa both revise it. Um, and then attorney Schneider had offered some, apologies, my screen blanked out there for a second, some feedback and attorney Costa uh, revised it uh, consistent with his advice to date. And I believe uh there is a further explanation of it here. Uh attorney Costa, if you want to speak to this.

I'm just trying to refresh my recollection as to what I said here. So, right. So, I think that this comment here addresses less so my redlined edits to the paragraph above, which I think are sort of self-explanatory, and more so my striking uh of the of the additional criteria and my response to Alex comment above um that he and I had discussed early on in this process a number of months ago. Um the the fact that these additional criteria were not necessary to to be reviewed at this stage in the process. So there will be site plan approvals because your trigger for site plan approval is so um comprehensive in Boxboro. There are communities where um there are various types of non-residential construction that wouldn't necessarily require site plan approval. That's not the case in Boxboro. Any kind of non-residential construction is going to require site plan approval. So there there is nothing further that can be done on this park at Beaverbrook site without uh site plan approvals uh applications being submitted and and and uh uh hearings conducted and and decisions issuing. So um evaluating the site plan approval uh criteria will occur at that stage in the process on a project bypro basis. Uh at the same time you can confirm things like dimensional compliance and satisfaction of parking criteria. And frankly I don't know how you would even do some of those things at this stage in the process in light of the fact that you're issuing sort of a conceptual um master permit that um isn't based upon the sort of particular details that you'll expect to get from the applicant when they come before you on a project by project basis. So you're not relinquishing any of this authority. You have the authority under the bylaw. you're just not applying these standards yet because number one, you don't need to. Number two, I'm not even sure you have enough information to do so if you wanted to.

Um, Alec, before you leave that screen, whose red lines are those uh just above that section? Yeah, that's in orange there. Uh, those should represent um Adam's red lines. Those are mine.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, there had been a question on floor area ratio. This is related back to our previous discussion. Um, attorney Costa did address it up above. Then, uh, Attorney Costa, uh, it appears you left this section, uh, but did make some red lines. Uh, this was a reference to the previous decision and some of the project history. Do you want to speak to the retention of this?

Sure. So, I I I sort of deferred this one to the discretion of the board because your your question isn't so much a legal question. I think the question was, do we keep it? Do we get rid of it? What do we do with it? And do I think it's strictly necessary? I don't. It's providing a bit of additional context as to what happened back in 1997 with decision 9701. Um it's referring to a couple of aspects of that decision. One of which is the commercial development period and explaining a bit as to how that came to be. Um also talked about uh the requirement of uh restrictive covenant or other protections on the recreational or conservation land. um none of it is uh required because um it's only for context, but that's not to say that it's prohibited or that it's necessarily a bad idea. Um I think if there was somebody who was entirely unfamiliar with the permitting history of this project and didn't have the other decisions before them, um then this would be helpful. Having said that, this is an amendment decision and typically amendment decisions are simple because they're building upon prior decisions. And so you wouldn't recount or incorporate everything from a prior decision. You would only address the the aspects of the project or the proposal or the concept that are changing. So this is really a matter for the board's discretion. Keep it. Don't keep it. From my perspective, from a legal perspective, it doesn't matter. Uh so madam chairperson um it appears this is take back to the board. Would you like to retain this section?

Lots of members from the board. I guess I just want to make sure that the terms that are used if they're used later that we define them. I mean I'm okay with striking this as long as the uh we've got restrictive covenant in there. We've got commercial development. I mean, have we defined those above or below? I just want to make sure they get defined. Um, if we reference back, this is if they're defined in the original decision, the same definition holds, right?

Well, we're going to redefine potentially the commercial development period. So, again, without seeing all the language right now after it, I just want to understand that there's something introduced here. um that we reference later. I just want to make sure we're we make sure to introduce it later if we delete this and maybe maybe um Attorney Schneider can just let us know. But I mean I'm assuming that that might be verbiage left over from the original document

in drafting it. Madame Chair, we did make a deliberate decision to import it over just to provide that context that Attorney Costa was referencing. Um I agree with his analysis though it is not as a legal matter necessary and I think that we are neutral as between the two options. Um, again, we put it in just, you know, to provide a little of that background. Um, and to kind of show that this approach that we are suggesting here is consistent with the way that this park has been permitted in the past. Um, but again, we don't feel strongly about it being retained or being cut. Mark, did you have a comment? I saw your hand up.

I did. Um, well, I I guess we've had Adam, our attorney, with us in this from the beginning. And uh, and I've one thing I've learned in my own life is take your attorney's advice. And if your attorney says you don't need it, then typically I'll pull it out. And if he says you need it, then typically I would opt to put it in. So, I think uh we've paid Adam an awful lot of money to be here. He spent a lot of time on this and I would take his advice and say if it's not necessary, don't put it there. Um because all this does reference an earlier decision that we're not about to basically uh delete and create a new decision in its place. [snorts and clears throat] We're simply modifying or amending the old decision. So you don't need to restate things that are already there. So I guess uh my inclination is to take our attorney's advice. Uh strike that section and move on.

Thanks Mark. Um I would maybe suggest the opposite just in the interest of time here. We're getting some wicked feedback. Does anybody know what that is? Okay, just stop. um in the interest of moving this thing forward I guess and not dissecting this whole paragraph and cross refer referencing making sure everything's defined I I just get a little nervous about making a quick move like that without doing something like that. Um so that's my two cents and if it doesn't matter if it keep we keep it in or not then I'd say let's keep it for now just to keep things moving forward. I guess I agree with you, Rebecca, just so something doesn't get deleted that we don't want to lose.

I'm indifferent. I mean, I I I think the attorney Costa said it. So, yeah, largely indifferent. In general, brevity is preferred, but if there's contextual reasons where it's helpful, sure, I don't care. Okay. So, I guess wins. Uh like they just leave it as is. Mark, are you okay with that? I think you're the only

Yeah, I don't have any objections. It's just again I I believe that less is more generally in in documents because they're already tough enough to read through as it is. So, you're just making again restating the obvious I think is redundant, but have it your way. Okay, Alec, I think we're we're saying let's hold it for now. We can move on to the next.

Sounds great. Um, so the next item, Attorney Costa made revisions to this section. I'll summarize this one pretty briefly. Um, it was simply to capture the declaration of restriction followed by uh the formal conservation restriction, noting the correct offices, the abbreviations and such. Um and then of course this ties into the conditions that appear later on in your decision. So really just table setting uh for that element. Uh this section here um I have highlighted and I've left a note. This does not require attorney costers response but this is a note of the two items or the two development periods that were um being discussed at the end of your last meeting. Um, of course, that will be a robust discussion immediately to follow this portion. So that way you can uh make those finalizations. Um, attorney Costa uh finalized this section five here. Um, this was the one where there had been some reference to uh building codes and items. Uh, and so he simply reviewed and ensured that there was no overlap in jurisdiction while still preserving the board's uh, intent with the section itself. And then we dive into the conditions. Of course, these are where uh a lot of the teeth of your decision come in any case. Um attorney Costa uh rep made immediate revisions to this section. Um notably, I'm remind myself this was lot 100, the land to be donated to the town. Um, attorney cost, is there anything that you think uh warrants some of the description here or further description from your red lines?

Oh, attorney Costa, sorry about that. You are muted.

There you go. That's what happens when I think the feedback is my fault. [laughter] Um, so, um, so yes, I there there is something I'd like to add and it relates, I guess, to the last sentence. What is not highlighted in blue? I think my my early on redlinined or or orangelined revisions are fairly self-explanatory, but the last sentence is my attempt to sort of capture what occurs in the event that the town doesn't accept uh, ownership of Lot 100. And I know that that's not anticipated. Um, and I may have made this comment at the last session of the public hearing, but um, generally boards are concerned because you can't control what town meeting does or doesn't do. And so, well, you can say in a decision that the applicant shall be required to convey law 100 and you can establish the appropriate timing for conveyance and you can require an additional gift of $25,000 for purposes of or to be utilized in connection with the future use of lot 100. Um, the money can get accepted by the town because that doesn't require town meeting action. Um, but it does require select board action. Um, but the actual acceptance of an interest in real estate does require a town meeting vote. And so what happens if town meeting doesn't uh support that acquisition? What then occurs with law 100? So my language here says should the aforementioned prerequisites to the town's acceptance of lot 100? That would be things like um the allowance, acceptance, approval of all necessary town boards, agencies, officials as stated up above. Um, if those preconditions aren't satisfied after reasonable and diligent efforts by the applicant, um, but in no event later than blank, the applicant shall submit to the board in the form of an amendment to this decision an alternative proposal for law 100 that will carry forth the

board's intent, which of course is to preserve law 100 in perpetuity for conservation or recreation purposes. So that could be the applicant coming forward and saying, "We're going to continue to hold it." um we'll continue to own it, but we'll place a conservation or open space restriction on it. Or we found a third-party nonprofit organization to which we will convey it with a restriction that it never be developed and it be maintained for these purposes since the town doesn't want it or won't accept it. So, we sort of leave that or I leave that in the language I've used here to the applicant to decide what that proposal might be. Um, but I require first reasonable and diligent efforts by the applicant to try and facilitate a transfer of law 100 to the town. But there does need to be some some deadline. Otherwise, you're the applicant could just say forever that it is continuing on with its reasonable and diligent efforts. Um, and in the meantime, you you're sort of in in this in this world of uncertainty with respect to law 100. So, I do suggest that you choose a uh a drop deadad date and I do suggest that it be far enough out that um it provides an opportunity for for these reasonable and diligent efforts to occur. Again, in large part because town meeting actions required and as you know that's a a once maybe twice a year um occurrence. So, Madam Chairperson, um I would recommend to the board that you um consider a five-year or a 10-year window, somewhere in that range. Um that would provide time for the office of land use and permitting to conduct the public engagement we've discussed previously um between the recreation commission, the conservation commission, and any other interested entities, as well as time to bring a proposal forward um to you and to annual town meeting. Um, ultimately it's left to your discretion, but my recommendation to

advance the conversation is five years or 10 years somewhere in that window. Andy, go ahead.

Um, yeah, I was going to tack on I think the applicant had offered um in in one of their communications to remove invasive species before the lot was conveyed to the town and in coordination with the conservation commission. Um, so if that I'd like to add that language here and then given that can take a little bit of time. You know, I was going to say a 3 to 5 year window seems kind of reasonable to me. I don't know that I want to hang it out there for 10 years, but um, you know, between 3 and 5 years with the add-on, you know, as agreed by the applicant, all invasive species shall be removed from lot 100 prior to the conveyance and in coordination with the conservation commission. Um, but I would suggest a a three to five year window. If Alec recommends five, I'd be okay with that.

Other board members. Go ahead, Rich. Yeah, I mean, if this takes us more than one town meeting cycle, uh, shame on us. Um, this is a this is a gift. So, I'm I'm okay with three to anywhere in the I'm okay with three years. I think five is even a stretch. I don't think we have to have settlement of what we're going to do with the 25 grand, but but accepting the the the lot and the and the gift I think can be done quickly. Um I I don't recall the spec the um invasive species discussion, so I guess I'll have to lean Cindy on your recollection and what the applicant said, but um yeah, I don't recall that. If there were

I think that's based off of the the sitewalk that we did of of around this area. Um, I had a chat. I cannot for the life of me remember the gentleman's name, but he was very um very helpful that day. Anyways, he was discussing that and I think we brought it up as a result in the public hearing to discuss further.

Yeah, it was memorialized or at least um written in uh I think the response there was one document we received late um late in the process response to Rebecca Verer's email or something to that effect and it was in there. I can find the date on it. Yeah, I mean, if the applicant's good with that, I'm I'm okay with having that, but I and then having a three-year period sounds practical. I'd agree with the three-year, too. Any other board member comments? I've made a note for the three years and uh to update the condition in the clean version when we jump over there to removal of all invases uh prior to conveyance.

Great. Thank you, Alec.

Absolutely. Okay. So, um a quick note and I do want to give kudos to the applicant. So, um it's not shown here in the red lines um because this was worked out predominantly between myself um and uh attorney Schneider. Um but uh as some of you on the board are aware, there's a battle raging on Beacon Hill um to uh to ban certain uh chemicals in the use of uh rodenticides um as they are having a pretty significant effect on uh other animal populations. Uh while Boxboro itself has not passed a uh a townwide ban via uh home rule petition, we have passed a ban just on public property, specifically town property. Um the applicant was willing to consider a condition here um that would uh predominantly remove these chemicals for use um and only in the cases of an emergency use. Um so I did want to give kudos there. There was no reason the applicant absolutely had to by any means uh except this condition. Frankly, had they fought it, they probably would have won. Um but I do want to give kudos to them. Uh I felt this was important. I know many boxar residents are actively engaged in this fight. So, thank you to them for being willing to include this language in condition 14.

Uh, wait, before you scroll on, um, given the the dense [laughter] technical language here, I I was So, Alec, can you just is this the language that the state has? I know Boxers adopted a a policy, but the select board town property, as you said. So, just this is dense language to have in a decision. I'm I would kind of like to see it either footnoted or an exhibit or something like that. It's just um you know, it's just kind of confusing. Well, not confusing, but it's dense. Um so, I was hoping to take it out of the decision and have it as a an add-on. And then also the the definition of AR, I think it should be uh anti-coagulant rodenticide is what the AR actually stands for.

Yeah. So um this language um is taken directly from the town of Lincoln's conservation director um who has been working on the front lines and worked with several large campus developments um in the form of orders of conditions. Um so this language was predominantly taken from them and then additional language add at the end to provide the um emergency availability to the applicant in case of an outbreak. Um we did thin this out significantly from uh what was first given to us. Um, so I would recommend retaining it in its current form. I know that it's a little wordy and technical, but um, from the standpoint of someone who would potentially be enforcing this someday. Um, in this case, I do appreciate uh, the technicality that's provided to it.

Okay. Can you fix the definition to be anti-coagulant rodenticide before the AR there? Yeah, right there. Thanks. I don't know if this is the time to maybe the time to give my personal comments is when we get to the clean version. Um but you tell me where you want them [laughter] because I have one specific to this this um number 14. Um,

so I I'll keep it quick, but I I you know, I see that there's a a clause in here that if there's a a Beacon Hill like event um here in Little um Boxboro um that we have the right to go out there um and do whatever we want. Um, can there be a um a plan that gets put in front of the town planner or the building inspector or something prior to um just just like uh you know, we're going to treat for two weeks and we're going to you know, use A, B, and C. I mean, this is a pretty sensitive area here. This is part of and with a lot of habitat. Um, so I guess that's it would be nice to know what was going to happen if if we're going to go out there and um

um I think so. Should would would that cover your concerns there, madam chairperson? Yeah, I guess um it would be nice to understand that it's not going to be a six-month period of of of major like chemical usage out there. Um so, you know, I'm sure that they would never propose something like that, but just to have a better understanding of of what uh would be the recommendation of their um professional pest removal contractor.

Yeah, absolutely. So, yes, the this this item here um would require them submit a plan of use. So uh at least a description of the use um timeliness of the use and the specific chemicals to be employed um is how I would um how I would require that. I will also notice you need to specify th those um those items product schedule I guess

product and schedule uh that would cover the three bigs the type the time and the area, right? So maybe you want to do the the product comma. I mean schedule and timeline are similar. So maybe you can just do comma um or strike schedule, I guess. Schedule's fine. Yeah, I mean that's fine. Thank you.

So does the town planner have, you know, the knowledge and ability to u I mean other than being informed, right? You're not asking him to approve it or the consum or the board of health. Um well I you know I don't know who the right person is. I you know I in my notes I wrote um the building inspector I wrote like I don't know who the right person would be. I mean maybe this is in collaboration with consom. I don't know.

Yeah. Short short of the conservation agent that we are working to update the job description of. You know that's still a multi-year process before funding may become available at town meeting to to bring someone like that on board. Um what I do have available to me though is an ample network of professionals. As I noted, this condition originated from uh the town of Lincoln's conservation director, who as I said is on the front lines and a real um a real founder in the work that's being done here um especially on campuses of this size and volume. But again, this is just a plan to be presented to you. Should we identify you know review and approval or review and uh you know something just

I do not feel I I do not feel that we would have the authority to review and approve such a plan. As I noted um if the applicant was not willing to include this language um we would not have the standing to require it um because the town has not passed its home rule petition if it chooses to bring one forward. We really wouldn't have the teeth to it. That being said, if we do pass a home rule petition or the state passes their own legislation, that would take hold and this condition would be a move point. Those would automatically be ruled out at that time. Okay. Um, can I comment on condition 15?

Uh, yes, absolutely.

Yeah. Um, so I know there was discussion about the gate being left. uh open and um I wanted to go back and just verify, but it seems to me we ought to at least mention that you know um I think I was going to suggest some language here that at least the police and fire department had reviewed um let me sorry I'm just trying to what condition number is this just that the police and fire had reviewed it oh here it is after consultation with the Boxboro police and fire departments the traffic gate at the Littleton County road end or entrance shall be maintained open were closed at the applicant's discretion. Something to that effect. Just to note that we considered it and that [clears throat] they weighed in. I don't know how

in the form of a condition uh as part of Beaverbrook being maintained as a private road. Um I thought we should mention the gate here or you know um I don't think we mentioned anywhere else. If if it's not here then somewhere. What what about the gate that that they'll keep it open? that what

uh that it's at their discretion, but that the police and fire weighed in on it. Um you know, because we did we were asked that by some of the members of the public that it be closed and and um you know, I think uh it's just an important point that we did have it assessed by our public safety officials and they recommended that the applicant have that discretion. I just thought that was an important point to identify. If you want to say be well this is saying it's going to be maintained as a private road is what the point is um as opposed to a public road. Are we saying that they do we want to put a condition in that they're going to maintain the private road including all the appurances or whatever those things are.

Well the gate the gate was an issue that was raised by the public. I just kind of would like to indicate that we had considered the requests from the public and uh our public safety personnel determined it was at the applicant's discretion. I know we're not conditioning it. It just maybe it's a finding a fact rather than a condition. Which public? We got letters from members of the public asking that the gate be kept closed as it had I guess at one point in time and and only uh you know folks who had access. I mean but others would argue the opposite of

from a safety egress situation. Right. I'm just saying that this the intent here is to indicate that the board made a finding that, you know, it it should be at the applicant's discretion that we're not going to require and our police and fire have not required that it be one way or the other.

Yeah, we can we can put that somewhere. It's at their discretion, but but I I don't know. Is it like Chris to your point? I So that's why I asked what public was it one letter? Was it 10 letters? Because I the concern I have is that if you have if you have access to the property to Beaverbrook Road from Littleton and that's your point of entrance, have at it. Why why do we want to have people coming all the way down Beaver um Harvard? And yes, coming all the way down Swanson Road like like taking traffic off Swanson Road is great in my mind.

It I'm just trying to make it part of the record. Um it's an exhibit somewhere where that we that during the routing process that we police and fire were asked about it and they responded. So I'm just trying to make that part of the record. Yeah. No, I understand. I'm just I don't I guess I'm asking is do we want to make it their discretion or do we want to say no, the gate shall be open or the gate shall be closed? Like I I think not saying anything implies it's it's their discretion. It's a private road. they can, you know, they can put a stick in the way or not.

Um, well, again, I'm raising it because it was raised by, I think, more than one member of the public and there was history there about it being closed at one point, so it felt gerine to me to identify it and somewhere in this decision. Um, I don't know, Alec, if you want to bring up the the routing sheets, but I think it was probably in the routing sheets. I guess what's the applicant's proposal? Maybe we've I've lost sight of that. Yeah, they care. I believe it's to keep it open. Is that correct, Johanna?

That is correct, Madam Chair. Um, our position on this was set forth in an October 27th, 2025 letter to the board. It was the last item. Um, and I think what we were trying to convey to the board is that, you know, what we had heard from neighbors was that, you know, people wanted the gate to remain open. And so our intent in keeping the gate open was to be a good neighbor and continue to provide that through access. Um, but, you know, to the extent that the board wants the gate closed, then we'll commit to a condition requiring it to be closed. Um, we were just trying to do the right thing by the neighbors, but if the board has a different view, then we will live with the conditions to the contrary of what we had proposed originally.

I I don't support closing it. Cindy, if you want to rec, you know, Dave, if you want to sort of comment on that, we're leaving it to the discretion of the property owner. I guess I'm okay. I would if I if I were being, you know, asked what do you want to approve as a planning board member, I would say that to me that gate should be open. But um it doesn't seem to be a point of contention with the applicant. So if you want to leave it to their discretion, okay. I mean, we can be silent on it. I I just know the public [clears throat] seem to have an interest in it. I'm not going to, you know, die on this hill. I thought it was useful to note that we had considered it.

Um but if you folks feel that that's not helpful. Um you know, again, I I was trying to find the routing sheet where police and fire weighed in. I thought I thought that was Germaine, that's all. And I thought we should identify it. Police and fire said keep it open. Um, again, I was trying to pull up their comments. I believe they said, you know, we're we're neutral on it. You applicant have the discretion to do what you will as long as they could get through it. I don't think they necessarily, right?

Um because when it was Cisco's, Cisco gave any police and fire folks like access. like you have fire please to like an apartment building or something. Uh, I if it was up to me, I'd want to keep it open. Um, just for, you know, why make people go all the way, you know, go three miles around to get to that soccer field if they if they have their kids have a game there or something. And just the you make a very long dead end. Um, and that just feels unwise. Like if if there was a fire at one of these properties, everyone north of that property would be stranded and wouldn't have a, you know, a legal road to leave by. So, I just feel like it should be open.

Again, I'm I wasn't really opining one way or the other. I just wanted to note have have the finding be made in this as a part of this. Well, we could say that the Beaverbrook Road shall be maintained as a private road with access from both the east and the west. It'd be better with that than saying, "Yeah, cuz like Yeah, if a gate then that does does a gate have to be there or are they allowed to tear down the gate? We say the gate must be open or so." Yeah, access is a better vague term.

Yeah, I I think it's from a overall planning perspective, I think having that access on both ends, allowing for traffic flow to come from either side, it I think it might rel it'll relieve traffic on Swanson. Um, and it'll Chris, all the reasons you gave. And so, yeah. Um, and if at some point in the future there's a a public safety reason to close it, then they can come back and go to the planning office or the code enforcement office and discuss it. Who's they if somebody were to want it to be closed for let's say there was an inordinate amount of traffic maybe that was being that was using it, where would they go? Where would folks go?

They'd go to the property owner. then they'd have to go to the code enforcement officer. I mean, we're saying that it's maintained as a private road with access from the from two ends. That's what this says. I think we're going to address it as site plan too, right Cindy? Like when we get to a site plan for like let's say that that happens and that we get three buildings, they get three buildings in and we're seeing crazy traffic patterns that weren't expected. I think on that next site plan, we have an opportunity to talk about that.

Well, I'm not sure. I guess that's a question. Does the special permit if it if the special permit allows for it to be open, can a site plan decision change that? I that I don't know. Can we can we make can we have a caveat in the event that you know the board wishes to you know traffic is becomes an issue and the board wants to reconsider they'll I don't I think Adam told us we can't caveat certain conditions before but this isn't a condition or is it is this yeah this would be yeah maybe I've opened the can of worms I don't know um I just thought it was important to well no you

this is something I brought up a while ago too and I actually have kind of a different feeling about it just because of the traffic amounts that we see coming down 111 when everything gets rerouted off of 495. It it it's like a skating rink on on 111 uh when that happens and it happens quite frequently and then everybody cuts up uh Hill Road to get to where they need to be and and we've heard complaints about that. You know, it there is a potential I'm looking at a map right now, you know, that people could reroute off of 495 in Littleton to down this road. So, I'm I'm, you know, I throw that out because I'm always playing devil's advocate, but um it would be nice to be able to control that if it does become a problem. I mean, I've heard the public say keep it open, too. And and I understand that's um you know, flow of traffic and easing up certain areas is a good thing. Um but it could potential, it does have potential for burdensome um a burdensome condition.

There are going to be speed bumps too though, right? I mean just a counter like that might discourage pass through traffic added as part of this. Is that correct that there somewhere else? Yeah. It's somewhere else. I don't uh because one of my my children's friends uh has an apartment over there and boy that road is huge. There's nothing slowing traffic down and and and people just whiz down Swanson Road right now. So, um, you know, traffic calming is real. Yeah, that's in here. Uh, where is it, Alec?

Um, I don't remember off hand, but yes, that is um included in here. Two speed bumps. There's also reference to um potential traffic signaling upgrades and such throughout the process, too. So, two speed bumps on Swanson specifically. Go ahead, Johanna. You condition seven, Madam Chair. Yeah. Yeah. on Beaverbrook Road. Uh, two speed bumps and speed radar indicators. Yeah, I thought I saw somewhere where there was radar indicators on Swanson. Oh, radar. Yeah, radar indicators on Swanson. Beaverbrook Road. Two speed bumps. Yeah,

speed bumps on Beaverbrook. Radar um signs on Swanson. Is there um any ability to do this? I think we've already talked about this already and I think that we decided we couldn't do anything on Swanson as far as a speed bump goes. No, I don't believe we can make any um any changes directly within the way. However, um the indicators could be placed within the um within the aboting plan.

Okay. So, I guess what I was looking for was maybe a caveat to say they they it's been evaluated. they can keep them open unless what the fire or police chief determined that because we've often deferred to the public safety officials, you know, unless the public safety officials identify an issue, something to that effect. Can we add that caveat? Yeah, probably because I think that's always the case. Right. Right. Yeah, we can. I'd be okay with saying um accept it or as with access to north and south um I don't know what the right words are but subject to uh public safety something

concerns um attorney cost I'm going to free form here and rein me in if I go a little too far.

Stop. [laughter] That's the free form, Not the cleanest of language, but I hope the [clears throat] intent comes through.

How about may they may require the applicant close the gate in order.

Good on the fly, Alec. Thank you, Adam. Is this one too overreaching or do you think it's okay?

No, I mean I I think that the through you, Madam Chair, I think that the the million-dollar question with any sort of a condition of this sort is is the applicant agreeable, right? Because if the applicant the the concern with with conditions that might go too far a field is, will the courts affirm those conditions? Once a decision is filed with the town clerk's office and the 20-day appeal period passes, um the the decision is is beyond a challenge. So the issue is will the condition stand if it were to be challenged? Well, in circumstances where an applicant says, "We don't care. We'll open the gate. We'll close the gate. We'll do whatever the police chief wants. We don't doesn't really matter that much to us." Well, then by all means, go ahead and do it. Because even if I were to tell you that yes, there's some case law out there that says you can't defer substantive decisions to other boards, commissions, committees, departments, officials, etc. Again, if the condition isn't challenged, then the condition stands. So, I think the real question for the board is what does Johanna say? And her hands up, so she's probably going to answer that. [laughter]

I willow.

Thank you. I'll allow my client to jump in if they feel otherwise. But I I do have an issue just sort of generally with conditions that Adam has described which are inappropriate and illegal delegation to either the future or to another decision-making authority. And I think that this proposed language absolutely runs a foul of it. I also think it's totally unnecessary because if the chief of police or the fire department decides that they think that we need to do something differently, they'll come and tell us and it doesn't need to be se spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe specified in this board's decision, but Russ can overrule me if you want to.

Go ahead, Russ.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out a couple of things and we did discuss this in detail in a previous hearing and we did have a traffic engineer held cars for a week out there and I believe the average traffic was 27 trips per day that actually traveled there under the current economic development and I respect that we're proposing new economic development and there could be a condition in the future that we none of us foresee. So, I think the comment by Rich talking about um site plan review is appropriate. I do want to just mention two two items. Um I personally spoke with both the fire chief and the police chief on this issue and they refused to take a position on this. They did remain neutral and indicated it was really an arena that they shouldn't step into. However, they were very clear to point out that if there is an injury or a um a police call on Beaverbrook Road, the first call from the Boxboro dispatch is to the Littleton dispatcher seeing if there's a cruiser in the area of Littleton County Road. And I confirm this with town managers of both communities that the first responder is the um is a plier a fire ambulance or or um police vehicle in the closest proximity. So when the gate was closed previously, every single fire police uh vehicle and rescue vehicle in Harvard, Littleton, and Boxboro had a fob to get through the gate. Now that's great. They all have a fob, but then the fobs go missing, the cars get repaired. Sometimes they need to maintain that. We don't inspect the cars. Um, so, you know, in a to maintain that opportunity for a first responder from another community is just

another burdensome issue. The other piece of it I just want to throw out there is um we're trying to do economic development here. We have a restaurant. We have customers that come through Littleton to use the restaurant. With a gate there, we lose customers. So, I just want to make those points for the board to make these decisions and they can move on. Like we said from the beginning, we'll put it up or down, whichever the board prefers. I I would I would take out what you added, Alec. Thank you for trying to do it. That's my opinion. Thank you for doing it on the fly. I would leave it access north and south end of the road. as is if there's a public safety issue, the chief of police will talk to uh Russell Dion. Like like I just let's just stop like let's just get it out. It's north and south and let's move on. That's my vote.

I kind of agree there. I was starting to think of the whole we're we're overthinking this. Like if the police chief comes says like we need to use your road like you're doing that like I yeah I don't think we need to necessarily spell it out. Okay. Any other board members? If the applicant's uncomfortable with the language, I'm okay taking it out. I just wanted to note that we had acknowledged it. Thanks. Okay, moving on. What's our next one, Alec?

Um, uh, condition 18, uh, attorney Costa inserted to address, um, questions on the self-certification provided following, um, uh, filing with the MEPA office. So, uh, just for reference, that is included here. Uh, and then moving on to condition 20. Um, the, uh, let's see, um, I believe Cindy, you had asked if there was something additional we could include here, um, referencing decision 101, condition 3.13C. Um, uh, Johanna noted um, the 61 findings um, and, uh, emphasized that they should not conflict with the obligations made herein. Um, Adam then made revisions um based on this discussion. Um, so I'll pause here um in case the applicant who I see has their hand raised wants to ask any questions or make any amendments here if you're comfortable with their doing so. Madam Chairperson,

go ahead. Johanna,

thank you. Um, by and large we don't have an issue with this condition. Um, but I would respectfully request that the board consider a minor modification to uh the last two lines where it says shall incorporate traffic mitigation measures consistent with or in excess of DOT section 61 findings. And I would love it if we could change it to shall incorporate traffic mitigation measures not inconsistent with DOT section 61 findings. So take out consistent and take out in excess um of ultimately many of the roadways that are affected by all the roadways that are affected by the section 61 findings are under the control of DOT um and DOT has spoken in terms of what they want to see as mitigation. I know that there were some questions raised by um one or more board memos uh members rather about the timing for example of performance of some of the mitigation commitments to the state. Um you know and ultimately I think we're in the position where we've got to defer to what DOT wants on their roads. Uh so again I think that you know the language I'm suggesting which again is shall incorporate traffic mitigation measures not inconsistent with DO's um 2024 section 61 findings gives the board the opportunity to impose additional conditions but those conditions cannot be inconsistent with what Mass DOT is already requiring us to do on their roadways. Joanna, can you remind me when um I think there's a some t point in time when there's going to be like an update traffic assessment. Is it after building 600 or upon completion of the project? Like when would the the another um you know assessment be determined as to how

much traffic is actually coming through there? So, the timing um if we want to scroll up to uh condition number 17. Um when we added some additional language in here at Alex's request just to clarify that um the decision was accurately reciting the section 61 findings, one of the things that we added um were these parentheticals um that came from the section 61 findings. Um, Cindy, I'm not sure if this is addressing your question, but this is the timing that's coming from those findings.

Okay. So, when the park is complete, um, for instance, I guess I'm just trying to get a handle, you know, on the total number of trips, let's say, you know, business is good and you got all your tenants in there and everything is is moving, you know, when again would a um a traffic study be done to determine whether or not more um some of this mitigation would actually have to happen? That's what I'm trying to get. Um I mean the section 61 findings for MEPA were based on a full buildout condition. So those section 61 findings are based on our assumptions of you know the park being fully built out consistent with this master plan. Okay. So everything happens after the building of six building 600 is complete.

The building 600 seems to be the lynch pin for what do wants us to do. Yeah. Okay. I'm satisfied with that. Thanks.

Um Madame Chairperson, that is the complete extent of um conditions and notations. Um if it would please the board, what I would recommend is that the board now engage in deliberation on uh the length of the [clears throat] development period. where we left the discussion at your last meeting was a 15 and a 17.5 uh year window. Uh I recommend you start that now while I incorporate the changes we've made here to your clean version and when we get to the end of that discussion hopefully I will have made all the changes um if that's acceptable to you unless you want to pause for anything else.

Yeah, Alec I have additional comments um but I made them on the clean version. I wasn't trying to dig into those. They're pretty simple and straightforward, but I have a few um like changes in like text and whatnot um that I didn't want to jump into. I just wanted to hear all the feedback that you guys got back and forth. So, I appreciate you guys going back and forth and and describing the changes that has happened while we were on break. Um so, I don't know if you want to kind of run through those quickly. Um and then, um then maybe we can go into your next change. Um

that sounds good. I've jumped over to the clean version. If you want to give me your changes, I'll make those and then go back while you're discussing to incorporate the others. Okay. Um so page 10 of 19. Um going, keep going. Keep going. Apologies everybody. If you see me pause like that, it's because my screen sometimes goes blank on me so I can't see. Just a point of order. Um Rebecca, so I think this is a good approach. I have a couple comments as well. So, if if as you we go through yours, I guess it would be appropriate for us all to chime in wherever as

Yeah, let's do it instead of going back and forth. I think that's a great idea, Rich. Thanks. Um, so I'm looking at uh below B, traffic flow and safety, where your cursor is, the next paragraph, it says E, the 2025 master plan. Thank you. I don't know what that was left over from. Um and then the last bullet in that section underneath that section it says implementation of a robust transportation demand management program. Um I robust kind of is one of those words where I'm like that's so it's very subjective. I don't know what that means. So I I would say strike robust. It's just an implementation of a transportation demand management. Cindy, did you have a comment about that?

Uh I have a comment on that section when you're done. Oh yeah. Okay. Go ahead because I'm got a little bit more to go before my next one.

Yeah. The first paragraph under B, traffic flow and safety, it says the 2025 master plan will result in fewer peak hour trips um and represents a net reduction in traffic relative to the 2001 project. And I still take exception with that because my understanding is total trips are actually increasing but a net reduction in peak trips is true. So the next line second. Yeah, this next sentence and represents a net reduction in traffic relative to the 2001 project. It's really net reduction in peak trip, but not a net reduction in traffic. It's actually an increase in traffic relative to the 2001 project. So, I just want that.

Well, you mean the the part that's been completed that they're probably referring to the project being the pro Yeah. Okay. I guess I'm not I think I know what you're saying, right? So, total number of trips went actually um went from 10,000 to 12,000, but the net the peak hour trips is reducing. So, I just want that clarified. Do you have a suggestion for how this gets um

is it a net reduction from the approved OCD or is that the same thing that is peak hour trips? It's it's a it's an it's an increase from what exists now, right? Is that is that what you're saying or is it you're tying it back to the OCD approval? Um All right. If you delete the word traffic then I think right where your cursor is it's basically saying the same. Yes. So you Yeah. So you wanted clarification that it's specifically is a reduction in the peak hour trips not all hour trips

not total trips. Correct. Okay. That that works. All right. I don't have another comment until 16. So like um jump in post.

Yeah. In this section, the last additionally in response to the board concerns, I would uh regarding potential speeding on park roadways, the applicant has offered to provide the following traffic calming. So, it's really speeding on well, I guess the concern was speeding on the park. I thought it was also Swanson Road. Um, but I see where you've addressed it down below. So, I'm I'm okay with the language. You can you forget it. I'm good. Maybe just scroll gently through this, Alec, until the next comment. I don't have anything until 17.

In C, I have something in C. Um, the LA I would think what's missing in here, and it's mentioned elsewhere, but what's missing? It's mentioned above. Uh, the four, no, it's mentioned somewhere else in this, but I would add to the bottom because this is adequacy of utilities and other public services. I would add to the bottom, additionally the applicant has been allocated 40,000 gallons per day of water from the waterline expansion project under the intermunicipal agreement between Littleton and the town. 40,000 GPD of water from the water line expansion project under the intermunicipal agreement between Littleton and the No.

Yeah. Do we I think there's is there no need to address refues, wastes, drainage, and retention? I think we mentioned storm water will be dealt with. I guess I guess that's fine. Um under E right there, this is reference to uh it's my right version. Um [snorts]

conservation plan right at the middle of that paragraph. Um that's the first time and I think the only time we talk that use that term. So I don't know what it was. want it lowercase conservation plan or I wouldn't I would keep it I mean when you refer to a plan you typically keep it capitalized but is there a conservation plan it's not the conservation man yeah is there a plan [laughter] I know there's lots of things happening with the conservation management permit and the grasslands management plan but is there a capital C conservation plan

um madam chairperson if I could um Johanna I believe that was included in your original application and therefore is an exhibit of this decision. Correct? I believe that's the case, Alec. Thank you. Okay. So, there's an exhibit titled conservation plan. Yes, it would it would be within the application um submitted. Um I believe it was John Rockwood was the one presenting and speaking to that.

Okay. Um, then the reference to caps and the Sasco story. I mean, those should probably be footnoted, but it's not a big big deal where they, you know, where they are, what they are, and where they came from.

So, on F, did you already go to F? Yeah, right there.

Um, sorry, I'm still looking at my version. So again there's a reference to number of trips uh second paragraph under F by incorporating D and reducing trip generation over the prior development proposal. Again that's not accurate. It's peak trip generation but not trip generation. Can you stop there for a sec? Um, so the the calendar, this 140 days, the 18 days, is that all been was that new? Was that vetted or new or was that always in there? Um so the 140 days is in reference to um a discussion had directly between the applicant and the Harvard Conservation Trust and the 18 months is um my recommendation for a um a certified and approved conservation restriction. Um those can frequently take upwards of a year. Alec, I'm sorry. Um, I apologize.

That's okay. Tell me what page you need me to jump back to. Um, sorry. It looks like it's page 14. Where where are we now? Not that far. Um, the it's item uh G. I don't have an item G potential fiscal impact before it's just before additional findings. Ah, one page too far.

Um, the amounts are master plan result property tax revenues 1.8 and 1.4 annually. Um, I would just put in parentheses, uh, based on 2025 or 2025. Yep. Put a space after annually, please. Thank you, Alex. Sorry about that. No, not a problem.

Sorry. Did you add on condition six the thing about the invasives? Again, I'm looking at my uh I have not had a chance to import those over. As the board has a discussion around development period, I'll I'll integrate those things. Okay. Number eight. Did you already go past that right here? Um, eight. So, attachment A. Um, so you didn't include that, right, with with this draft, but I think the board needs to see that. And I had a question about it, right? We made we made some edits to attachment A, as I recall.

That's a dimensional schedule.

Yeah, I'll have to pull that up separately. Bear with me. right? Found it. I'm going to just bring it up.

All right. And it is here. Okay. So, we added some footnotes to that, right? Yes. Footnote one, a 100 ft buffer not to be disturbed. And footnote two, a maximum building height of 45 ft not to exceed 300 feet in elevation at lot 800. Can we change the wording of the the uh 300 ft elevation? I realized and and I'm going to note this during our discussion about number nine, but um that it should say like sea level elevation and not so it's not read as um a 300 foot high building in in some way. So, I would just say um seale topographical elevation or something like that.

What is it? NAVD usually or if you want to put on a technical term, I I just wanted to clarify that Cindy because it's like it could be read differently to me when I went through it. Right. And when we reference it, we need to clean that reference up in the document. Is that sufficient? What's written there? [clears throat] Can't read it. [laughter] It says sea level topographical um topography or topographical um mean well mean if you have a better term mean sea level. There you go. There you go. She's got it better than I do. Mean I'm not a surveyor.

Yeah, you could do either but mean level mean level might be more layman.

Okay. So, I I have another question on this chart, which um when I went back to compare this chart to the original one, there was a couple more footnotes on the original one. Um one of which was front setback. Um we're showing 25 ft, but there was an additional footnote on the last version. Let me see if I can quote it for you. Uh increase of one foot for every building height above 25 ft per original. Oh, for the original. Um, so I was curious whether um, Campanelli was aware of that, whether it's moved because the building is going to be set back beyond that setback anyway. Um, or or am I bringing up something new? The original footnote said, of course, I'm not going to be able to find it. Okay. Sideways. All right. Um, on the 23 the 25 foot front yard setback footnote two said 25 ft plus one foot for each foot that the building height exceeds 25 ft. So if it's what are we talking 45T building that would make it a 40 that would add 20 ft. So, I didn't know whether Campanelli knew this, was aware of it, or would be willing to add that footnote or there's a reason not to.

I don't think it is something that we had considered when we put together the dimensional schedule that we submitted to the board, which we have up right now. Yeah,

go ahead, Ross. Um, just for a matter of clarification, Cindy, um, is that what you're reading is that for the front yard setback alone? Is that what I heard you say?

Yes. I'm look looking at uh, attachment A from uh, this might have been if I have it for both recent decisions, but this was might have [clears throat] been 9701, but I think it was for 01012. I mean, the way the master plan is laid out, and I know it's a conceptual schematic plan and subject to be um reviewed with a tenant, um I would have no problem whatsoever accepting that language. Um because it would take a 25 ft setback as being proposed.

If it was a maximum height building, it would make it 45 ft. Is my math correct? We're adding 20 ft. Right.

Yeah. And I believe what we have done in the park and what I know what we've done on the master plan is to show all of the parking commencing 20 ft off the road and then we have a row of parking um before we get to a building and the buildings are set back from the road and and we that would be fine for 600. The parking infrastructure is already there. 700 it makes sense to do that. and then 800 um we have a um you know the sewer discharge field there. So I have no objection to putting that footnote in it. We can comply to that and that's not a that's not a hardship of any master plan accommodates it.

So madam chairperson I I do feel obligated to to remind the applicant that uh per the box zoning bylaw parking cannot be included in the front yard setback. So you would need to account for parking areas outside that setback as well, whereas your statement just now relied on being able to place your parking in that. Oh, well then that's that's I guess I guess I'm I guess I'm surprised and I'm not I'm not sure we studied it in depth. Um,

yeah. I don't I don't think it was our intention to include that footnote in this table. Sorry. Is it referring to the building being set back or a front yard setback being increased?

Under the dimensionals table, it said front yard setback. The original um sort of the zoning bylaw was 50 feet, but the requested modification was 25 feet with the footnote 2 and footnote 2 again uh said 25 ft plus one foot for each foot that the building height exceeds 25 ft. So do your math Russ that would make it 45 ft for a wait now I'm getting myself confused. [laughter] 25 ft plus one foot exceeding 25. So you're asking for 45 feet, right? So add 20 ft. So 45 ft setback.

Yeah. I mean given what Alec just mentioned, it would become a hardship to do that. Um, if we can't put parking in the setback in spirit of what you're saying from a building perspective, we would have no we would be in agreement that a building would could be set back, but I' I'd want to keep the parking um at the 25 ft set back from the road, which is the way the park is built today. And that's a nice green space with walkways and trees between the curb lines of the parking area with shade trees and then but to make the area from the road to the development area 45 ft just pushes everything further back into the site. I'd rather keep it closer to the road. Um, so if if I guess at that point I wouldn't want to agree to that given the fact that Alec has pointed out that parking cannot be set within the front yard setback. Again, I guess the intent is to not have too tall a building too close to the road, right? I mean, that that's the intent of this is you don't want a 45 foot building 25 ft. And I'm in agreement with you on the building. We're So perhaps is there a way we could put a footnote that said for the front yard setback for building only would be increased 1 ft for every height of the building above 25 ft exclusive of parking.

Can you read that? It seems tiny. I can't. Yeah, sorry. It uh it expands after. In cases where buildings exceed 25 ft in building height, building setbacks from the front yard shall further increase at a rate of 1 foot per building height over 25 ft. So it reads that commensurate to every foot you go up in building height over 25, your building setback shall further increase by one foot from the front yard. So, should the footnote go on front setback, not on building height? Uh, it certainly could. I just happened to tie it to building height in that instance.

Do we have to have a disclaimer for parking? I got confused about whether parking is a problem is problematic. In this case, I've exclusively called out building height, but I defer to the applicant if they want greater protection.

All right. I think we would want it to be explicit that this is exclusive of parking areas. And I also wonder, and Alec, [clears throat] I apologize, I really can't see, but I think that what you read, I don't know if anybody else can see. I can't see this. Uh, I think what you read said something about from the front yard, but aren't we really talking about from the front property line? because we're talking about the width of the front yard, which I think you measure from the front property line to the edge of the building. Is that a little more legible?

Tiny bit. Make me like get super close and squint at you. Everybody forgive me. [laughter] Can you just grab the text and make it larger for people? Like uh yes, bear with me. This was not meant for middle-aged lady eyes. I apologize. [laughter] Sorry, my screen blacked out on me there again. That better. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that protects uh I I think this is acceptable. Russ, are you all right with this?

I'm fine with the language. Thank you. Um, okay.

I just got to make a note for myself here the amendment date on this and then I will jump back over to the decision.

But note one, Rebecca, you're good with that foot 100 foot buffer not to be disturbed. Is that adequate? Yeah, because I think we we have um more wording in the the breath of the um decision itself about that. Okay. All right. Thanks, Alec. I just we needed that document. Yep. No, thank you for calling it out. It's um it's a good reminder to myself to bring that over as well as um good to hammer these details out now. So, is that going to be considered attachment A or you going to make it an exhibit? Um it will be an exhibit titled attachment A. So it will add uh if it's not already incorporated in the list of exhibits up above, we'll tack it on at the back and it'll be titled attachment A. [clears throat]

So there was the one that Campanelli submitted is listed as an exhibit but not this mod. I don't think this modified one was. So you may have to rename it. Yes. Thanks.

Um okay, we moving on to number nine. Yeah, I've got a few comments on that. So, the very first sentence, in addition to the modified dimensional regulations, lot 800, can we add or any of its subdivisions? Because if lot 800 got subdivided, would this would these dimensional requirements still apply? Thanks, Did you have anything else on this one? Uh, you go ahead. You're probably the same things I do.

Um, so I was going to say I just needed clarity around the full first bullet pouring. Um, just to bring just like we just talked about in the other one. So, I was wondering if we we add something like uh no building um roof line uh shall exceed 300 ft in mean sea level elevation um per uh I would write topography map and not just topo map.

Yeah. Um, so I think we should probably call Let me just get to my Sorry, I've got a few notes on this one, so I got to get to the one. Um, yeah. So, I said instead of just per the topo map, I give um titles and um and pages of that document. Um, so I wrote instead of just top map, um, count of Boxboro topographical map produced by CAI. And I can copy this and paste it to you, send it to you, Alec, if that's easier, but just giving like the title of the sheet, right? It's a Boxboro map produced by CAI Technologies. Um, and I'm or tech. Yeah. And and it's page five of the document.

Wasn't an exhibit. It is an exhibit, but there's no page number on the thing. And and and so I just wanted to make sure we are referencing the right plan and section. So if we could put a title on it and a page number on it, that might be helpful. And and just really give you you have one partial um title for the section, but there was no real reference to a title for the topo map. So, I figure if we can reference it by it's a BXB map produced like by our tech page, then that gives some information and and then I would reference that exhibit um if you haven't somewhere else in this thing because it's it's a very specific elevation and or section and and um and map, I guess. Does that make sense? Do you want me to send that to you? Email that to you? Yes, if you email it to me right now, I'll go ahead and I'll include that when I'm in transposing the other edits we made to the red line.

You got it. It's coming your way. Thank you. Okay, you should have that in your inbox. Um, and then let's see. I think for with the next bullet point I have um I just wanted to give a little bit more specificity to this. Um Cindy, you mentioned this in the last footnote, but um so maintained in a non-manicured natural state comprised of natural grasses or woodland plantings.

Do you want to write that down? Yes. Can you um can you remind me? Yep. Um so maintained strike with in a n in a non-manicured comma natural state comprised of native grasses or woodland plantings. Can I add something to the end of that sentence? Yeah. Um, can we add to provide wildlife connectivity connectivity between the adjacent undeveloped parcels?

I said Jason undeveloped parcels that matters. Thanks. Sorry about that. Thank you. Um I don't have anything until 11. So if anybody has anything

Yeah. Just on this adequate screening shall be provided to hide all rooftop utility units. Can we also say all rooftop mechanicals shall be directed away from residences. And [clears throat] Cindy, is that it on that one? Yep.

The last one. Do we want to say that? Do we want to limit that right now? So, I'm just I'm just thinking of facades and you know, we we may want some windows on the side. I mean, they may want we and it may actually look better. Um, and there may be some lighting aspects that are important for the building. I just Yeah, I feel like that plan thing like do we want to limit this now today? This is just lot 800, right? Yeah, I think so. Is that what that? Yes.

Yes. This is lot 800 exclusive specific.

Uh can we uh So this was a an a promise made to us. Um, but your point is is well heard. Um, Rich, I mean, can we say something? No, before you strike it, but unless it's deemed architecturally to improve the the the the rear facade or something like that, I don't know like just that would give us the ability to look at it from an architectural standpoint. Um, the aesthetic of that back building. Go ahead, Johanna.

I would just point out and I Yes, we made that commitment and we're happy to live by it, but as we pointed out when this was discussed at the last meeting, you know, any building on lot 800 or it subdivisions will come before this board during site plan approval. you'll have the opportunity to look at its potential impacts on abuing properties and decide at that time when you've got a real proposal in front of you what makes sense architecturally and from you know a screening and impact mitigation standpoint. So maybe you don't want this in here at all in order to give everybody that flexibility. Yeah, it's well that's what I was suggesting. But if if like you know I I'll go either way like unless deemed an architectural improvement. I also think you know it might from an energy perspective like I I don't know there's a big hill back there. Like I don't know if there's a whole lot of light getting in there, but it might make sense to have some kind of light capture on the Anyway, I I don't want to get into designing the building now. I just it felt like a a limiter. Um but well, if we don't put it in it, you know, 10 years from now, if that building gets built, you know, this may have been forgotten. So, I kind of like the idea of having it in there. Um,

yeah, I'd like to keep it too, but I do think giving a little flexibility to the architectural improvements is is smart. Yeah, there could be something we're not thinking of that in 10 years it actually would really help in the heating of the building if you know things. I don't understand. I mean, being being somebody who resides in these types of buildings, we're mostly concerned. We like want to close all the shades [laughter] like projectors get shown and proprietary information's flowing everywhere like you know we close all the windows. So anyway, we're I'm good with this change.

Um I have comments on number 11. Um and I'm going to copy and paste this one for you. This came straight out of um the commitment letter from Campanyelli and I thought we should probably um kind of make the wording match a little bit more to what they stated. Um Alec, if you're okay with that, I'll send you that too. Uh yeah, go ahead. Um do you just mind for the the record and just for the applicant sake of hearing reading that?

Yeah, it's it's literally verbatim from their letter. Um so just give me a second to send this to you. I just thought it should pair more with what they actually committed to. Um so, uh the commitment letter said, uh they were willing to take the following measures. Um all new created public parking spaces, five on lot 600 and five on lot 700 once developed. Development is realized will be constructed of Grass Creek. So, I think they they specifically named buildings um and locations. So um and then the second part of that was all tenants will be required to submit a TDM. Uh I put this in transportation de um demand management though we I think call that out in advance of this section. So maybe we don't need to set say that um similar to TUV which may include van shared uh transportation methods as appropriate for uh for the end users operations. So, I copied that straight out of um a letter from from

I think we have that above. Do we have it? Johanna, you can maybe bring clarity to that. I believe we do have it. And I also think that again, I don't think we substantively have a problem, but I do think that for clarity in the decision, we don't want to be lumping a TDM plan in with public parking spaces and how those are going. Totally agreed. Yeah, I I was thinking of them as two separate um items. um if it's covered someplace. It just this this um number 11 I guess um it doesn't speak to lot 600 specifically. So um oh

I believe it does. It says lot 6.2.2. Yeah, I'm seeing that now. That just I I had it as 600 on my note here. Okay. And I believe that condition 17, Rebecca, has the language about the TDM plan.

Okay. Um, Madam Chair, first and I will keep an eye out for that email when you transition to the development period and I will incorporate everything up to the TDM.

Okay. I think that their wording for the TDM plan is a bit different though. Um that's why I guess I flagged it. Um I think that does start to cover it, but maybe just cough cross reference it against that um verbiage that that um they sent over to us if you don't mind. Um similar to I'm just going back and rereading it. Oh, it's in 17, I think. Yeah, I guess it does cover it. It's just says it a little bit differently. Um, okay.

Um, I believe at least one board member noted they had comments on condition 14 beyond what we had discussed and beyond what I was going to bring over. I have one on 13. 13. Go ahead.

Yeah. Um, so, uh, what we did for TUV did not have the rodenticides in it, but it did say chemical pesticides and fertilizers. And the reason I clarify that is that um, that that's insect related. It's not um, so um, it it wouldn't be necessarily the rodent issue that we've been discussing here, but it's more about putting like chemical treatments on your lawn and uh, gardens. So, this would be specifically in outdoor spaces. Yes.

Okay. Perfect. [clears throat] Johanna, I assume you want the ability to use pesticides in the restaurant if you need it. Correct. Yeah. I mean the biggest issue and I think this Alec you're right that's driving our comment here and you know and candidly the information that we added to 14 which is that there is an active restaurant on the site and you know we need the ability to make sure that for reasons of public health and safety you know we're controlling any railroaden problems that show up there. So the 13 and 14 conflict or they're okay those are those are different things. Yep.

Okay. Did somebody have a comment on 14? I think we might have covered it. No, I think we covered it. I don't. You do or you don't, Rich? I don't. Sorry. All right. Okay. Um 16. Where are we? Uh the one that begins with as uh the time of site plan approval. That one. Yep.

Okay. Um this was a little I thought you know this could be fleshed out a little bit better. Um I didn't know what it just seemed loosely where the sustainable practices with an intent to implement carbon neutral construction measures. Um do you mean s you know do we want to talk about sustainable practices for both operations such as water conservation energy efficiency and then carbon neutral construction measures such as XYZ. I wasn't quite I I think we were trying to get at some sustainability here. I just wanted to make this a little more clear.

Yeah. So, that was my [clears throat] compromise because I think it's at least making a commitment to um ensuring that we do get sustainable uh practice in site plan um and having some kind of um something to stick to, I guess, because um that's kind of the direction Boxboro's going. Um the world's going. Um, I think this covers it. I mean, it talks about construction. I mean, that could be inside, outside. Cindy, does it clue include things like water conservation? And um

I think that would be any and all sustainable practice could be considered, you know, an effort to to do this, right? I I I didn't I I don't sense that the the applicant was too comfortable with um obligating themselves to specific practices at this time and Johanna correct Bruss correct me if you're wrong if I'm wrong I just not knowing what the building was going to be um but this was their commitment to say that they are going to you know practice sustainably when when construction comes

yeah Rebecca that's exactly right I think we are perfectly comfortable with this condition as worded. I think going any further than that at master plan as opposed to taking it up at site plan we would have issues with. Okay, cool. [clears throat] Okay. Anyone have anything else? So 17 we said was all the timing of all that was what tied to building 600 completion right?

Yes. Do we want to do on 22 prior to issuance of the first building permit the decision shall be recorded do we want to like address like notwithstanding other provisions notwithstanding any other provision outlined elsewhere in this prior to the f like I thought there isn't there that section that calls out when this gets recorded is there another place Alec where where we talk about when this gets recorded and this is I was reading as a fail safe that like notwithstanding that this thing's getting recorded before the first building permit.

Typically I include it as condition number one, but in this case we backended it because there's so many other elements at play here. When when is the first trigger up above? Sorry. Is it upon approval of this or filing of the or or I believe within 60 days is the receiving all final permits and approvals required for this master plan. So receiving all final permits and approvals is that us approving this. Yes, that is the approval and then the lapse of the appeal period once that once that date. So here's the record. Oh, this is the conservation. Yes, this is just the declaration of um of restriction.

And does this Okay, so you put it at 22. All right, I'm okay. Um can I ask a couple more questions? I promise I'll be brief. Um in the original decision 9701, there was this um ease uh public pedestrian easement from Beaverbrook Road to the town owned Pentgill land. Is that easement still in place and valid? To the best of my knowledge, I've not seen any document that eradicated that easement. And I don't believe anything in this decision eradicates it either.

Well, that was part of my question to Adam is if we're modifying, you know, do we need to call out things? But um if this wasn't the original decision, can we assume that it's still valid? Adam, do you want to speak to that?

Yes, I mean you you you can. Um but if if there's concern even amongst board members given the history that you've got with this particular project and the multiple sessions of the public hearing, then it it may this may be an instance where you want to be clearer. Um, again, my my concern with amendments always is um future enforcers, typically your building commissioner or building inspector, um, referring back to the original or or prior amendments of the original decision to ensure that everything is captured. So, it's rare to restate everything in prior permits as part of an amendment, but if there are particular aspects of the amendment that are uh concerning to the board or especially confusing, then it may make sense to add some clarity. So, if this could be a standalone um condition, um the owner commits or continues to provide a public pedestrian easement from Beaverbrook Road to the town owned Pedagal land. Penting land. I'm not saying it right.

[laughter] [clears throat] The remind me the language, Cindy. It's the um the owner shall provide or has provided a public pedestrian easement from Beaverbrook Road to the town owned Pentingle land.

[snorts] Um, and you want to proof my spelling? Uh, P E. Sorry, I should just P capital P E T I N G E L. At least that's how it was in the other document. Um, one more question about Beaverbrook Road. Um, I think in one of the site plan decisions prior there was limitation of construction access from the north end of Beaverbrook Road before we move off of 22. I think we have a little bit of a um

doubling up of some wording here. So, if you read that whole sentence, I think we need to um we've got easement easement twice. Provide, what did I say? Provide the owner provide a public pedestrian easement from Beaverbrook Road to the town owned Petgo land. So strike the public for public pedestrian a public pedestrian easement. Go ahead, Cindy. Yeah, that looks very okay.

From Beaverbrook Road to the town on Pentland. Yeah. Um then my next question was um construction access from Littleton County Road. Um given the sensitivity, ecological sensitivity, I don't know if we would do this on a site plan bas site plan approval basis or um if we've limited in the past uh construction access from Littleton County Road. I would recommend to the board that um matters of construction access be taken up on a case-byase basis for site plan approval because following the construction of any building, especially if there's multiple buildings on lot 800, but done over time, you may decide that you want it approached a different way.

Okay. I mean, that was a comment I think we received, so that's why I wanted to bring it up. Um, noting that Russ has his hand up here. Russ, did you have something? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, your person, um, item number 22, just a matter of clarification. The easement is from Swanson Road to the town owned land, not Beaverbrook Road. It's in place. It's been in place for 20 years. It's not going anywhere. Um, but it's not from Beaver Brook Road. Okay. I pulled that language from decision 9701. So, It wasn't in place at that time, right? Yeah. Thank you for clarify.

And if I can just jump in, we may not need this condition at all. I'm sorry. Like while you've been talking about this, I did pull up um an analysis of title documents that I've done and that easement is memorialized in a record document that went on record in August of 2000. Does it also have the same in perpetuity? I don't know. But a copy of the recorded easement was submitted to the planning board back in 2000.

So there's already an easement established. It's right. It's on record already.

Well, I guess I'd defer to Adam if he thinks there's good practice to keep it in or it sounds like it's there so we don't need to, but Adam. So, I'd need to see the the the easement itself. I mean, I I'm if there's an easement already on record with the registry of deeds, um that is uh a conveyance of an easement in perpetuity and there is no mechanism for uh rescending or retracting that that conveyance, then the condition is unnecessary. But I I don't have the the document in front of me. My sense is that that's probably quite accurate, but I don't I don't have the document in front of me, so I can't say for certain.

Thank you. In the interest of moving this forward, um, do we have an opposition to including this without a review, proper review of that document? [laughter] Not for me, Madam Chair. I don't know who that's directed to, but I I it's honestly to the applicant. I would say um just trying to keep this moving forward, you know, instead of delaying it um by a review of of easement document. I don't think we have a I mean, we're already doing it, right? So, we don't have a problem keeping it in. I just, you know, I'm one for trying to minimize the number of unnecessary conditions.

Okay. Uh so, it looks like we reached the end end of our document. Cindy, did you have anything else to add? You really want to ask me? Um, the parking uh I was looking at the items under relief granted from the old thing and and while we I think somewhere we have said now that the parking will be two spaces per thousand ft. I think that's in exhibit attachment a the dimensional schedule. Should we also note that we're reducing the size of the parking spaces from 9 from 10 by 20 to 9 by 18 or is that standing working now? You said that's in attachment a

the the reduction is of two to the thousand but not the size of the spaces. And then remind me what the reduced size is. 9 ft by 18 instead of 10 by 20. But I was just looking at our Let's see. Do we still require 10 10 by 20? I guess we do.

Memorialized. Yeah, I can't find Oh, yeah. Right. We do require 10 by 20. So, yeah, let's have it in there. Thanks. I don't have any opposition to a smaller parking space. Yeah.

Don't blame us for dented doors. Yep. Burner Logan. That's what you get. [laughter] It wouldn't be the first time. H um is there any trigger for when um the conservation management permit I know you're working with natural heritage um and they talk about you know um ongoing discussions can we put in a a tickler for when we'll get an update on the status of the permit or some kind of hook just so we can understand where that's at if that's appropriate Russ did you have a comment there?

Sure. Um there is no progress on the permit because the permit is complete and it was issued um back in 20010 and that permit remains in place today. There is a maintenance program which is being put together in conjunction with John Rockwood and Natural Heritage and we've been through this with the cons. Natural Heritage has proprietary reasons where they don't put maintenance plans out into the public domain. As soon as we submit it to the planning board, it needs to go into the public domain and con uh excuse me, Natural Heritage has greatly requested that we don't do that. I can give you the progress. The progress is is that the final draft is into um natural heritage and uh I think there's one or two edits that came back and I think that plan will be finalized and we'll start after the winter we'll start putting that maintenance in place. Um we've talked with Liz Marowitz of the KCOM and she understands how proprietary this information is. Um, and Natural Heritage has offered to issue a redacted maintenance plan to the town of Boxboro, but they did say the the document will be redacted quite a bit. So, I'm just telling you what the director of natural heritage um Jesse Litk told Liz and myself.

Yeah. And and madam chairperson, I will echo the sentiment um um from the applicant. I've had my own tango with uh airports specifically and Mass Natural Heritage and they are incredibly reluctant to release these documents. Um a redacted version or um a letter of certification from the director um would both be sufficient and at the time those are provided to the conservation commission. I will share them back with the planning board. Yeah, just when it's implemented that that's all I'd be interested in. Thank you. Okay. So, it sounds like we're ready to talk about timeline now, Alec.

Absolutely. Um, if please of the board, I will take down my screen share so I can uh make these uh manipulations in the background. Um for uh for a reminder to the board, uh the two options on the table at the close of your last meeting were uh 15 years from the uh from the lapse of the appeal period on this decision um or 17.5 years. that being calculated as um five year or 15 years plus a 2.5 year um period in which the applicant did not have to record the decision and then it would trigger from there. So, in either case, my recommendation to the board is let's just do this as a clean date um as either 15 years or 17 1/2 years from the lapse of this appeals period um or another number if you as a team should choose. But I will turn my audio and video off unless I hear my name so that I can make these edits in the background.

Uh board discussion. What I guess was the applicant amendable to one and not amendable to the other? I think we should have this discussion first, Chris. Okay. Entirely up to the board. I was just thinking it might might render the discussion mood. Yeah, I guess. I'm sorry, Chris. Go ahead. No,

that that Go ahead. I'm good. Yeah, I guess um I mean my perspective is you know I know there's a tendency to want to do it for less. my and this is maybe Adam can help here with the question Rebecca but if I mean in my mind we're doing something here that makes sense for the town uh based on all of the considerations that are put on the table in exchange for the open space uh different things that are relaxed and in my mind like if that takes 10 years to develop takes 10 years if it takes 20 years to develop takes 20 years if it takes 30 years to develop it takes 30 years. And I know people get uncomfortable with longer periods of time, but we're agreeing that this is better than the current zoning bylaw. And in theory, under the current zoning bylaw, somebody could develop this property 50 years from now. Obviously, we could change the zoning bylaw, but that doesn't happen a lot. I mean, we've had a office park for 30 some odd years. Um, so I'm really not as concerned about the length of time. Um, and I guess my question would be if we get so the development period is pick a time 15 years. If we get to the 16th year and it's not completed and the applicant comes back and says, "Hey, we've got two more buildings we want to finish at that point, are they pursuing those two buildings under the standard bylaw?" Is that the correct read of that, Adam? because we did approve this special permit and it has a development period within it. But once that development period's expired, I assume they can go off and develop by right however they want. Is that am I reading it right? Well um so through you madam chair it's um it's a complicated question be

because um in some respects [snorts] yes or maybe u but in other respects it it sort of depends upon what has yet to be developed and um what rights might exist uh on that remainder land so to speak. uh notwithstanding the issuance of the the the prior the prior special permit. So, I mentioned before one of the first questions that was asked tonight was about um uh conveyance of a lot or a tract or a parcel within the development plan to the town or to a nonprofit organization or the placement of a restriction and whether that parcel can still be counted toward the quote unquote development uh scheme for purposes of calculations and zoning compliance. And my answer was yes because even though that's conveyed away, it is still part of the property that is subject to the overarching special permit. And so it can be conveyed away. It can be in separate ownership uh so long as it is not developed in a manner that would be contradictory to the requirements of the special permit. So if a master special permit of sorts like the one here issues and 75% of the land gets developed and what's left over is let's say a remaining land area of 5 acres. Um, it may not be as simple as saying uh that a new developer, a new owner, a new proponent could come forward to do something that they would be able to do elsewhere on a 5 acre tract in Boxboro by right because that 5 acre tract is still part of the original development scheme and the land that is subject to the special permit and depending upon what's been done elsewhere on on the property under that special permit, the

property as a whole, there may be no development rights left and it may be that that property can't be developed. Let's talk about the total square footage that we discussed before. I forget the exact number now, but 44 something like that. Yeah.

6,000, right? So I if if if 446,000 ft is developed on 70% of the land area that we're dealing with here as part of this development proposals, meaning that 30% of the land area is left over and then the that remaining 30% land area is transferred to some other owner developer and they come forward attempting to do something by right on that on that 30% land area. Your answer is going to be no. that that 30% land area counted toward the development scheme and the total max buildout was based upon that land area. So, so it's it's complicated when these master special permits issue um these uh open space residential development permits or commercial development permits because what can be done by right in the future may depend upon what gets right what gets done right now or in the years to come under the permit that you're about to grant or or earlier iterations of the permit. Um, so the the general rule with special permits, remember, is when boards are not specific. There's nothing in chapter 48 section 9, which is the only section of the zoning act that addresses special permits. There's nothing that provides an end date for utilization of a special permit. The the statute says that use has to commence within the period prescribed by the bylaw, which can be up to 3 years under a 2016 amendment. It used to be 2 years. Uh I believe your bylaw still has it at 2 years. And the law says that once use is commenced or construction gets underway pursuant to the special permit that that construction can continue in perpetuity until all rights that are available under that special permit are exercised. And there's case law. There's a case out of Bellingham from about 20 years ago where there was a special permit granted for five buildings. The developer constructed the first two or three

buildings, disappeared for 19 years, and came back and began constructing building number four. and new neighbors, new residents, new municipal officials said, "What's going on? You can't do that." And the case got litigated. And what did the court say? The court said, "You absolutely can do that." Because that special permit was effective in perpetuity. It ran with the land. And the rights that vested once the construction was commenced within the initial 2-year period, those rights existed in perpetuity and could be exercised 19 years later. And so what you're discussing in the context of this master special permit is doing something that the law itself, state law, statute doesn't do, which is putting an end date. And and case law says you can do that. You have that authority. Um but it's really left to your discretion what that end date ought to be. Should it be 5 years? Should it be 15 years? Should it be 30 years? It all depends upon the scope of the project or the development proposal, the complexity, um concerns you might have about um what what construction looks like in 10 years versus in 20 years versus in 30 years.

Okay. Thank you. I and I so you sort of addressed well I guess it leaves open the question of what could happen at the end of the development period, right? It kind of depends um is kind of what I'm hearing. I I guess my perspective is I was okay with the with the 20 years. Um I'm okay with 15. I'm not sure the applicant is. So I can he back to Chris's point. My concern is that if we put too tight of a time window on it, we have a good thing, right? And we have a what seems to be a very good

partner here in the applicant. If you can just kind of look at the things that have been done and what's been demonstrated so far. I'd hate to put a time window on this that's um maybe tighter than the economic cycles would allow or provide and then force them to have to pursue a development that may be less than desirable uh just to meet the time window. So I'm supportive of the 17 and a half years if that's what the option is on the table right now. Thanks.

Other board members, I think there's two options on the table right now. So, um, Chris, go ahead.

Yeah. So, um, I guess mirroring what what Rich was saying, I was fine with 20 years, uh, before. So, I, uh, I understand that these things take significant time. Um, just looking at this process in itself takes significant time. So, I can understand being a little bit um wary of having to come back and repeat this process to re amend uh sooner than later. So, wanting to give themselves as much leeway as possible. Um I actually I prefer uh Campanelli's uh general build style of not just build and hope somebody comes, but wait until you have someone who's actually going to use it uh and just leave it at open field up until that, you know. So it's the building is there just in time. I I like that model better. I think that's better for the town. That's better for the open space. Um so I'm perfectly fine with So if the two options we're we're looking at right now, 15 versus 17.5, I'm I'm fine with the longer one. So

um Mark Cindy, are those the two options then that that we have before us 17 and 20? Yeah, that's what we where we left it last time. 17 and a half and I'm I'm good with either if the application I'm sorry 17 and a half and 15 mark. Ah, so that's what we discussed last time. Okay. So 20 isn't on the table, Chris. And uh so 17 and a half is. And so I would go for the longer of the two. Cindy.

Yeah, I mean I'll reiterate. Um I'm in favor of the shorter 15 year. I was really pushing initially for 10 um based on what a typical special permit application in Boxboro is two years. Um the applicant can certainly come back and amend. Um they did that after the permit well after the permit expired. The last time they went they came back and got an amendment for one building. I think that went very smoothly. Um so I feel you know as a assurance also to the abutters that they won't have a a perennial construction site. I mean 15 years is a very long time already. I I would really like to hold it at that and not extend beyond. So I I support the 15 years. Um and market conditions sure can change and I'd like the planning board to be able to reassess uh at that time.

Thanks. And um I am going to echo pretty much what Cindy said and what I've said a couple times before. Um I originally wanted 10 on this as well. Um but I'm willing to go to 15. Um that was what the original agreement was and I don't see any reason to deviate from the original agreement. Um and yes, you can always come back and ask for extension. You don't have to go through this entire process again. um that is what they did last time and and and they were granted that five-year period which got them up to the 20 that they're asking for now. So um I am definitely in alignment on 15 or less. [laughter] [clears throat] Well, there's two components to this. there's the the buildout phase, the the buildout period, and then the other part of it is when does the clock start ticking? So, let's talk about that part.

I think it's from the um expiration of the um appeal periods. Okay. So, in in both instances then, correct? Yeah, because the All right. So, we put that one to bed then. That That's good. So yeah, the the moving the moving start line. Uh I could I could sense the trepidation about that in general. So um I I'm again I'm I'm good with either whichever I mean I pretty sure the I mean the only difference we're talking here now is two years. Two and a half years. Yeah.

I don't think two and a half years in the grand scheme of things makes a heck of a big difference. So I don't think the construction period is interminable because there's no way the construction is going to be continuous from one date to the from all of those years. But I think it does allow the the applicant to find the best tenant. I mean that's really what we and we want them to find the best tenant. I mean, so far they've they've found good tenants and so um I don't want to tie their hands needlessly and I don't see I don't see the benefit. I do not see the benefit by by saying hurry it up. I just don't see it. So, I'm going to vote for the 17-year period. I guess we should vote on it on this at some point so that we kind of get it out there, get it done. Okay, folks. You want to put this to a vote? The period? I mean, this is the last sticking point for that I'm hearing.

Do we do we want to get thoughts from the applicant before we vote? We can I think we've heard them already, Chris, but um thoughts from the applicant.

Thank you. Um and you're right, Rebecca, you have heard this from us. Um, this is a significant undertaking for Campanelli. We are investing, we have invested and will continue to invest a tremendous amount of resources into this park and we have been and will continue to be good stewards of it. We are very wary of the economic cycles and we are very wary of as some of the board members have pointed out, you know, putting ourselves in a situation where we've got to hustle up and, you know, because we're running out of time and don't necessarily have, you know, a year as we've just been with this board on this amendment, you know, to to extend it down the road. So our preference based on the amount of investment and based on, you know, the benefits that this proposal is providing, we're looking for 20 years. We understand that's not what's currently on the table, but we do think that a 20-year period is what's necessary to justify our continued investment and the investment of our, you know, JB partners and lenders and other folks who are also putting resources into this over time. Um, so the longer the period certainly the better for us. Thank you, Johanna. Okay. Again, is the board ready to go to a vote on this? And I'm

What are we voting on? Point of order uh on the period the timeline. Okay. And if and if we don't reach a what do what do we need to have a a majority on the timeline or a supermajority on the timeline? I think we need a majority, but Alec, can you please bring clarity to that? So, I'm going to let Adam speak to this because I see him unmuting himself here. Alec, I mean, um, Adam, please.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, so this is sort of a a discussion and a vote before the vote. So, to issue a special permit, as you know, requires a supermajority vote. Um any preceding motion to uh agree or achieve consensus on uh findings of fact or specific conditions uh really only requires a majority vote because those are those are uh informal consensus building actions. Uh it's the ultimate vote that really matters. Be mindful, however, that if there is a 3-2 vote, for example, um let's say, just to use the example that's before you, agreeing to a 15-year construction period, meaning that two individuals, two members of your five member board voted against that, um it sort of begs the question, okay, when the ultimate decision is now voted upon that is going to incorporate that 15-year period versus something less or something more, are those two no votes going to be no votes as well on the final decision because they didn't get their way on the construction period. And that's when it does ultimately matter because the applicant needs either four or five votes for the special permit to to issue. Um but any preceding vote is is really realistically by by simple majority. We did make a mot

make a motion to uh move forward with the 17 and 1 half year version. I'll second that discussion. Can I understand again the 17 and a half years would begin the at the end of the appeal period which is uh 20 days after the decision is um filed with the town clerk. That's correct. We file a decision with the town clerk. It's stamped in on day 21. The appeals period is considered to have lapsed. So, it's like a month and a halfish depending on when this decision is done.

Am I right? Um, depending on the I mean that if approved tonight, this decision is practically ready to go. I just got to stamp a I just got to slap a signature page on it. Um, and uh, unless Rebecca has any major travel planned in the the next 24 hours, I imagine we could probably have um, this ready to go for her within the week. I mean, it does need a thorough review, reading um, you know, matching up all the exhibits and all that. So, I wouldn't [laughter] I wouldn't rush it. That's why I added two weeks. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean in in terms of discussion I guess um you know they the applicant did ask for 20 years so this is a reduction from that and I know there was a a discussion around 15 years from first permit no more than 20 I mean it was it was getting a little bit confusing I like it's still it's I just you know this is this is a good thing for this town and we're talking about two and a half years. Um, which are, you know, is it's still a reduction from what they wanted. I mean, 20 years, honestly, would be fine. 15 would be fine, but 17 and a half, I think, gives it's a halfway point. It it appeases um it provides a little extra appeasement to the applicant and it, you know, it reflects on the fact that we do want this to happen sooner rather than later. So I I think overall when you take everything into consideration I I think giving them the extra two and a half years only taking away two and a half years from their original proposal is reasonable that

yeah from a similar angle. So they were originally asking for 20 part of the board is not comfortable with a long time and they're the longest they were comfortable with is 15. So 17 and a half is splitting the difference in between. We tried to split the difference with different like floating starting times which got a little confusing and made me nervous on like exactly when do you how do you count from where? So completely agreed that a fixed date makes a lot more sense. Um I was okay with 20. Um part of the board wasn't uh was thinking more 15. So 70 and a half that's what's the difference. So, and I think a a good compromise is when nobody's really that happy, but they can live with uh live with what it is.

Well, I was asking for 10 and now we're going to 17.5. So, I'm not sure that that's super balanced, but okay. Uh Cindy, did you have any other comments to make there? Um, dumb question, but what's uh 17 and a half years from uh from now? [laughter] Um, are we talking? That's uh that's

calendar days, correct? Not business days. So, um what's that? 20 years would be 2046. So, I'm sure we're all going to be living in Boxboro and still partying up at the end of this period. But uh what is the date? Is it 20 43 sometime in 2043? Is that the January + 6? It is July of 2043. July 2043 from today. Okay. I just wanted to know what that data point was

versus July 10th of 20 or January 10th of 20 41 something like that.

Any other comments deliberation? Okay, roll call as I see you. Uh Mark White, white eye. Chris Dowy. Rich Gazardi. Gazard. I Cindy Marowitz. This is just on the development period, correct? Yes. Uh Mark Woods nay. And Verer nay. Okay. So what's next steps with that?

Um madame chairperson, I have uh made notes to this. So effectively I I wrote your decision in just now as a condition. So it's the new condition number two. Um additionally I have made um Can you share Alex?

Yes. Additionally I have made the insertions um as described. So I'll uh just briefly affirm those for everybody here. They were all within the body of your conditions. So the new condition two, the commercial development period shall commence at the lapse of the appeals period to this decision and it will extend to the 17-year and sixmonth anniversary. So that gives it the flexibility if it takes us 10 days or 14 days to issue this that'll track whatever the date is of the

probably from from said date at the end of set date 17 year and six month anniversary of said date. It's a little maybe there's a better way to say it, but

um condition number three um Adam was kind enough to send this over directly. Um so we have his exact language um as previously discussed um that it rely that your decision relies uh on the application that was submitted and the um the assertions and representations made by the applicant uh throughout the public hearing process. Let's see the numbers jump but so uh prior to conveyance so this is specific to lot 100 prior to the convey prior to conveyance the applicant shall remove all invasive species from the lot um and then uh it goes on to say that should the affformentioned prerequisites basically if we don't get to June 30th 2029 if we don't get this done um the applicant shall submit to the board an amendment um for proposed lot 100 um the way I calculated June 30th 2029 that's 3 years out but then also the after the immediately following annual town meeting so that gets you to the turn of the fiscal year into FY 2030 or FY30. Uh this is the language transposed over um that uh chairperson Verer spoke to um specifically calling out the map name uh and the page number. Uh this is the uh language carried over um from chairperson verer related to the uh grass creek spaces. These are the revisions we made to the roenticides condition as well as the revisions we made to the Beaverbrook Road condition.

And finally, the conditions we made to uh item 22. Um the items in blue only reflect the changes we made in the red line version that I have now imported over. The changes you made earlier to the clean version were already incorporated. You saw those going in. This is just for me to demonstrate to you that I transposed them over. So, will Rebecca have a chance to re reread this whole thing um once you've cleaned it up?

Yes. As as always, my um my recommended motion would be um well, whether you're moving to approve um or deny the application, you would then follow it up with a motion um a motion authorizing the chairperson to sign the decision on behalf of the board. Um and so until uh the chairperson is satisfied that the decision is complete, uh she does not have to sign it.

Okay. Okay. So, next step, do we need to close the hearing and then vote or vote? Uh, Adam, I will leave this to your discretion how you want them to handle these votes, what votes you want them to take, and what order in.

Uh, sure, through you, Madam Chair. So um so yes uh generally speaking the proper sequence is to vote first to close the public hearing which requires a majority vote and then to vote on the decision with that caveat that Alex suggested that it be subject to him finalizing the adjustments you've been shown and whatever final review the chair or vice chair might want to to undertake. Um, having said that, I do represent some boards that anticipate, and maybe this isn't the case here because there has been a comprehensive discussion over multiple meetings, but that that anticipate that there will be some deliberation once there's a motion and a second to grant or deny the special permit, particularly to grant it. Um, that there will be some discussion and that that that discussion may require uh responses, feedback, answers, information from the applicant. If that's the case, then you have no obligation to close the public hearing before you vote. You can vote and your vote effectively operates to close the public hearing um at once. So, it's really up to you whether you you close the hearing prior to voting or not. um with with sometimes more contentious proceedings, live proceedings with a room full of residents or neighbors or abutters. Uh sometimes there's there's some prudence in closing the public hearing because it provides for fewer interruptions, but um I don't see that being the case here. So, it's entirely up to you whether you wish to close the hearing first or not.

Okay. Um if the board is in agreement, I mean, I think that we're probably at a point where we can close the hearing. Um, unless anybody objects to that. No, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing for the uh Campanelli 2025 master plan proposal. I'll second that. Okay. Moved by Cindy and seconded by Rich. Thank you. Um, and then, um, Alec, do you want to provide your motion again for the vote to have vote on the

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, yes. Okay. As I see you. Um, I don't see any of you right now, so hold on. Uh, Rich Gazardi, Gazard I. Mark White, White I. Uh, Chris Dowy, Douty I. Cindy Markitz, Mark Woods, I and Burner I. Thank you. Okay. Now, um would you like to make that motion again or suggest that motion again, Alec, unless someone's prepared to do it? Um again, I'll defer to um Attorney Costa what the most appropriate language would be here. I want to make sure we get this one right. Okay. [clears throat]

Muted.

Indeed, I am. Um so again through you madam chair I think the appropriate motion would be uh a motion to um grant the special permit if that's the desire or to deny the special permit. I don't want to presume that I know the board's uh the board's inclination but to grant or deny the special permit and if it's going to be a grant of the special permit then it would be with the with the findings and and conditions uh contained in the the document that's been presented as as amended. So, I'll I'll motion that the board grant the special permit decision. I'm sorry. I'll move to that uh the planning board grant the special permit um with the conditions and findings that are specified in the decision.

Second. And moved by Rich and seconded by Chris. Um, as I see Rich. Hold on. I got a question. Oh, sorry. Discussion. Discussion. Um, did we add the language about compliance with all the terms and conditions of the plan that we talked about early on? Did we add that? Uh, yes. Let me bring that up real quick. Uh, bear with me. Sorry guys, it's been three hours into this. No, it's okay. I should have asked for discussion. Well, that is um uh condition number three. That's the language that uh add to us. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Let me know when you're ready for me to take the screen down. Is it And is that the end of the sentence and approval of the board period? Yes. Yes, that's the complete condition. Okay. Thanks. Any other discussion? Okay. Okay, we got a vote on the table here. Um, as I see you, Chris Dowy, I. Rich Gazardi, Gazardi I, Mark White, White I, Cindy Marowitz, Markitz, I, and Verer I. Okay, congratulations folks, Madam Chair, for all your time and effort.

Thank you all so very much. It's been a long road and we really appreciate it. The project is better for your input. Thank you, Adam. Um,

Madam Chair, I might suggest one further motion. Um, and it just goes handinhand with what we had discussed a moment ago, and that is a motion to authorize the chair or whomever else to review and confirm that the decision is in final form, ready for filing with the town clerk's office, and then maybe even authorize the chair or another member to sign it on behalf of the board if that is an added convenience. as opposed to having uh all members come into town hall to sign it. Um that's something that boards do with some frequency these days, especially where these meetings are being conducted by Zoom.

So I'll motion that uh the board authorized uh chairperson Rebecca Verer to review uh the document uh in its finalization and to sign on behalf of the planning board. Second by Rich and seconded by um Mark White. Um, as I see you Cindy Marowitz, Marowitz eye, I didn't ask for discussion again. Did anybody have any discussion? It's okay. Okay. Cindy Markitz eye. Um, Mark Rich Gazardi, you're next. Yep. Gazardi, Mark White, White I, and Chris Dowy. Dy,

and Verer I. Okay, terrific. Thank you all very much. Okay. I'd like to express thank you to the board as well. I I know Johanna said it on my behalf, but thank you for your hard work over the past months of putting this together, and I appreciate that. Um, and I look forward to talking to you soon. Thank you, Russell.

Okay. Wow. Okay. Uh, moving on to minutes. Let's go back to the minutes. Alec. Uh, madame chairperson. Yes, sir. Can we release Attorney Costa for the evening? Yes, please. Adam, thank you so much for your time. Happy New Year. You're welcome. Same to you. See you soon. Thank you, Adam. Thank you, Adam. Thank you. Okay. Hopefully, we can move. Well, we've got a fair amount still left on our agenda. Um after we do minutes, madam chairperson, do you want to um do you want to raise the discussion on your next meeting that we had talked about perhaps some of these things we Yeah, that's a great idea. Thank you.

So you're going to pull up the meeting minutes. Yes, indeed. Um so you prior to starting the hearing, you approved the October 20th minutes. We are going to move those October 14th minutes to the next meeting. So I will pull up October 30th. Apologize for that, guys. Um, okay. Um, any comments on the meeting minutes of October 30th? No. Yeah, I got a couple of course. Um, go ahead, Cindy.

Yeah, starting from the top. Um again, attorney Costa on line nine is special land use council, not town council. If that matters, I I think we should keep that distinction. Um so this set of minutes um after line 63 um it really just jumped to there was really no me summary of the discussion. I don't know how the other board members felt, but I thought maybe a list of topics discussed because it really just jumped from uh the beginning to the to the end. Um so that's kind of a general question if folks I felt like we should have at least identified some of the discussion topics. Um my line 84 about the budget on the line that says legal expenses for technical expertise. She does not want to reduce the budget for the it should be consulting line not legal line I think. And then again on line 135 he suggested reducing the consulting not legal line. Um and then 143 following up on that thread at the end of the sentence applicants paying for certain legal and then I would insert or technical items. 43.

Uh 14 143. No, this no 143. This is Every time I download these to my I get a different uh let's see. Okay, right there we're 95. Yeah, we're way off. Sorry, it's 95. Uh legal and technical items. Sorry. Um, that's all I got. Anybody else?

Okay. Um, I'd entertain a motion to approve the October 30th, 2025 meeting minutes as amended. So moved. Mark moved it. I'll second it. Uh, Mark did not move it. You did. I'll keep my move motion. Do we have a second? Okay. So moved by Rich and seconded by Mark. You just added the word as amended. So yeah, I said that. Okay. Um Okay. Uh so any discussion? No. Uh so as I see you Sydney Markitz. Markitz. Rich Gazardi. Gazardi act. Alec Wade. Oh god. Not Alec. Mark White.

I'm getting tired here. I'm sorry but Alec I I mean Mark I [laughter] Chris Dowy you guys are jumping around a little bit on the screen for me. Um and and Verer um I uh Okay, next one's Alec.

Thank you madam chairperson. Uh November 17, 2025. Okay. Anybody have comments on the November 17th meeting minutes? Um, yeah, I do. Let's see. Uh, let me see how many lines off I am here. The the paragraph that begins with Sue Carter of places. Uh, yeah, that's your line 51. Um, yeah, same line. Okay. Uh, line 58, it should say a burm, I think, of my question is, is that a burm of wood logs along the tree line has been removed?

Right. Uh, yes, that's correct. Okay. And then, so add a burm of wood logs. And then on line 60, she noted that the B, it said BM pile. I would just change that to wood pile need to be removed. Um, and then line uh hopefully yours line 126, Ms. Carter stated that the tail lengths I think it's supposed to be tailings.

That's correct. Mr. Wade's name is spelled wrong on line 280. I think that's all I got. Okay. Anybody else? Nope. Okay. I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes of 1117 2025. So moved. We got a second. Second. Okay. Moved by Rich and seconded by Chris. Uh, as I see you, Chris Dowy. Dy.

Uh, Sydney Marowitz. Mark, what's Rich Gazardi? Gazardia. Mark White.

It's like Mark stepped away. Um, so Verer I drop I can't tell. Oh, there it is. I see it. Next one. [snorts] November 24th, executive session. That's correct. And just for note, these are not minutes of the executive session. These are simply the minutes of you entering into executive session. Um, those minutes will be approved at your next executive session. Any comments on this, folks? None. Nope.

Okay. Um, do I have a motion to approve the November 24th, 2025 uh, executive session meeting minutes? So moved. Second. Okay. Moved by Rich and seconded by Chris as I see you. Chris Dowy. Dudy I. Cindy Marowitz. Mark Witz. I Rich Gazardi. Gazard. I Mark White. He probably would abstain because he was and Verer I. So, uh, December 1st. Yes, December 1st. Any comments on December 1st?

Uh, I had the same comment that there was no mention of the items that were discussed once we got the Beaverbrook hearing open, but um, we didn't add any the last time, so I'll just let it be. I I didn't have any comments on this, Chris? Nope. I do. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion to approve the December 1st, 2025 meeting minutes. So, moved. Okay. Moved by Rich. And who's going to second? Second. Seconded by Cindy. So, as I see you, Chris Dowy. Dy. Rich Gazardi. Gazardi. Mark White I

Cindy Markwitz Markwitz I

and Verer I All right let's skip ahead to the discussion of the January 21st meeting. Um so we had a TBD in our calendar for the 21st of January. Um I asked Alec to keep this on the agenda so that we could talk about whether or not we want to hold that. Um my feeling was we've been pretty quiet over uh November and December and maybe it would be beneficial to the board to hold that meeting. I'm very glad that we got this last application off of our plate because I didn't know if that would spill over. Um but uh some of this might be able to be taken up at that point. Um and I thought it might be a really good opportunity for us to discuss kind of uh future um goals for the for the board. um goals, articles, whatever if we want to use it as a session for that. Um but I wanted to throw it out to the board to see if we still want to hold that.

When's the date, Rebecca? I'm sorry. January 21st. The Wednesday. Yeah, it was held on that date because of MLK day. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm good with that. I think that's I think that's actually a good idea because if we if like we need we need a day like if we don't have any applications in front of us and we have a continuation of the other application then that I agree I think we need a day to talk about goals and future articles because warrants are going to be opening and closing here pretty soon. Chris Cindy Mark thought last I'm good with it. Yeah, I'm okay with it.

It's on my calendar. I assume I'll be there. Okay. Excellent. So, keep that meeting, Alec. Um, and that's the only other meeting for the month. Correct. That is That's correct. Um, madame chairperson. So, with that in mind, I have one item under planners report that I do think bears discussing briefly. And the only pressing item that may require your attention tonight and absolutely could not wait if you want to provide feedback is specifically the ZBA routing sheet for 555 Liberty Square Road.

Great. Thank you for minimizing that. Um so go ahead on the planner report then. What do you need to report for us? Um so um as many of you are probably aware on Thursday night uh the fire station building committee made a decision to move forward with 984 Mass A and the adjoining properties um for their consideration of a potential fire station location. As the board will remember your January 5th meeting was cancelled and the public hearing with uh said property owner and applicant was continued to February 2nd which is still being held in your calendar. Um, my recommendation to the board at this time, um, is that we, uh, we issue an extension of said special or of said hearing until, um, until your second meeting in March. that would specifically put it after uh the special town meeting and a potential ballot vote to follow at which point if the article was successful at the town meeting and then the ballot vote was successful the application itself would become a moot point in the interimm myself Sue Carter attorney Costa and the applicants team would temporarily pause all work until we see the results of the um of the public process play out But that way neither side is spending uh further money on the application until this is first resolved. Um madam chairperson and the board are you willing to entertain um such an extension?

Sounds like a Yeah. Sorry, Rich. What did you say? I'm sorry. I said I'm sorry if I muffled my my hand over my mouth. I mean, it sounds like it makes sense. Why why spend time discussing something if there's going to be a different as long as the applicant's okay with that? Makes sense to me. [snorts] Yeah. If this is their plan B or plan C, like let plan A play out first. Any other comments? Do we have a a request in writing from the applicant to do this?

Uh no. I wanted to get a temperature from the board first and then I'll speak to them this week ahead of your January 21st meeting. We'll get a written written document in place if the board's amendable. You'll vote on it at your next meeting. I'm amendable. Yeah, because formal formally they should request the extension. Okay. Yes, that is correct. Yeah. [clears throat] Okay. Any other comments? All right, Alex, sounds like you have some direction there. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, terrific. Okay, go ahead. Did you have more?

Um, it would the board like to review briefly the application for 555 Liberty Square Road special permit. Board members, is it you don't do is somebody looking for our opinion? Uh the zoning board of appeals has a public hearing scheduled for tomorrow night. Um it's not uh it is not a robust application. I it's very simple, but I think it bears this board at least knowing that this is going forward and understanding um kind of the implications that comes with the application. I mean, she's my neighbor, so I should recuse anyway.

That's correct. Yes. If you are in a butter, you should recuse yourself from the item. Uh the only comment I have is that um I think it needs to be brought to the ZBA's attention that um this will trigger the outdoor lighting um bylaw um for special permits. I think it's six section 6.4.8. Um so all that means is that um lighting will need to be dark sky compliant.

I if I guess I didn't see that. So if it's not too much time Alec just understanding what the implications are here might be helpful but I I I don't want to I think it's basically bumping up from the 900 square ft to 944 square ft. Is that that's what I gleaned out of it, Alec? Right.

Yes. So, um so your former board member, actually, longtime and multiple time board member, um Kathleen Forest has actually um found a way to maneuver our zoning bylaw um to get around the I should get around sounds like an odd term to use, but to um to circumvent the 900 square ft limitation on accessory dwelling units. And that's specifically your table of uses allows for conversion of single family dwellings to two family dwellings by special permit in the Agres district. Um and that would allow for greater than 900 square ft. So Kathy Vor is actually putting this to the test right now. Um at a previous meeting she had come spoke to the board about the item. um noted to the board that, you know, she had been before the building department. Her potential ADU was going to be too large. Um but this section has existed in your bylaw for decades now. Um I actually prepared my planners report and sent it off to ZBA earlier tonight. Um but uh it's in in her case a very effective methodology. This is a an available option via via the zoning bylaw. Um, it does not apply to all zoning districts like the protected use accessory dwelling unit bylaw does. Um, but I wanted to note this for you. Um, in speaking with the building department, um, to our recollection, we haven't had anyone come in since the last time we spoke. U, but we've had five people come in since passage of the ADU bylaw. And to date, um, none of those applications have moved forward because um, of either the septic constraints or more commonly the size constraints often paired with the septic constraints. Um, so I I wanted to make the board aware of this. Um, chairperson burner, I have made a note um that the the board provides uh the

feedback this will or may trigger the outdoor lighting bylaw section 6.4.8. I will share that with the zoning board of appeals first thing in the morning. Um but if the board wants to provide any additional feedback, I encourage you to do so now. I think it will um trigger it. But um Cindy, go ahead.

Yeah, I just was curious about parking. I'm looking up the parking requirements. So residential uses including two single family, two family, multif family, it's two spaces per dwelling. So, would this be considered now uh requiring four spaces, four parking spaces because it's a two family dwelling? And is that something that um the ZBA needs to look at or I didn't see any parking provisions in the uh just in the items that were provided? Um I will um note that in the letter um and I will request the zoning board of appeals uh render a decision on whether uh four spaces are are required as per the section.

Yeah, that's 6.1.6 parking schedule. I I I just want to raise one issue with this is that um we were led to understand when we adopted the most recent version of the ADU bylaw after having the year prior gotten the town to agree to our own ADU bylaw that allowed the larger I think it was 1,200 square ft. We were under the impression that the state would not allow us to increase that. But the reality of it is is the state. So we could have gone forward adopting the language of the ADU bylaw as it was given to us by the state but we could have change we could have allowed up to,200 square feet if we wanted to. That we got some bad info there saying

I I my apologies Mark. I have to push back on that. I the board made a conscious decision at the time of passage to stick rigidly to the language the state provided. However, there was a discussion of, you know, maybe we could get something larger. Um, I said at the last meeting that Kathy came before the board that I have exact experience now in communities that have approved um or gotten attorney general approval. Uh but at the time it was a conscious decision by the board at least in the first pass to stay rigidly to the state requirements.

Okay. I I'll stand corrected then. But but I guess that my understanding was we couldn't do it and not that we shouldn't do it. We didn't know what we didn't. So, so again, we all need to understand that we could very easily walk in the next town meeting and amend the ADU bylaw to allow up to X number of square feet, which is where we kind of takes us back to where we started or where we left off. That's all. Put it on the list. Yeah, put on the list. Yeah, we'll talk about that on the 21st. Good. All right. What else can we go home now?

Yeah, I think that's it. Unless there's more discussion about that, um, I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All right. Moved by Mark and seconded by Cindy. Were we supposed to get an enclave update? Sorry. Do you want to do an enclave update before you close, Madam Chairperson? Yeah, we can go ahead and do an enclave update.

It's it's brief. Um, we received the the documentation we were expecting from the homeowners association. It's been included in your packet here. Um the building commissioner and uh Sue Carter have already begun speaking about the materials. Um I expect to have a meeting with them uh mid next week. Um if if I can line the scheduling up, I'll aim for before your meeting on the 21st, but with the holiday, no guarantee. Um and I'll have more to report after that discussion. Um but all along the intent has been for for them to convene to evaluate which of those items um are directly related to the bond. Um and then depending on the results of that um we might even invite the HOA to come out and join us for a sitewalk to look at those items and then report back to you.

Thanks Alec. So I'm sorry. What's the timeline for for this? Um, I expect next week to have a meeting with um with Sue Carter and the building commissioner who are evaluating it from a civil engineering um and time of application as well as a building code perspective. Um we'll convene that meeting, go over which of those items on the list are pertinent to um to the bond referencing it against the bond documents. Um and then we'll bring that information back to you and then shortly thereafter there will be a site visit that we're going to conduct to evaluate those items. Okay. So no action needed on on our part for a bit still.

No, not at this week. Perhaps next week at the earliest, but I I wouldn't expect it um necessarily with the holiday. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. We have a motion and a second on the table. So, as I see you, uh, Chris Dy. Uh, Rich, yes. I, Mark, I, Cindy, [snorts] Mark, what's and Verer? I All right. Thank you guys so much. We'll see you on the 21st.