Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Um I'm calling the Boxboro Planning Board meeting of uh uh October 30th, 2025 uh to order. Um as always, this meeting is being conducted via Zoom um and can be accessed via our um our planning board agenda. Um, uh, the agenda also has a simple call-in, um, number that can be, um, phoned in as well if you're not using a computer. Uh, so to start off, I will take a roll call as I see you. Mark White, White, present. Chris Dowy, Dowy, present. Cindy Marowitz. [snorts] Mark Whitz, present. And this Rich, I see you too. Rich Gazardi.

Gazardi present.

Thank you. And Verer, present. Um, so at this point, uh, I would like to open it up to public comment for, um, items that are not listed on the agenda right now. Um, so if you have a a comment not related to anything listed on the agenda, please raise your hand or if you're dialing in by phone, you can um, dial star9 uh, and that will get you through as well. That'll raise your hand. Okay, I am not seeing any hands raised. It is 7:02. Well, we have to open reopen a meeting at 7:05. Um, goodness, we don't have any lowhanging fruit to tick off this evening, [laughter] it seems. Um these probably are likely larger discussions. Uh would you agree Alec?

Uh certainly more than two to three minutes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So we will just need to sit tight for two minutes um before we open our public hearing. [clears throat]

I will note for the board um you do have minutes in your administrative business section. However, um as the chairperson has already pointed out um that's not listed on your agenda tonight. We paired this one down to just the necessities um to to help expedite and keep things running smoothly. Um so do know that your uh your minutes are included. You can start reviewing those ahead of your next meeting. Um as well as the upcoming planning board meeting schedule is fairly flushed out um and up to date with our anticipated schedule for November 17th and December 1st. Okay. 7:05 according to my clock. Um, at this point, uh, I'd like to open the Beaverbrook Road OSCD special permit. In accordance with MGL

chapter 4A and 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 application submitted by property owner Campanelli Trigate Sub LLC to amend OCD 97-01 and OSCD01. Um, so I just I think Alec kind of alluded to this u but um I did want to make note that this meeting was um added to the planning board's uh existing meetings to accommodate the applicant's request for a dedicated meeting for this application. um so that we can focus primarily on that um on this this application before us tonight. Um so um um the the whole idea behind this will be for the board to discuss um comments that have been made and um edit the existing document uh decision um accordingly. Um we do have a few other agenda items that got snuck into our agenda. So, um I want to try to um complete this uh discussion by 9:30 this evening so that we can finish up with the others. So, that's my goal. Um and if we need to continue, we continue. But that's what um I'd like to try to stick to if we can. Um hopefully we can move through things um pretty quickly. Um I also want to make sure I know we're not voting quite yet. We got a lot of discussions that happen, but I did want before I move into public comment to make it clear that this application requires a supermajority vote uh for the board um for the board for approval. Um so that means four out of five. Um and now at this point, I would like to open it up for public comments. So if you have any public comments that are um out there about this particular hearing, uh please raise your hand at this point. Um I would love to let everybody have the opportunity to um ask questions. So, um I'm going to try to limit folks to two

minutes so that we can move into um the the meat of this um discussion as well. Uh so, either raise your hand via the app or um press star 9 to raise your hand. Um Katherine Davies, I'm seeing you first, please. Hi, Katherine Davies. I'm the chair of the Boxboro Sustainability Committee. Um, and I just wanted to um apologize for not submitting a letter sooner, but I am here to sort of provide the sustainability committee's comments um on the process that's been going on. First of all, we just appreciate the planning board's efforts to encourage the project proponent to address sustainability and resilience. Um, I would say we are concerned that Campanelli continues to defer like really meaningful commitments to future site plan review stages despite the scale and long-term impact of this development. Um, so given the impacts that we have concerns about, we strongly recommend that the planning board require Campanelli to build in compliance with the Massachusetts specialized stretch energy code as a condition of the special permit. Uh, this code is designed to accelerate decarbonization and is aligned with Boxboro's sustainability and climate goals. Campanelli's current proposal to provide only 10% EV ready parking spaces falls well short of the 20% requirement under the specialized stretch code. That's just one example of the challenges that are faced if we do not adhere to the specialized stretch code requirements. Um and the proposed development should reflect the adopted sustainability policies and relevant planning documents of both the town and the commonwealth. Um so um that's sort of our our key recommendation um for the planning board to consider. Um we also

think that a stronger commitment to green design and sustainability as part of the special permit um not deferred to site plan review is not unreasonable um to ask as part of that permitting process where the expectation is that something is going to come as a benefit to the town um as part of that process and um deliver meaningful community benefits including climate leadership that are consistent with the sustainability goals of the town. Um, we also would request a revised EV infrastructure plan to meet or exceed the 20% EV ready requirement. I'm probably out of time for my two minutes, but those are my key things.

Thank you so much. That's very helpful. I appreciate it. Thanks for your comments. You can always come back if there's another person that comes in. So, Sure. Uh, any other public comment at this time? Okay. [clears throat] Hearing none, Katherine? One more whack or are you good?

Uh, is Katherine sorry I think I said the most important things that we wanted to get across. Um, I the only thing I would add is that we believe that by investing in the specialized stretch code at this stage and planning for that investment, Campanelli is going to benefit, right? Like it's not it's not like that isn't going to come back to the company as a return on that investment. um in the long run. And if we're talking about a 20 to 50year horizon on these buildings, that is a very there's very easy return on investment math that supports that investment doing that. Now,

thank you so much. Appreciate your comments. Okay. Any other public comment at this time? Okay. I am seeing none. Um, okay. So, uh, there were a number of comments and questions that were submitted, um, to, uh, by the board members. Um, I think, um, Cindy, Richard, and myself submitted documents. Uh, we received a letter, um, that was responding specifically to my comments. Um, but I'd like to kind of pick up the discussion where we left off during our last meeting. um and give uh board members uh opportunity to to um ask questions, comments um um and and I'm hoping that we can live edit uh while we're moving through this to just kind of keep things moving forward. Um so, Alec, I would like to ask you if you could uh pull up the document um the the clean version um and we can just go through comments from the beginning as we need to. Um, when you refer to the clean version, I just want to make sure I'm I'm using the right one. Which document should I pull up here?

I guess it's the one that um the board members all commented on because we didn't combine the the comments into one document. Um, so uh we have basically three commented documents, I think, and we have one that was clean without any comments on it. And so I guess we kind of need to look at almost four of these things in tandem to to kind of go through this process a little bit.

Yes. And my apologies everybody. When we did attempt to do the the document merge, for some reason the the third document threw everything skew and it made it an illeible document. So unfortunately we do have excuse me the individualized dress. I will also note um attorney Schneider earlier today did provide me with an updated draft of the decision. Um that has not been shared with the board. It was only received earlier today. Um so if you would like I can pull that up. It effectively just consolidates some of the discussion points and the modifications that Campanelli has made based on the feedback that was previously provided. Um or I can of course pull up the clean version that you referred to earlier. Ultimately, that's your decision, Madam Chairperson.

Yeah, I'm um well, I'm I'm a little concerned about looking at a document that we haven't looked at yet um this evening. Um so, but um I see Johanna's hand up. So, I'm going to ask her to maybe speak to um that new version that we haven't looked at.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to and for the record, Johanna Schneider, Council of Campanelli. Um what I sent to Alec today was intended to just facilitate the editing. There are only two changes to that document. One is that in the draft that we had submitted to the board at the end of August, which is the one that all of the board members have um physically commented into, the conditions were in bullet point format rather than numbered. So I went and I added numbers to facilitate this conversation. I thought it would be easier. Hey, can we talk about condition number two? The other change that was made was the board will recall that in advance of the October 6th meeting um that we had with you. We had submitted um a proposed revision to the commercial development period language um which we intended to have superseded what was in the August draft. So all I have done is copied and pasted what we submitted to the board in which the board has had the opportunity to look at the October 2nd revision to the commercial development period language. That's now in one document. Again, I thought it would be easier than jumping around to, you know, the two-pager that we submitted in October um which we intended to have supplant the the earlier provision on that.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying, Johanna. I appreciate that. There and there are no other changes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chris, I'll give you a comment and then I'll ask the I was going to say I I think starting with that one makes sense, especially if if the only real changes are making it easier to reference what we're talking about uh with numbering and that altered um kind of timet which we had already discussed and was probably going to get put in anyway. And then um not sure how we generally do these, but if it makes sense to have start with that and then just kind of walk through page by page and then kind of compare the the various proposed edits.

Is that what I suggested? Yeah. And I I would be agree with you um based on um Miss Schneider's um attorney Schneider's um explanation for that. So, but I would like to ask other board members um if they're comfortable proceeding with the document submitted that was um just explained by attorney Schneider. Yeah, I'm good. Good. Okay, Cindy. Yeah. Is Is it red line or is it just revised and all um looking like uh regular text? It It's fully clean, Cindy. I'm sorry.

It's fully clean. It has no red lining in it. again just because it only has those two changes. Okay, I'm I'm okay with that.

Okay, great. Alex got it ready to roll. Great. Perfect. Thank you. Maybe when we get to the revision, um we can just point it out for clarity. Um okay. Anybody have comments on this initial opener? Uh, Rebecca. So, I had um a bunch of comments throughout the document. Um, so I'm happy to restate those as we go through this. I think as we're going line by line, I guess anybody who's got a comment on the section probably should jump in. Is that what you're proposing?

I I think that's the best way to approach this since we have multiple documents to go through. If people are in agreement with that. Yep, that sounds sensible. Okay.

Okay. Well, I I do I have a comment right at the out the bat on the title. First of all, I think there's a typo in amendment, but um I I guess as sort of a question for the board, you know, um I think the request is to amend the prior permit. Um but I wanted to ensure that the board was this this could also be treated, I think, as a new special permit. Um, I haven't I know Adam Costa is here to maybe advise a little bit on this, but you know, my [clears throat] hope is to incorporate all the prior conditions from the prior permit, but I I don't know whether there's value in seeking this as a new permit or calling an amendment to to the prior permit. So, I I don't know if anyone has any thoughts about that. Um,

I'd defer to Adam maybe for that.

So, Madame Chair um through you. I I don't have a particular preference and I don't think that there is necessarily legal significance to uh the manner in which uh the decision [clears throat] issues whether it's referred to as an amendment to an earlier permit or the reissuance or new issuance of a permit. Um there's a practical question about whether you want to incorporate by reference for example conditions or mitigation requirements that might have been a part of an earlier permit or whether you wish to restate them so that you have uh within the four corners of a new document uh every right every obligation of the the board the applicant third parties um within a new document. But either way, that doesn't necessarily dictate the terminology you use to refer to that document. I think we can all agree that the earlier permit has expired. Um, so what you're really doing by amending it is you're sort of reviving that permit. Um, but again, either way, it's an OCD permit. So whether it's a new permit or a prior permit um being amended, this is not a circumstance where there are some rights that that attach in one circumstance but not in the other where there's pre-existing nonconformities that that need to have existed. We're not dealing with any of those things in this context. So I don't think it has really meaningful legal significance. Um it's up to you.

Okay, that's helpful because I wasn't sure if some things were no longer gerine. um you know um did it make sense? I I I think it sounds appropriate to just consider this an amendment, but I did want to raise that issue um because some things from the prior permit are not relevant anymore. But if uh council is comfortable um I want to make sure that we do reference all prior conditions and I just want to make sure that we're not including prior conditions that no longer apply. So that that was sort of the the conundrum for me, but um that's why we got brighter legal minds on this can help us through that, I guess. Uh Rich, you got a your hand up?

Yeah. My experience not with [clears throat] OCD uh special permits and amendments, but with amendments in general to long-standing contractual arrangements is to go ahead with an amendment. Um, I also think it, you know, while it's nice to have all the four corners in one document, I'm very much a proponent of of basically saying all prior uh elements of the uh pre-existing um decision or uh permit are in effect except as modified here. Um, if there are things that are no longer relevant, they somewhat become somewhat OBBE self-deading or if we're that concerned about it, we could always go through them and specifically call out that they're no longer applicable. But I, you know, I think the essence of it is whatever was there before is okay and we want to bring a lot of that in. We just say it simply like that and then we amend from there. um is kind of how that's the way I've seen this done many times. Um so I mean it's not a big deal, but it does make it a little easier and you risk you you reduce the risk of missing something or screwing something up in the process.

Thanks Rich. Cindy, did you have more comment on that or? Um, yeah, I'm okay with proceeding as is. Um, all right. Go ahead, Chris. Yeah, likewise for for the same reasons basically as Rich stated, it it helps to refer to the previous things. So, just in case something isn't explicitly called out, it's still the intent is still clear. So, I'm good with keeping it like this. Okay.

All right. Um, my next comment was on the third uh sort of fourth bullet here. It said, "Place approximately 94 acres into permanent open space restriction." I think based on attorney Costa's comments last time. That's the correct language to use. We don't have to say open space and conservation restriction, but just going to ask that question again. So through you, Madam Chair, I could please.

Um, so I I think that that's correct. The the language of the OSCD bylaw um is that an open space restriction is required that the the the area that is designated as open space has to be restricted as such. Um, now whether the board wishes that that open space restriction be uh true conservation land or restrict restricted by way of a conservation restriction, which is a bit different or can be a bit different than an open space restriction. I suppose that's something that can be discussed with the applicant. Um, but the requirement of the bylaw is that the the area be restricted as open space. And so this language is consistent with what the bylaw requires. Great. Thank you. Um, and then I had a couple of minor comments on the uh first paragraph about the subject property. I had added it is located within the office park zoning district and I also included the aquifer protection. Sorry, that's second sentence there. Uh, is located within the office park zoning district. I had also added in the aquifer protection district. And then the next paragraph, you'll want to obviously update that for additional hearing dates. Sorry, you you didn't have to retype it. It was already in there as the off second sentence already said. It's located within the office park. I just wanted [clears throat] right there. Yeah.

And the next paragraph is just updated for uh additional hearing dates. Um, and then I had comments on my version on the modifying the listed exhibits, but you don't have to do that in real time, Alec, if you guys want to go back to those comments and adding the dates and all that of the exhibits. [clears throat] What are you suggesting changes there, Cindy?

Uh, yeah, I had a bunch bunch of specifics on all those exhibits. Okay. Your document. It's it's red line in the Cindy Marks. Yeah. Edit the CJM edit version. So, I can I just trust that the uh the planner staff will add those. Yes. Um, any new exhibits? And I think we've gotten some new exhibits also since then.

Yes, I will note your um your Dropbox has a complete itemized list of exhibits. Um thank you Ian for putting that together. Um and yes, board members um you can submit uh if you want to modify the way we list these. This is an administrative component. Um please do let me know if you would like whether it's date, sequential, something else changed in the way we list your exhibits. That's standard form and content that we can modify to your liking. Right. And I gave you some edits, so I won't go through those. Um, keep going. Okay. Under the uh second paragraph under background, um said the OCD special permit granted dimensional parking relief. My question was which which decision? Um I don't know if both of them went uh granted the 3.3 spaces, but I just wanted to be specific there.

It was 01-01. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Again, I had a minor amount of text. I got to look at this and look at yours at the same time here. um paragraph beginning in 2022. Um second sentence in 2023. Let's make sure you're caught up with me. Wouldn't it be easier? Yeah, right there. Yeah, it should be the zoning board of appeals approved a special if Alec was to put your document up alongside rather than

uh Yeah, I've got comments along the way, too. I think we we all three of us do. I think it it gets a little complicated because there's three there's actually four documents we're reviewing right now. I I found that same change that that it was a zoning board of appeals. That was one of my comments. So, we we had a double hit. Right. And I the number of the permit was 22 sorry 223-01 if you want to put that parenthetically. [snorts]

So I guess Mark to your point, I'm sorry to uh sort of cut in here, Rebecca. I guess is that is I guess I understood that's what we were doing, right? As we go through this, if any of us have comments in any section, that's where we raise it. We're kind of doing a page flip. Is that Yeah, I think so. I I don't know how to more clearly do it with all the documents, honestly. Um, so I'm hoping that people are scrolling through the documents that were in the packet. Um, while we're going through this, I've got mine pulled up. Rich is sounds like you yours and Cindy seems to have hers. So I am, but I'm thinking for Alex's sake to have [laughter] some cut and paste so he knows where Cindy's

pointing basically because she can't point. Do you have multiple screens, Alec, where you can have hers open on? I I do. I have all three of the other decisions on my to my left hand side. So, okay, for me personally, this structure is the most is the most effective and if I need to pull from another document, that's easy to do. Okay, great. So, it's available so you can copy paste if there's like a a long sentence or something.

Um, at the end of that sentence, I wanted to add the context of um what's already been built. So my the sentence I would add after building 500 period would be in total 491,000 square ft of new building has occurred at the park at Beaverbrook or to date maybe is that oh in aggregate to date right well new you say new building new is relative right most of it is in 2000 Right. It it Yeah.

So, Cindy, I've imported I've imported that sentence and the following new paragraph uh directly into this decision so the board can see both in total all the way down to private wells in the next paragraph. Yeah. I mean, you guys can tweak it if it's not new building, what do you want to call it? Well, in total, 491,000 square feet of building. uh space uh ex exists as of today or yeah I think as of today is important to put in some place

maybe it's the beginning as of today 491,000 square feet uh have been has been built I wouldn't use the word today in a formal decision um as of this date of as of the date of this decision yeah yeah the date of this decision [clears throat]

strike in total right yeah a total of anyone's thousand square feet of I would get rid of new

is that bu related to building that square footage is that building specific to building construction though or is it construction construction cuz construction could be yeah parking lots and stuff parking and yeah um I don't know square feet of uh has been developed for it's buildings right is that what you're saying Cindy it's building space 491000 of the yeah and we might want campell just to vet that number I think that might be a total that I calculated

through the chair this is Russell that number is correct it's technically about 254 feet less, but it's okay. It's probably better that you listed it 49100. And my suggestion would be to call it existing building square footage. Yeah. As of the day of this decision, okay,

there is there are 491,000 ft of existing building square footage. in at the park. The existing building square footage at the park. Okay.

The existing part is throwing me off. We're talking about them being constructed, right? But they're Yeah, like the building has been constructed. That created Yeah, that reads better to me. Okay. And then this next paragraph I think is fairly self-explanatory. I wanted to identify that since the original permits um there's been at least one new development. Um, and it just describes describes that development. I'd like that addition.

Do we know are those all are those all factually correct? Like 2008, 52 units, closest unit 40 ft. Is that all? [clears throat] Um, I vetted it, but certainly someone else can vet it. Where did we get the information? Was it in the application? Uh, that's a good question. Um, I may have done a little bit of research on my own. I I can't recall if I went to Harvard GIS. Johanna, it was not in the application. Okay. Thank you.

Like the closest unit is 40T. Is that was that an approval in the permit? Is that [clears throat] is that an actual asbuilt? Is that a foundation? Is it a deck? I don't object to to having it. I just like I Where did the facts come from? Um, I would have to go back and find it, but I either went to Harvard's um, WebGis or um, I know we got a couple letters from from the applicants and um, like I said, they're they're facts. I just can't recall what what the sources at this moment.

Does Bob have anything to add there? For the chair, I might be able to help. Russ, I'll recognize you with your hand up, but thank you. Um, go ahead.

Um, I don't have the document in front of me. I do have the permitting documents for that development in my office. Um, the zoning in that area at time of the comp permit is 45 ft setback. They were granted relief to 30 ft setback and most of the buildings lie between 37 and 41 ft. But there are a few corners that encroach as close as 33 ft. So that's the uh that and I don't believe it should all be written in this permit, but I'm just correcting as as Rich said, what are the real facts? Those are the facts.

Thank you, R. I mean I maybe you if the closest unit is not 40T like and if it's just a corner, maybe we delete that sentence. Um or we put state what the permit said. Um

um I will try and find where I got that data from. Maybe highlight it until you can confirm that. Yeah. Well, I think I think uh the applicant has stated that it's not that that there's a range. There was a a permit that approved 45 ft. Then there were a was a variance to 35 and then there's you know like I I think we heard like I just are we trying to get to a number or well I'll take the I mean happy to have the applicant provide those documents so we can get this language correct is this language necessary

relevant it's it's close to the property line and I think that's what this is trying to say to what [clears throat] again. Yeah. To to what end was what end? Statement of the facts here because when we're talking about setbacks and we will be talking about setbacks, I think this is an important fact. So, I would like to have the the uh building distances from the property line accurate. Isn't there an act? I mean, do we have a draw? Well, all right. The applicant provided a drawing.

Sorry. Go ahead. I was going to suggest simply we had a hand in drafting this background language and the purpose of this section was really just to give the permit history. Um so my suggestion would in fact be to take this language and put it somewhere else in this document rather than in the what is really just a recitation of the evolution of the park. Perhaps this is language that is more appropriately, you know, I don't even know if it's, you know, maybe when we're on the very first page discussing the subject property, where it is located, you know, I've seen in many permit decisions, um, you know, a discussion of what abudding properties are, what the site is bounded by, and maybe it's more appropriate to have it there rather than a discuss in the discussion of the background history of the permit that's being amended. However, this is a major change that has taken place since this permit was issued. So, I feel like it is pretty relevant here um because it's it's really [snorts] created a completely new site out there for us. It's it's a very different situation than it was 20 years ago.

And Madam Chair, I'm not disputing that it belongs in here. I'm just saying that for someone who, for example, would diligence this site, you know, and review the permit history, having that in the middle of a discussion of how you got from point A to point B to this current amendment, it may not fit in in this location. Thank you, Johanna. Thoughts on that? Cindy, you're the original author of that. Um,

yeah, I mean, this is background. Um, so that's what the subject header is. I'm fine. I think this is the appropriate place. Um if we create a separate section describing the site and surrounding butters, you know, that will be adding another section about how many butters are in the the radius of the site. Um I always like more facts, but I wasn't looking to do that, but um so I I think it was okay in this section for now. I I would tend to agree. I feel like this is a different situation than it was 20 years ago. Um, is it a finding fact then? Is it a finding of fact or

Madam Chairperson? I'm sorry. Go ahead, Alec. If it pleases the board, I've I've since updated the language to to read the closest unit is within 35 ft of the property line of the park at Beaverbrook. Um, if this is sufficient, regardless of where we choose to place this here or elsewhere, um, perhaps we should continue down the decision and if we find another logical point, we can always bring this over. Okay, thank you. Um, so we're highlighting a note about that, Alec, so that we can return to it.

Thank you. And I and I think what I heard is that I'm sorry Alec I know you want to move on. What I heard is there are corners like it may not be the unit itself. It may it may be a corner of it but we can come back to it.

Okay. Who's got the next comment?

Um I had tweaked this language. I'm just rereading it to see if it's uh important. Um so, so one of the questions that I generally have and why I was asking about whether this should be a new permit versus an amendment is that the way some of this background material is it speaks to what the applicant is proposing to do in relation to the an earlier proposal. Um what I was trying to do is put it more in the context of what are we seeing today. So I had revised the language to identify that the the proposal includes 446,000 square ft of new building footprint with the potential of an additional 221,500 ft of mezzanine space for a total potential of 667,500 ft with associated parking. um as opposed to reducing the total build out from 1.4 4 to 1.15 because again I'm trying to read this as if I were looking at this for the first time I wouldn't know you know really what that what that meant so I was trying to be more clear

Johanna

I would just comment that the full description along the lines of what Cindy has described actually appears at the I think the way this is formatted the next page under a section that Cindy wanted to call applicants proposal which goes goes into substantial detail about what is being proposed um by the applicant. And again, you know, the reason that the paragraph, you know, reads as it was originally drafted was because this is an amendment. And I think drawing the comparison to what was previously permitted to what is being changed, fits well within the background, and it's certainly not to the exclusion of a whole, you know, wholesome description of what is actually being proposed, you know, two paragraphs later. Yeah, I mean again I I the way I read these applications, I like to see what's being proposed, not what not what's not being proposed. But I I can move on and uh long as the description of the proposal is adequately described later. Okay. and and the first and the first five bullets of the decision on page one also has a summary of the proposal including the square footage and the parking ratio and the open space restriction.

What if we so like if we're going to add this which I understand right we're trying to describe what this does you can still leave the the sentence in the proposed master plan reduces total buildout from the previously permitted 1.5 million. Why why wouldn't we say that? That's a That's a That's a matter of fact. Yep. It It could stay. Like I said, it's uh Yeah, it it's essentially stayed in the same thing from both different directions. So, yeah. I mean, I

Yeah, you can you can if you're going to add my my insert, then unrike the uh the reduction piece. You can keep that in there. Yeah. more than what is current more than the empty field that's currently there, but less than the original plan could have been. We all comfortable with that? Yeah. And then just insert right where your cursor is there. Maybe a new sentence, the proposed master plan

and maybe it's million square feet approximately and reconfigures. Yeah. And and Okay. I don't know if you need a comma there. Um no, no comma. Are we moving on? Yep.

Yeah. The next thing I write that Alex just popped it in there. Um, again, I I like to create a baseline of uh what the development actually means. Um, so I pulled this from the, uh, primarily from the, uh, supplemental EI. Um, so, uh, I might have tweaked things a little bit just to consolidate, but these were the the things that I thought were most about the proposed development. Yeah, I I don't think it belongs in the background. Um, if we're going to do impacts, they should be somewhere in this, but probably not in the background. Um, and I'll ask findings effect.

Yeah, it could be moved to the findings effect. And I guess so. Cindy, you got this from the where? From the MEPA filing or from the application. Um, well, it's a combination probably the MEEPA filing, the application. Um, again, I tried to pull the um numerical data from either Campanelli's filing or or subsequent fi um supplemental materials or the MEPA application.

Yeah. And I don't I guess I I'll go to the same like is this still true? Like right. So the MEPA filing was two years ago. We now have an application. Like is this all still we just need to make sure that whatever we're saying here is true. Yeah, I mean happy for the applicant to weigh in on on each of these, but um if was copied verbatim, Cindy,

uh I I not verbatim. I did some math, I think. Um for instance, when they averaged the number, I took a high and a low like on the parking spaces. Um so it's not verbatim. Russ,

do you have a comment? Sure. Um, thank you. On bullet point number one, I think the wording there is is correct, but the detail is missing. So, we went through um at least three discussions with Mr. Rockwood about this, and I'll try to keep it super brief. um alteration of 28 acres of land mapped as priority habitat is correct. So I'm not going to say it's incorrect. However, we have a conservation management permit issued from natural heritage which allows us to alter this 28 acres because we preserved 78 76 other acres in the mitigation for the turtles was put in place. Without that mitigation and preservation of nesting areas, this alteration would not be allowed to take place. Um, this is located on Mass Mapper, which does not recognize conservation management permits and it also does not recognize that it's land that is developable until a building is placed there. And John explained that. Um, so I just this one here is is correct, but somebody not on this call would misunderstand the facts because there is a permit to develop that land. [snorts] I I guess um so I'm not disputing having an impact here, Cindy. I guess what might be helpful, right? So like we could tweak every one of these and you know if that's what we're going to do that's what we're going to do and fine but another way to approach it might be to get you know uh Russell had sort of

commented on that one. I don't it might be good to get sort of overall input on the whole list and then we could kind of work it workshop it but like and then we kind of move to the next thing right I don't I don't I mean it's a list of impacts I get it right somewhere that we're going to put a list of impacts let's fact check them I guess is my thought yeah I guess similar to the the the square footage of treating it from both angles. Um so as was just mentioned you know this many acres you know will be altered u

but x you know 70 something acres will will be preserved water will pour into it I guess just for clarity if we're going to spell that out I I feel like it's it's fair to spell spell it out for both directions if I may help the board through the chair Please go ahead Russ.

Um I think the remaining bullet points are and I can check it when I'm in the office but I believe the remaining bullet points are roughly correct. I mean numerically I can't fact check it as Rich said but I do believe the remainder of this is correct. There is um creation of imperous surfaces. there are trips. Um, you know, we're not going to sit here and compare it back to the Cisco project and I'm not requesting we do that. Um, these are maximum development statistics which were submitted to this board and also to the mass Meepa office. So, I do believe rough and tough that this is all correct, but I'd like to skip to the bottom bullet point. Um, and this goes to the sustainability comment at the beginning of the meeting. The town adopted the um, a stretch code in 2023. So, the stretch code, I'm not trying to change subjects, was enforced on the TVO project. It also is in force through the MEEPA office and we have participated in the stretch code in this park already and we are committed to all of the best practices for sustainability and I could read the 19 things that we did at TV but I'm not quite sure the board would want me to do that. Um so through the greenhouse gas study and through building technology in in electric heat pumps and a variety of other things there was an offset of the greenhouse gas to and I I can't provide any language that Alec should put into this document but there is an offset to building insulation uh CO2 emissions based out of the building technologies that are required per the stretch code that offset the tons of um emissions per year. So So

that gets you through most of the bullet points and that's my commentary on the final piece. Yeah. I I guess and I'll go to Chris's comment like I feel like this is the list of the horriles, right? Which I get it. There's an impact to any development, but the whole point of this extension is there are mitigations. there are responses to to these items and I feel like if we just put these items out here without having the like so like this board's going to address what the impact is. That's what our job is but like this language isn't showing that right

Cindy.

Yeah. So you know again um how we phrase this you know this is pretty directly from the media seir I think you know when you talk about impact mitigation it's important to say what are you what are you mitigating from um we can certainly tweak this language maybe I don't want to say soften it but you know put it in a little bit of context but um you know when you're proposing mitigation you know there's really no mention of what you're mitigating I agree with Russ that yes there's proposed mitigation um to reduce 300 some odd tons out of this 1392. But that's why you're doing the mitigation and you've you know the commitments that were made through the map process is that you're going to do this by um reduction on stationary and mobile sources. So it's okay you know it's great to provide the mitigation but you need some context what are you mitigating from? And I think without this context, you know, um, and again, the same thing with the donation of of land and the preservation of of land for conservation, which is wonderful mitigation, but you're mitigating impacts associated with the development. And I don't think the way the original um draft uh was crafted did it in such a way to identify what are you mitigating from. So, you know, we can work this language a little bit better, perhaps a little more smoothly, but um I think it's important to identify why you're proposing mitigation and uh that's, you know, this these were direct almost direct bullet points out of the SEIR. So, you know, I think the facts are are correct, but happy to uh to work on the language. I definitely would like to just get them double checked and um Keanyelli team, you should feel free to review them and just make sure you're comfortable with the the calculations as they're shown to. Um Johanna,

thank you, Madam Chair. Um I want to pick up on a comment that Cindy made about, you know, needing about us all sharing the goal of having this be contextual. And I'm a little bit concerned that when we start talking about using MEEPA numbers, which you know the board is aware, the MEPA process requires us to study and proper mitigation for a maximum build out. Um, and as we've said to this board many times in this master plan exercise, we are looking for permission to build up to a certain number. I'm a little bit uncomfortable when we're saying impacts as a result of the project include the following because this is based on a maximum buildout and as we've said to the board many times. Yes, it's a maximum buildout but it is not clear at all because we have not identified end users. We don't have specific buildings proposed. We don't have specific site plans. All of which will be coming back to this board in due time. um to be tagging the project with specified impacts based on an upto number when it's not clear that these that the maximum build is going to occur and that the numbers that we were required to submit to MEEPA because of the way their process works you know should be assumed to be coming to fruition here.

Thank you. Uh maybe we can identify that this is considering a maximum buildout for this. I I think I would be much more comfortable with an approach like that because right now starkly saying impacts as a result of the following include the you know impacts as a result of the project include the following. I think it's by no means certain that these will actually be the impacts of this project.

So perhaps impacts as the result of a maximum buildout for this project. I mean, I I I think we could say something like that or we can even reference the MEPA documents, but I think that we're doing a little bit of cross-pollination here that's not necessarily appropriate in in a local special permit decision. Okay. I think that does a better job of calling out this is the this is the potential top end.

Well, we've got something funny happening. Impacts as a result of the results of a max. We're doubling up there. And one more of Yeah, thank you. And if you want to reference um the the supplemental e um feel free. It is a document that I think we include we include [clears throat] as an exhibit or at least the uh yeah the certificate. I assume we referenced the uh the seir as well. You want to spell out se if that's your first reference or maybe you've referenced it already at the top. I um I've highlighted that one. I'll come back and uh spell that one out afterwards.

Great. Thank you. So, the next section that was labeled finding a fact, um, as Joh as Johanna noted, I really saw this more as the applicant's proposal. um you know we can quibble over the the headings but this felt to me that um you know it's what's being proposed and then the facts I think to in my mind should really um go to uh [clears throat] either you know well I I'll leave that for now but I I saw this more as a an applicant's proposal as opposed to finding that

um I um [clears throat] had a comment here. Well, my my I'm sorry, Cindy, go ahead. I was going to jump on the first bullet, but if you uh if you have something, you can go ahead.

No, go ahead. Um yeah, so I and this mostly I think is something to be addressed later. Um but you know the list of you know this is what the applicant proposes 94 acres permanently takeable space um which will get us to 248 acres specifically and it's all these the lot 100 this is going to the town 46 to Harvard perpetual deed uh open space restriction will be recorded I to me it's we we need to discuss the timing of these events and I I realize this is probably not the place particularly if we call this applicant's proposal there's later section where we probably want to tackle that which is in the um I think it begins on page well I don't know I have a markup so it's uh 114 on my page but it's in the it's in the additional findings section but I just want to make the point that we need in my opinion we need to address the the dates when these things happen and I think there's some work we have to do to square that way.

I think that's a good point too um as well. Uh Johanna, I would suggest only that the timing discussion um and we are very happy to discuss timing you to the extent that we've not addressed it in proposed conditions already, but the specific timing for delivery of these things feels appropriately handled in the conditions. Um, and so, you know, perhaps when we get to that section of the draft decision, we can talk about timing there. Yep. Do you want to um highlight um your question here, Rich, and then move through the other ones and see if you feel like things have been met?

Yeah. Yeah, we can highlight it. Capture the timing in the in the um conditions. I I see there's it looks like there's a section other findings, but maybe that is a conditions. I don't know. Um on the second bullet, if we're ready to move on, the one that starts with the plan includes five new buildings. Um I just inserted the aggregate um at the top there so people didn't have to do the math. So it says the plan includes five new buildings insert for a total maximum building footprint of 446,000 square ft and optional mezzanine space up to 221,500 square ft broken down as follows. And then yeah. Okay. So you see that? Yeah. At the at the bottom uh go down below the buildings. Alec the uh these buildings are anticipated to be used for R&D clean tech uh and light manufacturing. Optional mezzanine space is a conservative estimate of potential maximum buildout. I that was confusing to me. Conservative meaning it's a safe number meaning it it's like a big number or conservative meaning like it's a small number and it could be bigger. Like I just is it a max number? Like I think we just the word conservative was confusing. Is that I guess the question then would be is that mezzanine space optional is it the high that's as high as large as it would be is that what we conservative

okay so maybe just say optional mezzanine space uh is you know identified as a maximum you know potential and I see Russell has his hand up so I'm not trying to put words in what the application is it just conservative was confusing to me yeah I agree I So, I want to just make sure we're working through the board's comments before we're getting input from others. So, Russ, thank you for being patient. Uh, what did you want to add here?

Oh, no problem. Uh, chair. Um, in the first sentence, I'd like to revise these buildings are anticipated to be used for R&D. I'd like to strike clean tech. that is not a term used in your bylaw and I'd like to replace it with office because what we are doing here is we are um allowing for the same uses that the bylaw allows today which is office R&D and light manufacturing.

Thank you. Good catch. Okay, what's up [clears throat] next? Um, got a comment on the bullet that says a proposed reduction to two spaces. [clears throat] Excuse me. Um, let's see. That one. Sorry. The proposed reduction. Yeah. Okay. Um, are you just going to insert it, Alex? I got to reread it so I know what I was trying to say. [clears throat]

Yeah. So I I felt it was important to call out even though you know we appreciate that that this the reduction in spaces um you know which is a great movement towards less pvious less impervious. Um I did want to just somewhere identify the number of new parking spaces because I do think that's a something that wasn't inherently obvious. So, um there might have been an average provided by the applicant, but I think I used the uh the 446,000 as the minimum square footage and the 600,000 as the maximum and multiplied that by two and that's where I got the 892 to 1334 new parking spaces. Um but I I thought that was important to identify how many parking spaces we were talking about adding. Um

well and I guess what I was thinking is the proposed reduction to two spaces per thousand square feet and I to me and you know Campanelli is a developer of these types of uses and came in with this recommendation which probably aligns to data it has but to me like a large automated facility like is square footage really the right uh base measurement to use like the right is it you know you have a large automated facility it might be more like well how many employees are expected to be there and how many visitors um so and I don't want to micro um assess this right now but I guess my thought was it could be could it be less than two spaces and maybe this isn't the place to mention it is two spaces a maximum I know that's what they're asking for but it would be is it up to a maximum of two spaces per thousand.

I think this verbiage comes out of our bylaw, doesn't it? It Alec, I don't know if you can speak to that, but Well, we do have parking uh ratios based on the type of use and it is per it is by use and per the size of the building, which I think is may be outdated. I definitely would agree with that statement, Rich. It's been driving me nuts for a long time. [laughter]

It's it's outdated and I think it's a specific requirement. Um given on at the time it was written what the average you know if it is an office building that's a cube farm. How many spaces per square foot are you likely going to need? That's probably where the math came from. That's not what currently happens. So comment Russ, you have a comment?

Oh, sure. Thank you. I'm not sure this is necessary something for the permit, but just to help Rich's thinking in spirit, um, if we did have a facility, and we do have a couple of data centering clouds and other properties that we own, which have very little parking. Um, we deal with the reduction in parking during that site plan approval process. And if we had a user that wouldn't require the two spaces per thousand, I have a good feeling that this board would work with us to deliver the proper spaces cuz nobody wants to pave over um pvious surfaces um if they don't have to. So, I think we would just deal with a reduction of parking on a case-byase basis um if a user is is extremely lower than the two spaces per thousand. That that that works for me. That's that was my point is I think that it's this may be antiquated and it might go less. So, I'm open to a reduction at a site plan for sure.

Madam Chairperson, yes, Ellie, go ahead. Um, as the board was discussing, I did pull up your zoning bylaw. Your current zoning bylaw requires one space per 250 ft of gross floor area or a ratio of four spaces per 1,000. Okay. So, this is pulled out of that then sounds like. Okay, great. Where could you just provide the reference? I don't see the one for 4,000. I see the one for 250. uh one for 250 or that would be a rate of four per thousand. So just the math of multiplying that by um four oh sorry under which which use were you referencing?

Uh under so it's page 39 of the bylaw of the off streetet parking requirements. You'll see business professional offices, office, governmental, philanthropic shops, R&D, manufacturing, wholesale. They're all under one umbrella. starts with business. Yeah, I see it now. So, is the proposal to say allow for a maximum but um further reduction to be determined upon site plan um review for each application. I'm good with that. Yeah, that looks good to me too.

Yeah. And I'll note manufacturing is one space per employee. Plus one space for each vehicle used in operation. [clears throat]

Hold on. You didn't um reference that this number could be reduced or is proposed the proposed reduction to no more than 2.0 spaces. Do we want to memorialize a further the planning board has discretion to further reduce upon site plan review or something? We always do, don't we, madam chairperson? Yeah, go ahead, Alec.

I at this point I would like to tag in attorney Costa. So um this is a nuance of your special permit type. Your special permit type allows you to modify the zoning bylaw. Where I get a little bit shaky and where I'd like Adam's input is uh how the board could word something and where it should word something to give the board greater flexibility at a later date through a different permit type. Adam, is something like that feasible and and would it be included here or or somewhere else in the decision?

Um so so ask your question again. Would the board have the ability to do what? So, the board has discussed through here that the applicant is asking for a maximum of two spaces per 1,000 square feet. However, the applicant also theorizes that it could be even less than two spaces per thousand square ft needed. The board would like to give itself the flexibility during site plan approval to further reduce the parking requirements in the zoning bylaw. And the question is whether that needs to be stated here elsewhere in the decision or if it's outright an ability of the board at the time of site plan review.

I'm not sure it is. I'm looking through the provisions of the OCD bylaw now. It certainly is something that that the board has the authority to do to to grant relief through the special permit process. Uh, generally speaking, separate and and apart from the OCD bylaw, a special permit granting authority wouldn't have the ability through the special permit process to defer a substantive decision that it is obligated to make as part of that process to some other distinct process. if there were further special permits required or further amendments maybe. I suspect that what the applicant would need to do is if in the future in connection with making application for site plan approval for a building or a phase of the future development it's determined that the parking reduction would drop below let's say the two spaces per thousand square ft that the board has granted if this permit issues that we're looking at now the the applicant would need to make a sort of concurrent application to amend the special permit which I realize is an inconven convenience. Um, it's another application, it's another fee, it's a an opening of a of a public hearing which could could be conducted again simultaneously with the the site plan review. But but I'm I'm happy to look through I don't want to answer with certainty on the spot, but I'm I'm looking through the bylaw now and see if there's any way that I can find some sorts of authority to do that. But it it does give me it does make me uncomfortable

and I had the same I I was coming to the same conclusion. I was struggling with any language that would give them that ability. So site plan rules and regs allow us to reduce the number of parking spaces. But from what number? From the bylaw or from a special permit?

So that's a that's a fair point, Cindy, that I I wonder if maybe there's a different source of authority. So, the the the modification provisions of the OCD bylaw, and I'm sorry, it looks like I have my video off here. Didn't mean to do that. Um, so the the the provisions of 7.5.4 four that deal with modification of bylaw requirements including dimensions and parking um don't actually say that it occurs during the special permit process but I think it's implied because the preceding sections talk about the special permit process being the applicable process for obtaining an OCD um approval. Um, but maybe if there's separate and distinct authority under the site plan provisions of the bylaw and your site plan rules and regulations, then maybe you could seize upon that authority to separately reduce the requirements without the need to amend the special permit. So that might be a way around it. I'll look at those now. Okay. The reference I in the rules and regs is under 4.1.2 on the site plan rules and right.

Okay. 4.1.2. Do we want to continue and come back to this while we allow Adam to um look into this a little bit? I think that that makes some sense, Madam Chair. So, I I I

found the provision that uh that Cindy's referencing, but I've got to tie it back into the bylaw. It's not enough to have authority created in a regulation. So, let me see what I can find and I can respond uh in a few minutes. The provision right before that 4.1 references the parking shall be determined by the bylaw. So, correct. That's the Yeah. Okay. All right. We can move on. Uh do you want to flag that um Alex so we find it easily enough?

Thank you. Okay. What's the next comment? Um, okay. This was more a question that I had about um section 61 findings. The next bullet about traffic studies. So, there were two sets of section 61 findings. ones that were issued in May and one that were issued in September of 2024. I I want I guess it's a question for the applicant. I assume you want all of the um section 61 findings that were issued by DOT um because I think that's what this is listing. So I'd like you to clarify

your

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um we really only want the September 24. So Cindy, um just to address one of your questions, why were there two issues? The first one, there was a typo in it. The mass do wrote in the uh section 61 that the signal at Swanson Road and Route 111 in Codman was unsalized even though in the very next sentence they talked about the level of service at that interchange. So the word unsignalized was changed to signalized. So the September um letter supersedes the previous one. Um so that that I believe addresses the question that we shouldn't include both.

Oh, okay. I I I wasn't sure if the second letter was supposed to supersede the first, but what you're saying is it was just a typo correction. I didn't pick that up. So all of these bullet items are are the ones that were issued in the section 61 findings. Yeah, there was no there was no change to the bulleted items that you have that are in the permit below. That's correct.

Okay. And then I had a question about the um Sorry, I'm just I shrunk this down so I can see both screens. Now I can't see it. Um uh let's see. Oh yeah. So the section 61 findings required were required at the time of after the building 600 was complete and I think we had a similar finding from our traffic consultant that um that singleization needed to be done. And so my question to the applicant is this something that could be done sooner than the construction of building 600 since it was recommended by our traffic consultant to also do it. Well, um I really don't have an incentive to ask Mass DOT to change their section 61. And let me explain the reason why. Um the traffic studies that were conducted by um MDM Transportation at that signalized interchange at Swanson Road and Route 111, depending on whether you're southbound, eastbound, or westbound, there's different levels of service, A, B, C, D, E, and F. Um F is the only one considered by mass DOT as something that should be adjusted. Um at different points a day during uh peak hour it operates at levels B and C which is an average delay of 13 to 23 seconds. During non- peak hours, it it teeter totters between AB and BC with an average delay of anywhere from 13 to 30 seconds. Um, so essentially the signal operates as it's intended today and what's being asked is when more traffic is being put into the

park with additional development. And this was a traffic study done post TUV occupancy. Um so this traffic study takes into consideration all of Swanson Road, the other commercial development as well as the residential properties. Um so mass our permit our section 61 finding indicates that there's no reason to change the signal and there's a ch there's a reason to check the signal after the next occupancy. which I would prefer to just stay with the mass CMT.

Okay. Um yeah, I guess like I said, it was on a list of recommendations from a traffic consultant. Um it may have been under the build as opposed to the no to the uh no build scenario, but um I guess um Al, could you just put a pin in that? I just want to verify that the recommendation from Green International was was under the build scenario and not the uh not the no build. Um and then my only other comment here was I think um the full um you mentioned all the transportation management requirements and you might have mentioned this in your uh sorry I got to enlarge this again. Um, I think there was also a request for uh is it TMA membership? Um, I'm not even sure what transportation management association membership. Is that included as part of your um plan for um you know for your your overall traffic management plan by building by tenant?

Yeah, I have no problem doing that. I I believe, although don't quote me on this, that's part of what our property management group does and it administers and this came up in a previous hearing. And I did go back to our property manager and talking with the tenants of the park. Um, a couple of tenants several years ago were a member of of this organization. I think it's somewhat is has disbanded for the moment. Um but certainly if there's an organization that reorganize it, we have every intent to be part of it.

Can we add that as a a bullet item here? Um I think it's transportation management uh association membership if or something to that effect. if if uh uh what if in existence at a time or something to that effect. And what what will that what does that do? Does that is that like I don't know what it is. I don't know what it does. It's allows the tenants to sort of coordinate. Well, Russ can explain it better, but there's a

I think Cindy was going in the proper direction. And it's it's really a networking between um various business that are located within the region which could go into Littleton maybe even parts of West Actton and Harvard to allow a free communication to sharing car pooling or or any other types of transportation uh car pooling measures um that sort of thing. So it's a networking opportunity.

Okay. Um, all right. Next bullet. Um, so ahead of the um the sentence that's there, I I was trying to identify how much increase in wastewater. So I added a sentence that said the park anticipates an increase of wastewater maybe you want to say of up to 42,00044 gallons per day as a result of the project. Um and then I wanted to identify um right after capacity uh and a groundwater discharge permit has been received from mass D. And then I had the permit number and the date of issuance. [sighs]

Adam, go ahead. Uh thank you. So before we move on uh too far from this page and the parking requirement up above, I I found the relevant provision and it took me a little while because of the title. It's actually called reduction of paving requirements and it's not in the site plan uh approval section of your bylaw. It's in the parking section. And the title would lead you to believe it isn't really addressing number of parking spaces, but it does. And what it says is that the number of parking spaces required as well as the amount of uh off- streetet loading space that is required to be paved can be reduced by the planning board as part of the site plan approval process if it is sufficiently demonstrated that a lower lower number of spaces or a lesser amount of loading space will adequately [clears throat] serve the the needs of the development. So it's effectively a separate source of authority through the site plan approval process as opposed to through the special permit process for an OCD for the planning board to grant relief from parking. So I think that what you could do in this first highlighted boat at the bot at the top here where it refers to the proposed reduction to no more than two spaces. You could say something at the end and I can work with Alec to structure the language if it's what the board wants to do that says something like further reductions uh may be achieved by or may be requested by application to amend this decision or through the site plan approval process pursuant to section it's section 6.1.9 9, right? 6 6.1.9. So, I think that that then gives the applicant the opportunity to do either of the things that the bylaw permits it to do. seek a amendment

of the special permit or probably more easily in connection with a a site plan review application for a phase within the development ask for the board to utilize this section 6.1.9 to reduce the the requirement sure you might just want to say section 6.1.9 paving requirements of the zoning bylaw or something in case the you know numbers change that's a good A reduction of paving requirements is what it's called.

Do you want to unhighlight that because we don't need to go back to it now, right?

Well, yeah, we can unhighlight it. But what what is this sentence? This would result in the addition of between 892 and 1,334 new parking spaces. We're actually getting a reduction in parking spaces. What What am I missing? I mean, I Yeah, there's going to be new parking spaces with new buildings, but it's less than it's less than what's what would be allowed under the current bylaw or under the old special permit. So again, this was doing the math of how many at two spaces per thousand um you would get 892 to 1334 new parking spaces. However, it's reducing from the old number by if you were to have 3.3 per thousand then you're getting a reduction I guess of 942. So it's just a math exercise. I was just trying to identify how many new parking spaces would be.

Yeah, we we could say which is 892 to 1334 less than what's allowed under the current bylaw. No, that's not right. It's 940. Uh, no, that's the wrong math. The current bylaw would allow The current bylaw would allow 6700 and something and 2,600. The current bylaw is four spaces per Yeah. th,000 square feet. Like this is a huge benefit to the town and it's coming across like this is a horrible thing.

No, it's just a red. It is a reduction. I just wanted to identify what are you reducing from again without a base number. Um you know what does it mean? Well, you could say reduces impervious C. I mean, we could say by approximately 942 from what the original OS special permit was to a new number which is thousands less than the the current bylaw. Yeah, you [clears throat] can read negatively. I How does this read negatively? I mean, it says straight off the bat that um the applicant is proposing a reduction, right? It's the the red text of the the first full sentence in the red text. This

Yeah, you can you can you can take that out because we have it up up above in the impact section. So, you can just take out this would result in up to constructive. You can delete that because it's fine. And because the other thing is it was just kind of a range too, which was kind of weird, but okay. Yeah, that's better.

Well, the range is based on the amount of square footage, right? So, um Okay. So, right after the wastewater, but probably should be before the waste water, I inserted a water bullet. Um, let's see. Sorry, I lost my in my own place, but you probably have it, Alec. Um, is that a maximum number? Like, they're increasing the plant to 80,000, which was the originally approved plant before Cisco reduced it. They're not going to in I mean at max buildout they might I don't know I don't know what they're going to generate that they they need 80 thou they're going to restore the plant to 80,000. Did they say in the application that it was 42,000 at max?

I think it's it's it's at 40 now. It could go up to 80, but there isn't there isn't a volume for it to make sense to be turned up to 80. If that paraphrasing makes sense. Russ probably knows the exact details. Cindy, do you want to answer that question?

Well, again, we're just talking about what's being proposed. They did upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. It was originally permitted, I believe, for 80,000. They got a reduction because of the reduction in occupancy, but they've now gotten a permit um I believe to repermit it back to 80,000 gallons per day. But um but that's because now they anticipate an increase with the new development of another 42,000 gallons per day. So that's again maybe not worded beautifully. But was that where does the 42 come from? Is that from the application? Uh either the groundwater permit application or the NEPA application.

That's I got it from the NEPA application I believe. Yeah. I I guess that that I don't know if that's true or not. I mean, I I I'm not questioning what the MEEP application says. I just don't know. Like, all we know is they're they're well, we know what's in the MEEP application. At max buildout, is it 40? Are they going to use the full capacity? Is that what that means? That we would have they would have to go to if they use another 42,000 gallons, they'd be at 80,000. Is that the math, Cindy? Yes, that is the math. Correct. And is that what happens? I don't know.

Well, the point is that they've increased their permit to allow for potential increase in capacity back to what their original permit was. Again, this could be probably word a little bit better. Um but well it could be the park's the the sentence they had the park's private wastewater treatment plant will be restored to its original from its current 80,000 to its or 40,000 to its original 80,000 and not get into how much water they're going to actually use unless they know the number and if it's 42,000 okay but that means they're going to use that plant at max capacity plus there's water I think well this is waste water sorry

that's waste Again, it's it's just the math and we can make it worded a little bit more smoothly, but I think it's important to note that yes, they've increased the treat treatment plan is now back to its original 80,000, but I thought it was useful to understand what's being contributed as a result of the proposed project, which is 42,000 gallons plus or minus per day. So,

you have something to add to this? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, in the black sentence, the the park's private wastewater treatment plant will I'd like to get rid of the word will that has been completed. It has been restored to its 80,000. So, just a small bit of history, the wastewater treatment plant and the groundwater discharge are two separate permits from D. [clears throat] um both were right in the 80,000 gallon per day range from Cisco. Cisco um DP changed the standards for the wastewater treatment facility um back in DP changed the new criteria. Cisco in 2018 did not want to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility and D knocked them down to some gallons per day of 40,000. When we purchased the property, we worked with D to make those improvements and make the investment and those those improvements have been made to the wastewater treatment plant and they're in place. So everything's in place to be a facility for a capacity of 80,000. And what really happens here is very similar to everything that happens in this park. We we need and the MEEPA office, your office, your peer review is always need to look at a maximum scenario and that makes total sense. Um but I think I don't I don't know if it was Chris or someone else mentioned earlier. Um there is a significant reduction in reality in the 425,000 square ft that is occupied today give or take. Um we probably generate about anywhere between 4,000

gall to 6,000 gall per day of waste water. Not even remotely close to 10% of the capacity at almost half the park. But that's a that's the very difference between maximum traffic and actual traffic. Maximum water and actual water. So the bottom line is we have a permit from D to operate at 80,000 gallons per day wastewater treatment and groundwater discharge. How how it gets worded is fine. I don't think the 42044 has any relevance anymore. I think Cindy got that from a MEPA application. And when that application was filed, we did not have our D approvals to go above the previous statutory limit. Now we have all of our approvals and permits for the 80,000 gallons per day. Yeah. And I So I think what I just heard is that the park is running now at a fra a much lesser percentage than full capacity at each of the facilities. So, I'm not sure saying 42,000 is correct.

Well, just like the max numbers that we talked about in project impacts, and maybe we've already used this number up above, but um you know, they're going to build five buildings, but we're if we're if we're still the reviewing board, we're going to see one building at a time, right? So, we it's I just thought it was useful to understand what the max well, the treatment plant has a max capacity of 80,000 gallons. I thought it would be useful to understand and again I did pull this from the MEPA application which was you know essentially the max amount of increase as a result of this project. So you know we can round the numbers but it seems a useful number for folks to have um the amount of increase related to the project and it and you know all it's all good that the uh the permits been updated the effluent requirements I think are more stringent now and they they're meeting those. So, you know, it's uh

however you want to see it. What project are you referring to? The five proposed buildings as part of the master plan. Oh, I mean, I think it's a result. Well, all right. It's not a project yet. Like, it's not a project until it's a it's an open space special permit right now. It's a master plan. You have to consider master plan. Um, sorry, I'm seeing Mark White's hands. Go ahead. Um, I got a question for Russ. Uh, right now the wastewater treatment plant is operating at what gallons per day.

As we all know in the world of remote work, Monday and Fridays are the light days. It could be anywhere from in the $4,000 r 4,000 gall per day range with 500 less or 500 more on Tuesdays through Thursdays. It operates in the five to 6,000 gallons per day range.

So basically the way I look at this is I would take the first sentence and put it at the end. The park's private wastewater treatment plant has been restored to its originally thousand gallon gallons per day capacity all the way to the end of the sentence. the uh yield it yields a net uh I don't know how to put it in in the right words here but but what I'm trying to get at is it's a lot less than it than the 8,000 gallons per day capacity for which it was originally permitted. So I I just want to put I mean the way I'm seeing these reading is all this is added all this is added water increase in water use and that's true but it's also got to be put in light of what was permitted previously. These are less the numbers are less. So it's a net savings. It's not. It makes it sound like it it's this big net increase from what it is today. Maybe it is, but it's not uh it's a decrease from what was originally permitted, from what it could be. Um if it was done some other way than with a uh than with this special permit. So I I think it's important here to balance the statements. Um and the following the same thing will require an increase in water use of so many gallons per day but is that a net increase or is is it more than than the original permit called for? And I think the answer is no it's less uh and al also coming from a different source. So these two things, I don't know how to wind this sentence up that speaks to the

increase over today's use, which is 4 to 6,000 to uh 40 to to 42,000 gallons per day, which is still well under the 80,000. So is that correct, Russ? I believe it's correct. Um, you know, I hear I hear what you're saying completely when you compare it to the the Cisco intended project versus our project in every capacity. It's it's a reduction.

Well, that's what the point, right? But they still have the ability to operate at the max, right? Right. And I think that's what we're trying to just ident like identify here, Cindy, if I'm not mistaken, like the maximum master plan capacity, right? Yes. And I think, you know, again, I'm not trying to be so

there's not supposed to be an opinion here. It's just the facts, right? So, let's just clean it up in a way that that states the fact that the they said that was their language that it's been uh restored to its original capacity, but what does that mean, you know, or whatever. But um again, this was really just trying to get the facts out there. And if we can state it in a different way. They were always designed for 80,000. They went down lower. They're now designed again for 80,000. Let's you could keep it to the to the plant capacity. It restored to its original uh 80,000 GPD capacity from its prior operational capacity of 40,000. Like let's talk about the capacity of the plant.

So that's one second. Because that capacity they have a permit on it like they could like they can that can be used to that capacity. Right now 80,000 that's allowed today. This permit has no bearing on that capacity. This will enable future development, but frankly they could do that anyway. So like it it sounds like this is a bad thing and this is actually a good thing. But anyway,

again, it's not this is neither good nor bad. This is just a factual statement that came out of, you know, what they anticipate. The master plan calls for an additional increase of 42,000 gallons per day and the and the plant has been uh upgraded to accommodate that amount. However you want to say it,

well, again, the way I add up the numbers though, if they're working at 4 to 6,000 now, and they're going to increase at 42, that that that means that they'll be well under the 80,000 gallons capacity. It's not about I mean yes it's it whatever they generate is fine but the master plan my point is the master plan is suggesting an addition of 42,000 gallons per day and of of of new waste water I guess incremental waste water that's all but Cindy as long as they stay under their original permit

allowable piece then I'm just not sure like does that matter I guess because they're permitted for Correct. Um yeah, I mean, you know, if you want to strike it, you can strike it. It's again, it's just a fact of of what the master plan is generating. Um you know, five new buildings. Strike it because it's we don't even know what it's going to be. I think that's a relevant point too is that we don't really know what that's going to be

and each step of the way as they permit each building then we'll be looking at that closely. Yeah, that that's where I was going with the project statement. Right. This is a master plan. projects will materialize from this and determine actual like at current usage at 40,000 they they could have eight times as many eight times as much use as they currently have and they wouldn't even have to go above 40 and honestly in in previous projects not this one in particular I mean we never been able to nail that number down

to [clears throat] where I feel comfortable honestly we always presented with a very wide range. And I guess I'd follow on the next sentence then the the next paragraph which is same thing there. It's it's the same type of statement up front. Um I'd strike that first sentence. Well, I think it's gerbane to identify what the water use of a master plan of a, you know, of a major development project is, you know, as I would say, it's important to understand what the wastewater generation is. Um,

well, maybe it's the park is it will require the the you know, the park at maximum buildout, right? The park would um, you know, that's fine. Yeah, you you can use the maximum. I think that's clarifying language. That's fine. I think as long as we're identifying what is the allowable use, Cindy, I think that kind of just that that hits it, right? That could could require an increase, right? It depends on each use, right? But an increase of up to 36,000.

Okay. Again, I'm pulling these numbers from what they've submitted. If you want to say uh you know up, yeah, a maximum buildout could require an increase if that's fine. I'm I'm sorry if this if that was in the application, my apologies. Then then that's the number. If if it's from somewhere else, I think I don't know. [clears throat] Is this like taken verbatim from the application? Because if it is, I guess I'm I don't have an issue with that.

Julian is shaking her head. I if I may madam chair just to clarify I believe that these numbers are again coming from the MEEPA submission and as I indicated earlier I'm uncomfortable that using these numbers is a bit misleading just because MEPA does require us to study maximum buildout. I don't think that you can necessarily extrapolate from that that we will require an increase in water use or that we anticipate an increase. It's that we were asked to study because the regulations say we have to what the maximum would be. But as we sit here at the master plan stage, all we can say is that's the maximum. It doesn't mean that we anticipate that something is going to be this way. We don't have end users identified yet. And I don't know that again that it's accurate to say that we will require an increase of X, Y, Y, and Z because again these things are just not known at this time. And this is I think the danger of conflating what is required to be studied under MEPA with what we are actually going to end up doing on the site. And so I think precision of language is important. I'm not saying that the numbers don't necessar don't have to shouldn't be in here, but what I'm saying is if they are then I think they need to be appropriately contextualized.

Uh how about at maximum buildout the park anticipates an increase in water use for up to 36,000 gallons. Would that 36 thou th,000 yeah gallons would that suffice? Perhaps something like assuming maximum buildout the wastewater would be up to or something like that.

May

and I don't even know that require would be the right word. It's just you know may increase water use. Yeah. Oh, strike of. Yeah,

but again I put that at the end, not at the beginning. Cindy, how are you feeling about that? Yeah, I'm just rereading it. Looks okay.

Okay, I'm comfortable with it as well. Russ, do you have a comment? Sorry, is there a comment coming? Russ, did you have a comment?

Okay. Um, thank you, Alec. I my um I lost connection in getting back in. Alec needed to um allow me to speak. So thank you Alec. Um with relation to this maybe maybe just a small clarification when these applications are prepared by our engineers um everything is compliant to D title 5 standards. Um so for example if if we went to um the statement that you were just talking about um a maximum wastewater per D title 5 standards would be this um it's kind of like code when you build a building a structural beam is sized at 80% higher than what the load it actually handles. So in this case both our water and septic are sized at I forget the factor of safety and conserviveness but it's significantly more than 50%. So we don't anticipate these flows. It's per mass D title 5. If the authors wanted to add that language where it was convenient that's fine. Um whatever the board's comfortable with based on that I think it's misleading. I I would strike it. I I mean that's not what's happening. That's a that's a it that gets back to the point that they have a permit for 80,000, you know, and and you know, again, I don't know on the water usage, Russ how that applies there, but you know, these are these are permitted amounts there which are get back to that word conservative, like very conservative. I I think it's misleading.

I say strike it. I'm sorry. What What is misleading about it? I mean, this is what I I don't like the term misleading anyway, but um

Well, it's misleading in that it it's saying that it could be up to this much wastewater. And what we just heard is that the plants designed a title 5 requirements which basically require that you almost double the capacity. I don't know what the exact math is, but it they they require a a design to and a permitted capacity that far exceeds what the practical uses. Um, so I I think that if we say, "Oh, this, you know, this is going to be another 46,000 gallons of waste water and that's the narrative." It's it's not it's it's misleading because that's the it's permitted for another 46,000. It doesn't mean there's going to be 46,000. In fact, there very likely will will not be. So, I'm just concerned that we're I I appreciate where the data came from and then hearing that point on Title Five. I'm very concerned that we're we're we're not we're the numbers aren't telling the story.

Well, you can say, you know, it's it's permitted up uh it's permitted to its maximum capacity under Title 5. That's fine. But I do think that having some numeric numbers whether it's the max or not is is useful. Um so people have an order of magnitude. Um so if you want to say up max you know it's permitted to its max capacity that's fine but you have to say what the capacity is that's all. Um I agree with having the capacity in there. Yeah I'm fine with the capacity. It's just the when we start talking about the actual usage of things is where I I think it becomes

not right there. They they entered in agreement for 40,000 gallons a day. If they don't use it, then great. That That's the maximum. That's the maximum right there. if they're not using their well to supplement which we I'm not sure whether they are or not but um so is the assuming maximum buildout the park may increase so now now you've got the 40,000 which is the like why don't we just leave it at that and get rid of the assuming maximum buildout the park may increase water use up to they've entered an agreement for 40,000 gallons a day they're going to you know I it's like now we got two numbers we're staring at

I don't like the words assuming and May. Okay. Th those don't belong here. Can you go up to the one above it?

That's good. Right tur just what it is. Um, so all right, if we want if we keep the language in and take out the assumption and the last statement, I guess my question to Russ would be, is the um is the water line going to be your only source of water or are you still proposing to use your well in addition to that? Go ahead, R.

Thank you, Cindy. Um, so I have two comments. one about the language on the very bottom of page five and then and then clearly your your question. So what I would like to say here is the applicant has entered into an agreement with led for 40,000. We have not entered into agreement. I just want to be transparent on that. The intermunicipal agreement between Boxboro and Littleton assigns 40,000 gallons per day to the park. And that was a study done by L Littleton Electric and Water Department before the pandemic based on usage and and title 5 requirements. So we don't have an agreement. So I just want to be clear about that and we never will. we will sign a contract with them to to connect to their system when the system is ready, but we don't have an agreement. So, that's so that's just a little clarification. Um, as far as the water needs, um, I don't [clears throat] I don't personally I don't think even at full build we'll ever need 40,000 gallons per day. However, we've had extensive negotiations with Littleton Water that in the light of a full buildout here cuz we are we are not an industrial business park. We won't be using water to perform industrial activities. If we did, we would have to collect that water in a tight tank through an industrial process and remove it from the site, not allow it to go into our groundwater discharge. Um, so I never see us even getting close in reality. But the key to Cindy's question is if we did um Littleton has surplus capacity and an amendment would

need to be made to the intermunicipal agreement to allow further water to come to our park. Littleton would be satisfied with that because they sell water. They'd love to sell more water. Um, however, we don't need to adjust the intermunicipal agreement until there's a need. Personally, I don't think there will be a need. Um, so does that answer your question, Cindy? Um, yeah, I was just sorry, while you were talking, I was also checking my notes and I apologize if I mischaracterized. I thought you had prior said that you actually had an agreement with them. So, apologies if I mischaracterized. No, that's okay. These are complicated matters,

but I I guess my my question was, will you supplement? Is it possible you'll continue to use the the well um once you connect to the water line, will you continue to use the well to provide water to your tenants? The quick answer is no because because essentially uh the the as we all are struggling with and is the PAS infestation throughout the groundwater in the region is in our well and that's why we're working with Littleton to have a municipal uh water plant filtrate the water for PAS uh contaminants. [clears throat] So the answer is no. Um I don't see that in the in the future. Okay. Um, so all right, let's just clean this one up. I guess if we take out the last sentence, uh, I think that probably

good suffices to provide some context as to how much water the project will need and how much waste water the project can discharge. But I I guess it does beg the question, if you're only bringing in 40,000 gallons a day, but you've upgraded your plant to 80,000 gallons a day, there's there's a mismatch there. But if that's a subject for another day, I understand.

So, Alec is putting in my next comment about the drainage. Um, sorry, I got to catch up with you. Um, yeah. So, this statement about um drainage systems and utilities were adequate um with upgrades planned as needed. Um, I guess, you know, we don't have a professional opinion that they are. We assume the park is operating to date um because each of the site plan approvals have improved the drainage systems. Um there was no mention about um any specific storm water management. So I guess I um wanted to identify it that it it'll either be addressed um during site plan review, but I I just wanted to call it out because we do need to make a finding on [clears throat] this particular topic. fine with this.

Yeah, I'm not hearing an opposition. So, let's keep moving. Keep moving.

Okay. Inserted the uh per the master plan on this next bullet. fine with that. Yep.

Yeah, this was language I inserted. Um, I just wanted to be clear that while, you know, certainly it's appreciated that the the easement was granted, I just wanted to acknowledge that, uh, you know, the applicant did receive a payment or a fee um, for that easement. Is that true?

Chris, did you make a comment? Yeah. Sorry, dog is whining. Uh is it is that germanine to to this permit? Sure. Shows that they might need to Okay. through. I would say I believe it was part of the record. I think the ement agreement was provided and I actually changed for which it received to for which the applicant paid an $80,000 fee. No, they were they were paid a fee. Well, who was who was pay who paid the fee?

The applicant. No, the applicant paid an an 80,000 fee, right? I think they were paid. Russ Russ has his hand raised. Russ, you want to clarify?

Yeah, sure. No, Mark. Um, Littleton Light paid Campanelli $80,000, which was a fee that Littleton Light appraised the value of the land, which they were entitling via an easement for the 9.1 mi of pipeline through our property. Um, so that was great. I mean, that they paid us a fee. They'll get the 80,000 back in spades when we need to award them about 1.6 6 million in the next 6 months. So, um that that we did receive a fee. Did you say how many how many m I I thought I heard a bigger number. 1.8 miles or

He just said 9.1 1.9 miles. 1.9. I just flipped them around. That should be 1.9. Whoever's got that? I thought it was 1.8. No. Well, I actually the 1.8 was in the original language. So maybe whatever the right number is, I believe it at 1.8. It's fine. Yeah. Um I just had a question. How many kilowatts do the breakers, you know, I don't I I can't convert amps, but I was curious if you could if you knew how many kilowatts those were.

Yeah, I talked to my electrical engineer extensively about this, and I really after talking to him, you can't convert amps and kilowatts. They're not they're not compatible to one another. But we spent a lot of time on this and I don't really one part of me says I don't think it's part of this permit. But what I can tell this board is um the existing solar array is connected to building 500. It is leased to the occupant of building 500. They came to the site because they could offset their electric needs because they were leasing as part of their real estate lease a electric generation source. The energy potential that that solar array uses the the tenant uses about 60% of it. The tenant occupies about on average about 44% of their space. So if they occupied even their space at 60 70 or 80% which which I hear they they're pulling people back into their office. I see that solar array being used at 80 to 90% its capacity. Um there's there's not a a means in which I can provide an answer to your question.

Uh I I can appreciate that. I think um you know when we're looking at overall energy efficiency um and more for lay persons um to understand you know we generally talk in terms of kilowatt or kilowatt hours um so you know I understand if you don't have a a transferable number I wasn't able to calculate it either so I'm not an engineer um but I was just curious as to what percentage of the total usage of the building and and you know that might be data that would be useful to understand going down the road as the plan as the park develops out, you know, what kind of efficiencies? I know you said TUV is incredibly efficient. It would be good to have some understanding of, you know, what does that what does that really mean? How much, you know, how much are you saving through these new technologies in terms of, you know, kilowatt uh kilowatt hours, you know, over what you would have paid if you were fossil fuel driven, that kind of thing. So, I think it's important information for the for the board to understand, but um I understand.

Yeah. I I will tell you on a request to go to Intel to get their electric bills, the answer will be no. Okay, all good.

Um, this next one I was just trying to uh sort of uh make this a little more understandable in terms of uh um you know, I've just simplified it. Basically, a range of 780,000 to 1.43 43 million depending on the amount of buildout and the valuation of the buildings. Um I think you provided us some data that's probably in the record on the uh cost per the amount per square footage. So I didn't think it was necessary to include it here unless others feel otherwise. Is that the number 780 to 1.43? I was looking at the Is that where we landed? I um yeah 1.43.

Yeah, that was in the original 1.43. I would I would just put um at today's valuations. Put it Yeah, put it to date that like at you know in in $225, right? The taxes are going to go up. Sorry, Russ. [laughter] How about at the date of this decision? There you go. As of the day this is what we wrote before. Yeah. I last I heard our taxes are probably not going down. So, and they're not staying the same. Go.

Okay. How are we doing on time, Rebecca? We are. Yeah. 9:08. So, we got 22 minutes to keep moving through this. Let's get as much done as we can tonight. OCD. So this is the section that I titled the findings of fact. But again we don't have to worry about the structure right now. We can move on. But this is the section that kind of goes through the criteria, right? Is that how we typically do it? We do a findings of fact and and respond to it by section. Yeah. Is that a yes? Sorry.

I I said yes because that's what I think it is. Okay. I don't mind if you do OCD criteria slashfindings of fact if that's more helpful. I don't think it makes any difference and my first comment here comes up on uh special permit criteria which I oh I guess that's a separate section. Is that right? Right. So

yes, the applicant has structured this first addressing the criteria of the open space commercial development special permit and then of the generic special permit criteria. So prior to 7.5.6 I think there we needed to make findings on 7.5.4 4 and 7.5 and maybe uh so this language I pulled as you see here from the uh from the decision 0101. Um, but this is a finding and I'm not sure yet that the board has made this finding. So, I just wanted to put the language in there.

Any objection to this stuff? And then my question was about the last sentence about the 50-ft vegetated buffer around the perimeter of the site. Do we have verification that that is in fact the case? Because that is a requirement of um this section.

Not a question to me. Uh Rebecca, I I'm assuming you can answer it maybe. Um, I looked at that quickly when this came through. Um, and the answer is yes. If you need if you need Kelly Engineering to provide you a drawing, we can do that. Um, but the answer is the perimeter boundary complies to the previously issued permits for the um existing buildings and the buildings yet to be built um will comply. So, yeah. Rebecca, did you want any documentation on that or

um I I don't know that that's necessary. I mean, they have it says they need to comply with it, but Well, we're making a finding that it does comply. So, I guess um even just a a letter or something maybe. I don't know. It's just a Russ, would you be willing to provide something for that for the board members as a document?

Yeah. No, the the one area I want to point out is um building 200 and building 300 do not have a 50ft vegetated buffer um because they were approved under the previous OCD where there was only this the rare setback is 25 ft. So we can put that in the letter. Um, but clearly what we're proposing going forward will have a 50-ft vegetated buffer or greater to the remaining lots. But I but the pre-existing construction as I said to you complied to the pre-existing regulations. Um, Adam, could we could we kick that to you just to verify? I just want to make sure we're on the right side. is that requirement. Again, this is amendment of a prior permit. I want to just make sure we're um

Yeah, I I I'll have to confirm that. Um but I I've I've made note of it. Thank you. Yep. Um you want to make note that there's a a document forthcoming or is that necessary here? We just we got the verbal. We'll have it before our next meeting. Sure, we can we can put um something together for you. Thank you, Russ.

The I like I don't object to this, but like just for the record, like this is repeating what's in other parts of this decision, right? Not the not the 50ft vegetative buffer per se, but like the 94 acres, the 154 acres, the 71% of land like this format. Huh. Sorry, those are the requirements of this particular criteria.

Okay, it's it's in so it also shows up in B proposed buildings are designed in harmony with natural features. So I'm just like you know will result in 248 acres or 71% of the overall site being preserved. I mean these are like I don't know we're re we're restructuring this I think is what's happening. Just for the record, like this like this isn't this is already here somewhere, right? We're we're going to move it from somewhere else. Is that what we're doing? This was this was in the prior decision 0101. Um and it references this section and it seemed like good practice to include it as it is I think a criteria we need to find for it.

I'm fine, Cindy, but it's meant the same stuff is in other places in this decision is my point. So yeah, similar language is is under several of the uh criteria. That's probably something that we should fix, but it probably should be included here as a criteria, right? Can I add something, Rebecca?

Yes, please, Adam. Um so so you know part of the challenge here is the manner in which this decision has been structured and gone through multiple revisions by different board members with a with a typical decision and and this is a complicated one right because not only is it sort of this master special permit for an OCD but it's also got a couple of predecessor permits that you're building upon. And so you wouldn't typically have a half a page or I guess we're now getting closer to a page uh called background at the outset of the decision. You wouldn't typically necessarily have two and a half two pages of findings of fact that are sort of general or generic findings of fact before you make your findings of fact on the criteria that you're applying the OCD criteria and the general special permit criteria. You would usually just provide procedural background and then skip straight to the criteria that the board is tasked with applying. But because of the background and the context in which this application arises, you provided a lot of that context that that that background that information that sets the stage for the more specific findings you're making as they relate to the individual criteria. So I don't think there's any harm in doing that so long as you're consistent. Certainly, there's no harm in repeating certain findings within different criteria, whether they be within different criteria under the OCD bylaw or uh between OCD bylaw criteria and general special permit criteria. Um, that's fairly common because you've got you've got some overlapping criteria here in the two different sections of your bylaw. So it's not unusual that certain project components might fulfill multiple criteria which you're tasked with applying. So I don't have too much of an issue with the duplication.

Certainly it adds a lot of bulk to the decision. Um and that's the downside that you end up with a much more verbose decision than you would otherwise have. Um but at the same time I think that you know there there's some rationale um some justification for that in these circumstances. Maybe once we've gone through and achieved a consensus amongst board members or we think we have uh on what the decision ought to say, then maybe Alec with my assistants um and maybe the chair's assistance can sort of walk through a more final version of the decision and see if we can pair down some of the repetitiveness if things are being said multiple times and they don't need to be.

Perfect. Yep. I think that sounds great. Yeah, I don't mind it here. I mean, you know, I see what Cindy's trying to do. She's trying to address address the OCD OCD criteria specifically. And if we go down it here, and if we work out the bugs here, then the bugs are going to be worked out when we bump into it again down below. So, I don't mind it being repetitive. And if Adam and and Alec and Rebecca can then strip it down, that sounds like a perfect way to go. So, let's go through it. in the next 12 minutes.

All right. So again, I did the same thing for section 7.5.5. Um just uh restated the um the text from the criteria. Um that was a a response that uh Adam Costa provided us last time when we talked about um you know how do we know if it's uh [clears throat]

um how it meets the the um sorry I'm just looking at the language here limited to the amount of development that could be constructed in full performance with all zoning. I think the applicant provided us um with some F calculations which I couldn't find in the record. I hope Alec that you have them somewhere because I couldn't find them. But um so we may want to refer to those numbers but that was the intent of adding this section and and for my question last last meeting. Um so that was 75 and then uh I just don't like that last sentence where the maximum square feet is in doubt. The maximum square feet of what? And it

square feet of development. That this is exactly the language that's in the bylaw right now. Okay. That's in our bylaw. Okay. I just I just cut and paste it. We may want to remove that, but um that's a finding again that we have to make. So, no, fine.

Sorry. [clears throat] And then uh what's the next one? Oh. Um, and again this this applicant in that sentence in red, the applicant demonstrates that under current zoning, the applicant,

right? So, this was my my ability or my attempt to address this finding by saying yes, they've they've they've met the um by right amount, but I think the number instead of the square footage as as Adam provided us last time was associated with the floor area ratio. So, I'm really not sure whether this statement is correct anymore. I don't know. That last sentence is confusing as hell. I don't I don't think I mean I I can't quite parse it.

I can't parse it either. So, so we either have to strip it down or take it out. So, I don't know how you condense that sentence. Also, it's worded weird. You know, by right development is 40, you know, including just which is Yeah.

So, I guess uh again Adam helped us last time. We said you know you can use floor area ratio not because I said but they didn't really provide us with a by right development example other than what was in the the uh supplemental environmental impact or the single environmental impact report. So, I was using that example, but I think um the floor air ratio I don't know, should we use both um Adam or what what's the uh the main uh driver here to I I demonstrate that they've met this criteria.

So, I think you've got the numbers right. I I also don't know that I can take credit for having provided all that guidance. I think it was sort of a group discussion and the applicant had also provided some information and really had provided the numbers because I didn't have them. Um, and if these are the correct numbers I that took up a substantial portion of the last meeting we discussed that at length. Um, if these are the correct numbers and I think that they can be included here, but I I I also am having some trouble following what the sentence is saying because it doesn't it doesn't quite read right. So, um I think what you're trying to say is that the applicant has demonstrated that it could construct by right 447,300 square ft.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. And that the place that they showed us was this figure that was in the environmental impact report. However, they subsequently provided us with F numbers that I think also demonstrated that they are allowed to build um this amount of uh square footage based on floor area ratio,

right? So, so maybe maybe we can just take a crack, Alec and I can do it and then maybe um attorney Schneider can take a look at it too and and maybe just try to work on uh stating this in a manner. I don't I don't want to be responsible for putting the numbers together and and and writing a statement that is inconsistent with what uh is is actually can actually occur. So, um I think we can work on trying to fine-tune this so that it it reads more smoothly and is accurate.

Yeah, I wrote this even before last meeting's um discussion. So, I'm fine with that if you guys can work that out. Okay. OCD criteria. Yeah, it's putting in the edits that I provided. Uh Cindy, you had a comment here. Uh condition tree planting is proposed to help reduction of GHG per MEPA commitments. How do we know what extensive landscaping means? Need a

specific commitment. Thank you. I might say that it's tough to tell until we see what we have for an actual building. Um would be my concern.

So Rebecca, are you saying that would be addressed um at second review? I I mean I think the fact that this says extensive landscaping gives us um plenty to work with in my opinion. I mean um yeah that almost becomes a criteria for site plan review of yeah it's hard to say what the like the building is. We don't know exactly where the building's going to be. I mean it's it's just hard to say how you would have to navigate that. C can I make a suggestion, Madam Chair? Yes, please.

So, I I I think I might just word it a bit differently. I'm I'm I'm concerned with um conditions of an approval in the context of a special permit that are sort of vague or ambiguous. Yeah. um from the from the from an applicant's perspective and ultimately from a court's perspective, you'd look at something like this and say, "What's extensive landscaping mean?" And although this is a, you know, anticipated to be, I imagine, a quite a profitable project if if all of these various components or phases are built out. And I don't think that this is something that would cause um great concern for this particular applicant. But if I'm an applicant that u maybe has a more borderline project that could be profitable, could could be uh marginally profitable and I see a condition that says extensive landscaping will be will be installed. I don't know what that means. Does that mean I have to spend $10,000 in landscaping or does that mean I need to spend $110,000 in landscaping? And without that certainty, I might find myself in a position where I have to challenge the decision, challenge the condition of approval because I don't know what's meant by it. And um if you if we were in a traditional special permit context, what I would say to you is we need to work through those details now. That's what the permitting process is for. If you want specific landscaping, you have to specify what that landscaping is. is you have to ask the applicant to produce a landscape plan, you have to specify species and heights and planting schedule. And but because this is a master special permit with site plan approvals to follow and because you have all that authority in the context of site plan approval, you don't even really need to flex your muscle now because you're going to have the opportunity to do that later. So, you might just phrase this differently if you if you you could you could eliminate it alto together in my opinion, but if you if you want your your positions to be known as board members that listen, we're looking at this and we're really thinking there's going to be a need for some significant

landscaping and we want to put the applicant on notice that when they come in for site plan approval, they should expect to come in with a comprehensive landscape plan. You could say something like, "The board anticipates that as part of the site plan approval process for phases of future development, extensive landscaping may be necessary to screen and buffer the projects from adjacent land uses, something like that. So now you're putting them on notice, but you're not putting out this vague condition that you have to put in extensive landscaping to which they they can't respond. So this is a um a criteria finding in the criteria not a actual condition Adam. So I just want to make sure this is the right place for that um as opposed to a condition. I I just want to make sure we're in the right place here.

Yeah. So I I I'm not really sure entirely where it ought to go. I mean that the way that the sentence read before it's that extensive landscaping will be installed. And um I guess you could you could read that to say that that's an affirmative statement telling us what we know that they're going to install extensive landscaping. Therefore they meet this criterion. But it sounds a whole lot to me also like a condition of approval which again as you said doesn't shouldn't find itself in this part of the decision should find itself in the conditions of approval that that come later. So you know I think we can say it here, we can eliminate it here and say it later. Um I think the objective here with respect to establishing expectations and uh also putting yourself in a position yourselves in positions as board members where later you can say to an applicant we we we put you on notice you that you were expected to come forward with an extensive landscaping plan. I think it just needs to appear somewhere in the decision whether it's here whether it's in the conditions whether it's in both locations. Not sure that it matters if it's reduced to writing uh and constitutes notice to the applicant of what the board anticipates.

Well, if I may, I'm going back to the MEPA process where you know that was also used as part of the redu proposed reduction of greenhouse gases. Um so, you know, I do think it's important to have that hook. um you know extensive to me means it's going to help in the reduction of the greenhouse gases and you know ultimately would want to see some demonstration of that but it's not the only thing that would help reduce it. So I do think it's important to identify it here and I I think I include it in my list of conditions as well.

Cindy, what are they they do identify it. I'm I'm struggling with what we're talking about. The the the proposed language says extensive landscaping extensive landscaping will be installed to provide buffering and shading for vehicles and building occupants. What what are we talking about? Well, I think that's Adam's point is that there's there's that's a loosely worded statement, right? But we're going to require it. It's it's a part of a site plan approval. Yeah. It's it's basically making itself. So that's language the applicant put in. So that's basically them cons conceding to extensive landscaping be being part of a condition of site plan.

Yeah. I'm not going to come back to this special permit to point to oh we said extensive site plan. I'm going to look at the site plan where it says substantial buffering and I'm going to rely on that. Right. But a condition of this approval. Right. Well it's in here so I'm fine. We don't have to debate it. I I I would just take instead of will be maybe turn it to May. I think it will be. Um it's it's a huge building at its maximum mark that at least in a few cases is going to need a lot of screening.

Yeah. And they say that they say extensive landscaping will be installed. So I mean that I would just use their language. their language. Okay. So, just use the word anticipates. It's that's the change to it. That latter part, the grammar sentence. Yeah. Ordinance anticipates extensive landscaping will be installed. Okay, perfect. To provide buffering. Yep. Does extensive need to be capitalized? Probably not.

Used to be the first. It was the first word. Is board always capitalized. Alec, can you go back up again? So the board do we always capitalize board? It's referring to the planning board. Yes.

Okay. I could remember. Sorry. All right. So, not to be redundant, but when things that are in these findings, do we have to turn them all into conditions? In other words, the five public spaces, you know, should those be re restated under the condition so that they're all in one one place? I would think yes, but I just commitments that are being made in the findings should also be conditions. So, that needs to make sure that happens. Do we say that this 23.5 acres appears somewhere else? Right. You're just trying to call it out here. Uh yeah, sorry, just jumped ahead. Yep.

So, I'm noting that it's past 9:30, but if we could just push through this section if everybody's okay with that just to finish it up. It only goes up to F. Yeah. My concern, Rebecca, is we're let's see what time do we start. Not we're two and a half hours in and we haven't gotten to the meat and potatoes of what we need to talk about, which is the timing of all the different pieces. I feel like we're just dragging ourselves through the mud on a lot of detail here, but I'd hate to end this meeting and not have at least had that conversation. Yeah, we we tried to expedite it for for the board um and the um the applicant. Unfortunately, that wasn't received very um positively. So, um here we are. We're going to have to go through this process here. So, um it's just, you know, I don't want to commit everybody to a midnight night. I

mean, honestly, I'd rather do that than drag the drag the process out. more months. Well, I think we're through this section almost. Yeah. Did you have any other comments in that section, Cindy? Or anyone for that matter? Where are we? We're on E F. I was good through through this section. F. Yeah, through F. My first comment is uh

Hold on. I did have a comment on E. Um that last sentence about the additional open space to be restricted is contiguous to the existing open space. Um I guess it was a question about lot 800. Um I guess it's not clear to me if that's you know that's sort of popped down in the middle of two two other parcels, one to the east or north and south, whatever. So is that statement actually true? Well, the applicant said that everything was connected.

The addition of open space to be restricted. I mean, I guess lot 800 sort of bifurcates it, but there's some connectivity across the street. I mean they have a 100 they they're adding a 100 foot buffer there. So that makes it contiguous.

Yeah, that buffer should be enough space to it's all connected. You're talking behind lot 800 or the back of the lot 800 and that's connected. Okay. I just wanted to mean it's heavily wooded where it is now. They're not going to take any of it down or most of it down. And there's more of that wooded that is um Harvard. So you add those together and that that's a good space. Well, again, contiguous means that they touch. Yeah. And it's not just like, you know, 8 in wide that touch.

Well, yeah, that's all. It's just if it's a swath. I just Rebecca, are you comfortable with that language as is?

I'm just reading it again. I guess my biggest concern is that it's not um manicured um landscaping and that it's actually left in a native planting state, you know, that can support um wildlife and or birds um whether that be um grassland or or woodland. Um that's what I would like to see on that. Do you want to add uh such that you know to ensure that lot 800 maintains you know certain connectivity? I don't know how you want to say it.

Well, it's it's really for me it's that um the that 100 foot setback for the building. You know, it would be great if that was not um like manicured lawns and landscaping, but that it would be vegetated with with native plants plantings. Um be it I think it's going to be a combination of grassland and and woodland, but it may be just woodland. I could live with either. It's going to need a lot of screening on that side. So, in order to be contiguous, you're requiring that this lot have this natural vegetation. Um,

I'm not entirely sure. I I'd have to go back and look at the property line there where it lies within the vegetation there. Maybe I can

Yeah. you want to just put a placeholder in there or um you should highlight native um Alec too. That's that's the bigger of it, but it should be a um so but that doesn't identify like well I'm I would love to see the the setback the 100 foot setback um held in that um not just a vegetated corridor. It doesn't identify kind of what the expectation is cuz that could be 2 feet 8 in.

I think Johanna has her hand up. Yeah, I see that.

Yeah. Um Johanna, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would only observe that it seems that the board may be drifting into imposing conditions where we're still just talking about findings to evidence compliance with the different criteria of the bylaw. We're happy to have a discussion about the conditions that the board wants to impose on the open space, but you know to the extent that the board is not capable or comfortable making a finding as to contiguity that can just come out um and we can deal with you know things that are shells in the actual conditions as opposed to findings relating to compliance.

I I had actually listed it in the conditions anyways. So I'm I'm okay with that. That's just one of the things that I would like to see. And again, we're happy to have a discussion. I just want to make sure that, you know, as the board is organizing its decision, the findings are one thing and the conditions are a separate thing.

Okay. So, it sounds like some of this might be a better fit for conditions, so we don't necessarily need to do it twice. Yeah. So strike the last sentence and let's put it in in the conditions. I think he he just noted that we're holding it and maybe putting it into the conditions in his noting. That way we don't lose it. Oh, sure. Yeah. So you can copy paste so you don't have to type it again. Okay, let's keep going. I think that was also Cindy's comment for the next her next comment was also basically a suggested condition. [clears throat]

Okay. So, we're going beyond what we had talked about for time. Um, special permit criteria. Can I just take a temperature on how many comments we've got in this section? I have one comment in this section. special permit criteria. My real comments start when we get into the findings and the um really the decision to that the decision.

Yeah, most of my comments are to turn things into conditions, I guess. So, um, so I think I restated them as conditions further below, but I I don't want to skip going over these, but um, well, I mean, I'm looking for a time frame, that's all. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have too many I don't really have too many comments on this section. Okay. So, let's go ahead and dig into this section then and see if we can move through it relatively quickly.

Yeah. So my first comment is in a um and after and I actually had put language together too but my comment was that I think a needs to the social and community benefits needs to call out the ripple effect that this that the daytime talks about significant contribution to the town's commercial tax base. Um following that there needs should be a recognition um that you know additionally the daytime activity attributable to the park is the potential economic benefit to other Boxboro businesses in particular small businesses which further serves the community by supporting commu consumer-based businesses for residents and businesses which is in support of Boxboro's master plan.

So where do you take that on? I think that goes um what I was propose what I think I'm proposing is um that it would go after significant contribution rate kind of almost a third of the way down after town's commercial tax base before you get into the donation of the land. Um up a little up a little one more before in addition

right there. Yeah, there I would put additionally. Oh, yeah. And I Okay, so that's that's just my comment, but I had actually written it out to be a nice thing, but we can we can work with uh like maybe offline the specific writeup. Yeah, I mean I think that's the multiplier effect is useful to add, but I don't know that I'm saying directly supporting the master plan and creating a village center. That's a a little bit outside of the um seems a little indirect, but

yeah, you can you can you can end it at uh for businesses for residents period. bringing consumerbased business for residents and businesses. Residents and businesses, period. Um, and then the housing one is a little awkward, but I do think that local job I mean I had rewritten it to say local jobs uh can also support Boxboro's housing market, which is good for residents and property values. And you could you could just say local jobs can also support Boxboro's hard housing market period and not make a judgment as to who it's good for. But it can serve as a support for housing values. Support Boxboro's housing market and property values. Period. That was my comment in a

Were you going to get rid of the directly supporting a master plan of creating a village?

Yeah. What happened? Wait a minute. What happened to the Wait a minute. Where did the insert go? What? What happened? We We just wrote something by going. Okay. Um local Yeah, get rid of that. Get rid of the directly supporting. Sorry. Local jobs can also support box housing market property values. Okay. And I mean we can clean the language up. This was the comment that was there, but I had kind of written it to be nicer. If that's the concept, we can clean up the language.

In the next paragraph, I had a comment um based on Kevin's most recent response letter. um make a monetary donation of 25,000 to assist the town with planning and design for the lot or for other purposes as determined by the town uh planning and design. Sorry,

that was one of my comments too just to build in some flexibility for that. Um, third line down there, Alec, in that paragraph, assist the town with planning and design for the lot or or for other purposes as the town after the word lot or for other purposes as the town deems appropriate or something like that. Okay. Um, traffic flow. Um, so the first comment about um, sorry, let's see. could result in fewer peak hour trips from the previous that that is true based on the data but I I guess the overall project or master plan is to propose to increase the number of average daily trips. So I just want that somehow identified here because you know it's not a net reduction of of average daily trips. It's actually an increase. Um,

increase from what? An increase from their current current proposal, the current permit. But it's a decrease from the current permit. It's a massive decrease from the current permit. The number of peak trips, but the total amount of of traffic to be maximum amount of traffic, I want to make sure I use my terms correctly. um proposed from um the development project that full buildout is actually an increase in average in average daily trips. Well, an increase from today when it's all an increase from the originally proposed project. Oh, really?

Yes. And they haven't really been talking about that. They've been talking about the reduction of peak trips, but the overall unless unless Campanelli has changed their data, but um at last the last traffic report submitted was um I think it was I have it up above about 12,000 some odd average daily trips. Um and that is higher than the original project. I think was about 10,000 average daily trips. And again, we're talking maximum buildout if it ever happens. How can that even be? Yeah, I'm confused. But parking

there. There's like half the parking or a third parking. There's less actual vehicles being there than originally planned because it's not office parts. It's things with lots of remote workers. I'm just citing the traffic study if wants to update that. Russ has his hand up. I see that. Um Russ, do you want to weigh in on that?

Yeah, I can't say that I'm familiar with um the the traffic report in Cindy's um the way she's reading it, but what I wanted to suggest is I can have um MDM transportation, take a look at that and make and and provide a um a statement to the board. Um I I I don't want to venture out to make clarification on this. This is this is outside of my uh expertise. Thank you. Um can we make a note that um Russ is going to speak to his team?

Go ahead, Adam. Uh, thank you. I don't want to go back. Um, but I'm going to go back. [laughter] Um, so, uh, if Alec were to scroll up a bit, we just talked about lot 100, I think it was, and we had this additional language for other purposes as the town deems appropriate. And I know I had a I remember that I had a note uh in in my notes uh from when I reviewed an earlier version of this decision uh and I think maybe even reviewed um Cindy's comment to this effect is and I guess this is a question is u because there's some language here within the decision um talking about certain lots or or portions of property that are being conveyed to the town or conveyed to the town of Harvard or restricted um remaining a part of the property for purposes of calculating zoning compliance. And so I guess my question is is is law 100 being um included or uh is it a part of the calculated open space required for this open space commercial development? And I guess that's sort of a question through the chair to the applicant um because that just wasn't clear to me whether that whether lot 100 is part of the quote unquote open space.

Russ, do you want to speak to that?

Sure. Um it is included lot 100 and the Harvard parcel are included in the calculation for F and the and what we did not include was the lot that was granted from Cisco to the town as the recreation multi multi-purpose lot. I think it's called lot 9 in the plans but um back when Cisco did the original F per the previous OCDS that lot was included in F calculations and transferred to the town as part of a condition of the permit in that precedent we are currently deed and fee holders of those lands as we apply for this permit and lot 100 and lot the Harvard parcel are included in the F calculations with subsequent benefits to the community as part of the as part of the conditions of the permit.

Wait, Ros, I'm a little confused. Are you saying the parcel that's been that the town is using for its recreation field, the soccer field is not a part of the total land area that you use in your F calculation? Yeah, I don't have any. That is correct. I don't have any ownership and I haven't paid a tax dollar on that lot and I felt it was completely inappropriate to include that lot. That is not included in our F calculations. It's been owned by the town since 2004.

So the 350 acres is it minus that? I'm not sure if it's a 9.9 acre parcel because that's not what I don't think that's what the master plan um mapping is showing. Maybe maybe it is but there may be some numericals and but the the F calculation is based on 340.7 acres excluding the town owned lot.

That's new information to me. But um that's why Alec I guess I'd like to see those F numbers again but we don't have to do that tonight. and and through you Madam Chair. So my my question was a bit less about F although I understand that that's of concern to Cindy and certainly I have no objection to to those numbers being provided and those calculations being confirmed. My concern was more whether law 100 was qualified open space and you know F does not is not only applied to open space or or open space is not the only land area that goes into the F calculation. The reason I asked the question is I just want the board's expectations to to be what they ought to be. And you've added this language or for other purposes as the town deems appropriate. But the bylaw restricts what open space can be used for. It says that it is required to be preserved exclusively for agricultural or recreational purposes. So you you certainly don't have the authority in a special permit to go beyond the confines of what the bylaw says in that respect. So, you couldn't state that it could be used for other purposes if those other purposes are not agricultural or recreational if lot 100 is qualified open space.

I think my comment was meant about the $25,000 donation, not about the land. That's my intent. Got it. Should we clarify that a little bit, Adam? I mean, is that not clear?

It wasn't clear to me. So, I apologize if I took us off on a tangent. I just saw that added after the comma, and I was I I was thinking it applied to the entirety of that of that sentence. But I understand the point now that I'm now I've just reread it. So, the idea is that it's donated to the town for public recreation. um maybe we add a semicolon after the word use um will be donated to the town for public recreation and use semicolon and the applicant has offered to make a monetary donation of $25,000 um to assist with planning and design or for other purposes as the town deems appropriate. Meaning that the $25,000 can be used for other purposes for which the town deems appropriate. That's okay.

Okay, perfect. Okay. Shall we scroll down again?

Yep. And just Alec, for your information, I emailed you uh some cleanup language that you can at your appropriate time plug into where we made that other change. You don't have to do it now, but just it cleans it up. I don't have any comments here. Um,

where's your next one? Are we on C? What are we on?

We Sorry, we're on C. B was addressing the transportation and Russell's going to provide additional information. Um before you get off B, the very last paragraph in B um talks traffic common measures. I think again in Capidanelli's most recent response letter, there was some mention of a U traffic uh speed speed limit sign on Beaver Brook Road. So, I don't know if that could should be added here, but since we're talking about what they're proposing to do, and then it should probably also be a condition if that's a firm offer.

So, did you have that document up that you could use the wording? I can pull it up. If not, a condition to me, not a finding a fact though. Well, they mentioned the other items, so that's that's all. It can be a condition, but

uh Johanna, go ahead. I think if the board wanted to add the language in the most recent letter was that we would post maximum speed limit signs along Beaver Brook Road. And I think that we're fine having that tagged on after the colon in the paragraph that I think Cindy's talking about. Did you get that, Alec? I'm sorry. I'm looking at my my document. It's just maximum in front of speed limit, right? I'm like, why isn't he typing? He's typing in his document.

There's rarely minimum speed limit signs. So, I would guess a speed limit sign would probably be do the job. Fair. I don't [snorts] think there are any minimums outside of state highways in Mass.

[clears throat] [sighs] It's 10 o'clock, Rebecca. Yes, it is. Can we get through this section or No,

I assumed I was up till midnight. So, I'm [laughter] with with cranking through. I'd like to get as much of this through as much of this as possible. Yeah, I I think we'll finish up this section and then we'll we'll move on to the other items that we need to address tonight. Who's got the next comment? [clears throat] Um, under D. Um, let's see. Again, I'm jumping back and forth. Sorry. So, and um I mentioned that addition of 23 and a half acres of new impervious area. I inserted that Alec, I don't know if you have that. Um the sentence would uh yeah under the beginning of D it would be while the overall design of site plan of the 2025 master plan will add 23 and a2 acres of new impervious area the proposal is superior to that and we Are we in the right place?

I think that was the previous section D. Am I in the wrong place, Cindy? I have uh you you wrote following the phrase Oh, maybe I'm in the wrong place. Sorry. Additionally, the number of proposed parking parking spaces will be reduced from 3.3 spaces per 1,000 to two spaces. And then you added the language for an estimated additional or addition of 892 to 1340 new parking spaces based on the proposed range of square footage. I think we revised that in the background. That was similar very similar language to what was in the prior section above.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You can take that. You don't have to insert that. Sorry, I was in the wrong place. Oh, okay. Uh I was just back up on C. We never did talk about the um drainage and retention of surface water, right? Um we talk about waste water, but there's no mention of uh storm water. So, I don't know if we need to add something there. Maybe just flag that. I mean, it's I don't know that we need a a lot, but yeah, it seems like we should have something in there about that. me. I'm good.

Uh, I have comments on impacts on health. Is that F? Section F. Yeah. Yeah. Um, Alec, if you want to bring in my comments. Um, above that, that first paragraph says, well, with no negative impacts on the health, I think you can't say for certainly that there's no negative. I think you can say with minimal impacts on health. not anticipated to

well I don't think you can say it's not a no I think you can say post minimal um this next potentially enhancing compared to what the alternative is, right? We're going to get more open space, um better setbacks. Where do you where you

You're saying you're saying there's I mean minimal impact to health. It's potentially better. Um, not if you're adding greenhouse gas emissions, which they are. I mean, it's there. You can't say there's no impact. Well, you're you're looking at it from zero from where they are today to the future. I'm looking at it from what the the potential is. Yeah. like the it's the the purpose of the open space uh special permit is to the reduction from what would be available by right like what they could do if they really wanted to

I see that term clean tech again too here that Russ pointed out. Do we want to change that here as well? Uh it's at the top of the page. Yep. Yeah. We don't want to use a term that's not defined anywhere because that gets us in a weird place. Where's our next comment?

Lost track. I'm sorry. What's getting added here? Due to the proximity, what are we asking them to do? Uh this was a proposed um comment uh that the applicant would be required to mitigate any identified impacts to the abuing condominium complexes. Um you know that might be better left to site plan review but you know

where are we with that? Where is it? Is it down at the bottom of the page? There we go. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I I mean we don't have any specifics of of potential buildings right now. So I think it it feels, you know, premature.

What? Yeah. What are we going to ask them to do? They're going to be required. There's a requirement we're putting in here to do what? Well, again, this was a uh you know, it's better left to site plan review. I wanted to highlight the fact that you know, we're aware that there are abuing properties and uh you know, they would mitigation toident to any identified impacts as a result of that that construction. But, you know, I think we were maybe we add during site plan review of that lot or something to that effect.

Yeah. I just want to I'm kind kind of going back to Adam's earlier point I guess and maybe this is more for Adam like what is what it's we're saying it's there's a requirement we'll be required to mitigate without really saying exactly what it is. I agree that we're going to look for mitigations but here in this site in this special permit we're saying we're going to require something that's not yet defined. Is that is that where we should go? we added during site plan review. Sorry. Go ahead. Uh

no through through you madam chair. So um so I have this in my notes as well with a similar concern. I think there were a couple of others as well sort of scattered throughout the decision just these generic statements that something will be done. Again they're being stated here in the context of finding. So I I if the objective is to establish satisfaction uh of a criterion within the OCD uh standards or the special permit standards and so you're making this affirmative statement that this is going to be done so we can check this box and say this criterion has been met. That's one thing. But if the objective is to then reiterate that language later um in this sort of vague or ambiguous sense that there's going to be more landscaping or there's going to be more mitigation, but you're not specifying what that's going to be. I find that to be problematic. um unless you're clear that what you're really saying is that the board has uh an expectation that these things are going to be done um as part of the site plan review process which again you don't really need to say because whether you say it or not, you have that discretion. Just cuz you say it doesn't give you discretion you don't have. Just because you don't say it doesn't mean you lose discretion that you do have. So you're going to get that bite of the apple when it comes before you in the future. Yeah, I'd say strike that last sentence.

Everybody okay with that? Yeah, I mean I think the purpose and intent of the open space commercial development uh in that statute protecting the value of real property is one of the identified um bases for that. So I don't think it's such a stretch to indicate that we are looking to protect um the value of property of the abutters as well as the applicant. Oh, what if we I mean we could say that we would and and I you know I don't want to go too far with like breaching Adam what you just said but like we could say that the board would expect that the applicant would propose mitigations. I mean that I don't know if that goes too far, Adam, but that's certainly what I would expect. Yeah.

No, I I I don't think it does go too far. I mean I understand that this is a bit of a balancing act, right? And I don't disagree with Cindy's comment either. That that's a valid consideration. Uh and you have to make that determination now. You can't grant the special permit based upon a finding a conclusion that you're reaching that uh the value of abiding properties can can be protected and then later deny site plan review because as you know you have much less discretion in the context of site plan review than you do in the context of a special permit. So if what's required at this stage for you to feel comfortable as a board reaching that conclusion that yes the property values of abuing properties will be protected is some sort of a statement that there's an expectation that in order to protect the values of abuing properties and therefore satisfy this criterion that there will be mitigation proposed by the applicant during the site plan review process. um then I think you could make a statement to that effect. But again, it has to it has to just express an expectation um as opposed to just a generic statement that they have to mitigate because they that doesn't tell them what's being what's what's required of them and you're not requiring anything of them at this stage in the process. You're going to require it later.

So, can you um put that language back in, Alec, and then ask Adam to to tweak it perhaps? um in a way that is satisfactory and I'll just reference the purpose and intent of the um open space development purposes section 7.5.1 and it's protect the value of real property. Johanna, I'm seeing your your hand up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The only comment I have in response to that is that this language is currently proposed to be inserted under special permit criterion H I'm sorry F impact on health. So if the purpose is actually to assist the board making a finding as to the OCD criteria that's an entirely different section of uh the draft permit. Yeah, it would be under section A. You're right. uh which is the proposed development conformed with the purpose and intent of the open space commercial development bylaw. So you can move it up to A and then rework relocate it. Yeah, I believe so.

And then Adam will work on the verbage A of the OCD criteria I think is what the request is. Alec, you want to um move that or does it go down to G, potential fiscal dimminitive enhancement of neighboring? It almost applies potentially to both.

Both. Yeah. Do you want to make any more notes on it, Al? Are you done? Do you want the references? It's 7.5 uh one, sorry, 7.5.6A. And the next one is the H of 2.3 5H. It's getting late.

Okay. Anything else on this? So on G, um, again, I just tried to simplify the Oh, yes. Although now we've got 1.18 million. I think it was 780 million to 1.3 million. Oh yeah, sorry. That's Yeah, this could be reworked a little bit. Just just write it the way we had it before.

Talking about the property tax value piece. Yeah. Just copy what we have. earlier.

I hope you're saving Alec as we go. Nightmare. Proof. Computer crash. [laughter] [gasps] All right. Terrific. Anything else in this section? Oh. Okay. Um, then I guess we need a motion to continue, right? Um, I know we have a kind of packed agenda for our next meeting, but I'm wondering if we could do the next one. What's our next meeting? Monday night. No, [laughter]

we're already past the deadline to post an agenda anyway, so there's no going back on that one.

We have one on the 17th and then the 1st of December. And the 17th has two projects on Massav on it. So the next one is December 1st. and we're entering into holiday season. So, um,

and I'm not seeing others in December. Let's start on weird days. We currently could push that master plan discussion on the 1st, could we not? No, we cannot. Uh TAP grants are due December 8th. Um so that will be the last opportunity for me to present to the board before the grant unless you simply want to forego your input on the grant process. Oh god, no. Um can we um that that discussion could that is that um it it might not be very lengthy though my thought is

um last year's presentation took roughly 45 minutes. Um uh Ian does also have a presentation he needs to give on behalf of the uh climate. So on behalf of sustainability sustainability, yeah, I can I can shorten my presentation down to roughly 10 minutes as long as I get you the pre-work and readings well enough in advance, which right now the plan is to get them to you a week in advance. Um, I think we could we could encapsulate both presentations in the span of an hour, hour 15, and you could kick off an application by 8:15 that night. Let's call it 8:00 for the committee um document. Does that need to happen at that meeting?

Uh the sustainability committee to the best of my knowledge is seeking adoption uh by the select board in the month of December. Um and that was a milestone already moved originally from the month of September or October. Um so I would be I'd be remiss if we push them further. They're already two months behind as well getting this adopted. Um I do think we could kick this if we were to extend this this application to that night. I do think we could kick off by 8 PM for the purpose of an extension. Um we just might linger a minute or two after. Um I'm just wonder can we take up the other items after this or are we going to be exhausted?

Uh the master plan one is a joint meeting with the select board. So that one no climate action plan. Yes. So you would have complete discretion is when you want to take that up. So maybe maybe we do it out of I'm I'm sorry to be making the sausage right now live, but um if maybe we do the um master plan than this one, then the climate that's I'm not sure we're going to be in a great place at the end of this to hear the climate presentation and I you know I think um can we push the climate another meeting in

on Thanksgiving? Well, no. [laughter] I was looking at So, is our next meeting the 17th? Is that what I'm hearing? Yes, that's correct. You have a meeting the 17th? Yeah. Is there a possibility to do like a week from today or or like the week of the 10th

something on a Monday? Yeah. Like I just feel like one, two, that's two that's a two plus weeks. Two plus two weeks plus a weekend. I feel like if we had another meeting focused on this, we could at least get through the whole decision and not be up till midnight and give the climate piece what it need deserves. Give the master plan what it deserves. Like the week of the 10th, we don't have Oh, the week of November 10th. So, in two weeks, what's the um minimum we need to post things? Two hours. 48 hours. Okay. Yeah. So obviously not next week but the week after.

Yeah. Again, you know, we tried to move this forward and expedite it um for for people and that was not received well. So I'm I'm not really so inclined to throw another meeting at this. Who Who did Rebecca, you mentioned that earlier who was who didn't receive what? Well, I'm sorry. I'm maybe

No, no, no worries. um uh at the um advisement of um Adam Costa, we had a lot of comments that were in front of us that like the stuff that we went through tonight. Um we were trying to um set up an potential meeting so that we could review some of those things before getting to a public hearing and maybe work through some of them in advance. Um, but we Oh, you mean the private meeting of you and another member to meet with Campanelli? Yeah, that was Adam's recommendation to try to work through some of this a little quicker and more efficiently. So, I just don't see how that would

jive with open meeting law because that would be a meeting of a sub quorum of the board with the applicant reviewing an ongoing application. Adam, I'll let you speak to that. um being your thoughts on that. So I can so there's there's no prohibition against you use the term subquorum. I mean a subquorum is something that's not a quorum. Fewer fewer fewer members in a quorum and

fewer members in a quorum can always convene um because it's not really a convening at all. So so the idea here and this is what I had discussed. I had had a meeting, what was it, a week and a half ago maybe with uh the chair and and with Alec and uh we had just discussed the logistics of this application. Uh we had a a zoom zoom meeting uh for 20 minutes or maybe it was a conference call um and we just discussed the logistics of this application and trying to move it forward and get sort of to the finish line here. and the comments were were made that there are um some board members more than others that have various adjustments, edits, concerns, uh topics for discussion relative to the drafts of the decisions that have been circulated. So, all I said to Rebecca um to the chair very simply was, you know, this is fairly common with more complex projects. I've done a lot of work over the years on comprehensive permit projects, 40B projects, and those are routinely contentious and because it's one-stop shopping before zoning board of appeals, there are often many moving parts. The ZBA is tasked with addressing everything from routine zoning matters to wetlands concerns to matters involving uh septic rules and regulations. And so, um, what I often recommend in the context of those projects is even when there's not some board members that are maybe more concerned or have a greater number of comments than others, but where a board just really needs an opportunity through a member or two to work through. You've already heard the the the analogy, the sausage being made tonight. Um, nobody likes to sort of do that at uh 10:30 at night on a on a on a week night. Um and so what can often happen is there can be these they're often referred to as workshop meetings uh with a representative or two if it's a five member board you can have two because two is not a quorum that would simply meet with an applicant to work through

the concerns. Now those two members can't speak for the board. Uh you can't officially designate members because you don't want to create a subcommittee of your board. Um, but a couple of members can volunteer and say, "Sure, we'll we'll have a we'll have a a sit down with the applicant and try to work through some of these issues that we know have been raised in prior meetings or are concerns generally of the board." And you get some of this u some of this uh tedious working page by page through the decision done at an afternoon meeting as opposed to at an evening meeting with with the applicant present and the public present and so forth. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some boards do this with great regularity. Other boards don't do it at all because they don't they don't like the optics of it or they they just don't like uh they don't like having individual members meet with an applicant. So um what I had said to to the chair uh in that conversation that she and I and Alec had had was um that I had no objection to it as long as a quorum of the board wasn't present but that I recommended that she or that Alex actually um float the idea with all members of the board to be sure that no member of the board opposed it because I I didn't want it to be something that had been decided um in between meetings without a discussion happening at a meeting about this concept of a of a workshop. Um, and my understanding from her subsequently was that there there was some objection to that and so that kind of a workshop meeting didn't happen. If there's still objection to it, then it doesn't need to happen. It's not a requirement, of course. Um, but sometimes it does help to to expedite a process like this.

Okay. Yeah, the explanation helps. So yeah, I I objected because I I saw it on the from the opposite end of I didn't I didn't think it was appropriate for a minority of the board to potentially be be speaking representing the entire board. That just didn't make sense. So I felt it had to have a quorum in order for any any business to proceed. Um the phrasing of the workshop meeting kind of makes sense. Um, I think on the spirit of trying to let's get this done. Um, I think most of us are are willing and able to I I get that it's painful. Um, but to to push through or potentially add additional sessions if we can. Um, you know, to get this through to through to a decision. Um, so I think I've I I think uh Rich and I both noted the the week of, you know, two weeks from today, like that week. If that's if there's opening and availability there since, you know, 17th feels busy. Uh, looks like December 1st is probably busy and then after that would be more than a month out, which feels silly. Um

just just noting that December 1st is has availability. Uh go ahead Mark.

Just thought that on [clears throat] excuse me on that subject. Um, so I I just feel strongly that this is a public process, has been from the beginning to the end, and it was important that we all hash it out in a room together. And as long as it takes, I'm willing to show up. And I know it's hard for the applicant, but I don't think it's going to go any quicker, frankly, any other way. And and as long as they see us moving forward, at least they know that the the goal post is in sight. And uh and the the tradition for this board as long as I've been on it is that nobody goes and talks to an applicant after a hearing has been opened. Um so that's why I said no and I still don't think it's a good idea. I think we can do this where the public can see us and we kind of owe that to the public is to see us deliberate. That's the whole idea. That's what open meeting law is about. And so that's that's why I I objected. And uh as much as I think it might hurry things up, I think I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get it to the end, all of us together, and we'll all get it done. So, and if you have to call an extra meeting, I've never been opposed to extra meetings. I wasn't opposed to this one. And and uh so whatever date you guys come up with that works for you, I usually am able to make it. So,

and if and if it's a situation where I don't have any necessarily comments to add, I'm perfectly content to to be in the room and sit quietly if I have have have no objections. I just want the the opportunity to weigh in if it's something that we're heming and hawing about. So, you me too. Go ahead, Rich.

Yeah. And and Mark, you kind of described it. I mean I this board has always sort of built itself on public engagement and I felt that this is a discussion we we can all work together as a board on to get there and yes some members have more comments than others but we'll work through it honestly if we workshop it sometime between now at another meeting let's workshop it at another meeting like whe whether it's you know I mean I I just I'm open to to sliding in another meeting in order to get it done I think we as a collective board can do that and It doesn't have to be a Monday. I mean, as much as Thursday wasn't great, but I actually don't mind Thursdays.

Okay. Rather be tired on a Friday than on a on a Tuesday.

I have tomorrow off, so it's so it's all good. So, is there another date we could do? Rebecca, you said December 1st. I'm sorry. I I don't December 1st is is available for this discussion. But do we think we need significant time that we might want to build in something before then? Yeah, it's five weeks. I mean, yeah, it's over a month. That's that's I don't think that's acceptable for an applicant. because they they you know she noted that the draft decision that she provided was in August.

What about the 6th of November which is a week good with me? I don't know that I have an event that night fifth. I'm in the middle of event season. So I have another one that night and a BLF meeting. So I have a conflict. [laughter] Uh what about the week of the 11th? 12th I have a 11th is a holiday state holiday I believe holiday. 13th 12th. I cannot do the 13th. I'm okay for the 12th.

Yeah, 12th is fine. And then we have meeting on the 17th again. Yeah. Can we squeeze it in on the 17th? I mean, you know, I really like Why don't we start the conversation on the 17th? We won't get through it likely, but we could start it and hopefully finish it on the 1st. Well, we have two other things on the 17th. We're going to be tiring. That's how it goes. We get to 11:00 and we don't want to do it anymore. We're crankier than we are now. Well, you guys are ready to wear rare go today till midnight. So I mean let's start it on the 17th.

I I think we you want if you do the 12 suggestion was to do a workshop. Let's do

I mean you know it it was fine to meet on an afternoon some week. Let's meet on another evening. I I I honestly cannot do multiple board meetings and multiple events and work a full-time job. It's just a very busy time of the year for me. And I would really ask that the board try to designate some time on the 17th to do this. Just we'll start it up again and pick it back up again on the 1st. Yeah, we have the other two massav applications on the 17th. I mean, if we commit to an hour each in those, we leave some time for this.

Historically, how long does the OC CD special permit process take? Haven't done for about 10 years. 20. as long as it takes. Chris, if we get an earlier start time on the 17th, so we're not going till midnight. I think that's a great plan. Um I mean, so let's talk about it. 975 we've worked through pretty intensively. Something funny. Um so I mean that could be a shorter one. Alec, is that first or second up?

Uh that is second on your agenda. Your current agenda is 984, which is specifically scheduled for 7:05 p.m. Uh then you have 975, which is scheduled for 7:30. 7:30. Uh and uh if you wanted to do earlier in that evening, the board has at times opened a meeting at 6:00 p.m. Um that has happened in the past. Could do that an hour. I mean,

board members. Sure. 6 PM on the 17th. Madame Chair, if I may, and I apologize to make this more complicated, but I'm already committed to another client hearing on the 17th. And I believe that my client Campanelli would prefer that I be in attendance at the next meeting where we will be discussing the decision. Okay. Okay, so we're going back to the first then. I don't think we can go that far. I mean, that's ridiculous. There's any viable day in the month of November that is not the 17th. I thought I heard the 12th was okay. Rebecca, I'm sorry. Maybe you weigh in on the 12th. I thought

I have a consistent like two events a week and I'm just I'm I cannot do that and do these board meetings on top of it. Yeah, I think back to on the 17th. I think I'm passing on a leadership dinner, but um how about the 10th? Did we talk about the 10th? Yeah, it doesn't work for me. [clears throat] And the 11th is Veterans Day holiday. The 12th, you said no. 13th, no, we're not allowed to holiday. Did we talk about the the third? But it's too late to post. What about the fourth?

I have another hearing for consom. Fifth and we said the fifth was no good. That you were out on the 5th. Yes. That that whole week is booked out. Uh okay. What about the What about later the week of the 17th or the 14th? Was that a potential day? It's Friday, the day we don't do Fridays. Yeah. Friday is a fluent.

Um I'm sorry. Did we Is the What about a a two-timer the week of the 17th, like the 20th? Yeah, that's not Thanksgiving, right? Thanksgiving is the next week. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. I I just I can't do it. I can't do it. I've got too much going on here. I can't be doing my job and doing this thing at the same time. It's not going to work. And it's the holidays. I just say we go for the first. It's We're in the middle of the holiday season. Well, people are out of town. I have events like you can't even believe and they're not sure.

I just I'm just trying to be fair to the applicant. I'm hearing a majority of the board having significant availability throughout the month of November. Is there a possibility of doing a I and I knowing my work schedule I might be treading into dangerous water here but is a possibility of doing a uh like an afternoon meeting like not crowding out an evening if that's what the inhibitor is or the constraint is. My constraint is that I start work in the morning when everybody else does and it goes until midnight at night. That's my constraint. I I don't have availability during these days. I mean, you you travel for work, too, Rich. You know, you know how this

I I I get the work thing. I'm not I'm not uh Yeah. That sounds like the first. Are you making a motion? Well, I think we should check with the applicant as as um Russ, are you available on the first for this discussion? I don't have a conflict on December 1st. I'm also available.

Okay. Thank you. Um, we will try to move swiftly through our other obligations and get as soon as we can. Madam Chairperson, my apologies to cut you off. Adam, do you or someone from your office have availability December 1st? Thank you. Terrific. Thank you, Adam. Um, so the motion, do we have a motion on the table for December 1st? Madam Chair person, you would seek a motion to continue this public hearing to December 1st at 8:00 p.m. Okay. So moved.

I'll second. Roll call. As I see you, Chris Dowy. Dowy. I um Rich Gazardi. Gazard. Uh Mark White I burner I thank you so much. Thank you for your patience. You didn't ask me. Oh god. Cindy Mark, sorry I couldn't see you. I couldn't see all the faces on here. I apologize. Markwood's eye. Okay. And so that's unanimous. Um thank you um Russ and Johanna for joining us tonight and we'll pick this up and try to move through efficiently when we see you next. Thank you Adam. Enjoy the rest of your night.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, two more items to talk about. Um, Alec, I'm going to let you run this uh that the budget submission discussion. We do have to finalize that right now for you, right?

Uh, yes, preferably. So, um, as promised, I did bring home my login credentials for, uh, for ClearGV, which is our budgeting software. Um the instructions that we have been given this year is to prepare two budgets. Uh a budget A and a budget B. Uh one considering a worst case scenario. Um that being a a far more reduced budget. Nonetheless, um it's my responsibility to prepare budgets on behalf of the various boards, committees, and departments under that broad umbrella of land use and permitting. Um tonight we will screen share uh the clear gov portal uh and we will enter your budget indirectly. Um we will start with budget A which has been tagged as the override budget. Uh and then we will transition to budget B which has been tagged as the no override budget. In addition and prior to this meeting, you were provided with the last five fiscal years, including the yes, last five fiscal years. So, FY21 through FY25. Uh the planning board consulting line item. Um that was the largest one for uh discussion. Uh you'll remember that at this past year's town meeting, uh you did transition your bear with me, my screen just went dark. uh your all travel budget was transitioned to an all other expenses budget. Uh your two budgets this year were funded at 7,100 uh for your consulting and 400 for your all other expenses item.

Are you pulling up documents for us right now?

Yes. Yes. So as I said uh we are going to start with budget A which is the override budget. And if this is a mood point and the discussion is that you want to submit the same budget twice, then that's what we can do. So for reference, this is what it looks like on the back end for me. Um, what you can see here, it's it's hard to condense all these different columns, but effectively right now for FY27, we have 0 entered in. That's only because we haven't put anything in. Every item defaults to $0 until I tell it otherwise. What you see here is 7100 and there's a percentage difference of minus 100%. If I enter 7,100, you will see that that suddenly goes to a 0% difference, a $0 difference, and it is level funded to your budget for this current year. Same thing can be said for this item, your all other expenses budget. And I encourage you to start the discussion here. folks comments.

Yeah, I'm a little confus confused because I'm looking back at the prior budgets. I haven't studied this before. There's one line item for consulting of 7500, right? Yes, it has been consistently 7500 through the three years that I've been here and uh for years prior. I don't know past that 5year mark. We only asked for 5 years sample size in the uh in the historic report, but uh it's been 7500 for at least that time. What if we spent I'm sorry you have the you you had the actuals you sent them to us, Alec, right?

Here [clears throat] and we bank it if we don't actually spend a particular year. Looks like we went from 1,200 5,000 to 10,000 to 7,000. We've we typically only spend about $1,1200 and one year we I think it was the year that the planning board had the consultant for 10. [clears throat] The debit is the amount we spend. Is that

Yeah. So, uh, real quick, I do just need to note one thing. So, I misspoke earlier. Um, in fact, your I I can't speak for lineto-line transfers. I can't see if a line-to-line transfer is done. But the way you read this is the credit shown here is your supposed starting balance. Now that number can appear differently um if you at some point during the year or if the the administration team at the end of the year do a lineto line transfer. Case in point, uh, in FY23 or FY22, this voter, no, FY23, um, this was the year that I, uh, came on board and when I got to the board, as you can see, a variety of legal expenses had been built against your consulting budget. Um, very quickly myself and the accountant at the time had to put a stop to this. We figured out where the disconnect was. I at that time began having your applicants pay those expenses, which again, not to toot my own horn, but I'm rather good at getting them to to be willing to front that bill. Um, and so we got that spot turned off. But that year, you had budgeted 7,500. As you can see, we had to do a lineto line transfer because it had already been deficit spent. I can't speak for why it had already been deficit spent, but it was deficit spent by the time I got there. So what we did is at the end of the year we did a line-to-line transfer to reconcile the whole thing uh so that it wouldn't actually be deficit spending at the end of the year and it wouldn't ding us in the audit. So as I read these reports today in FY22 you had 5,000 in your budget and in FY21 you had 1,200 in your budget. For the three years I have been here,

FY23, FY24, and FY25, you have always had 7500 in that budget. Just wanted to make that clarifying statement. Yeah. But how much have we spent? Like I don't think we come close to 500, right?

In FY 23, the the tricky year that I noted, uh, you spent $10,545. Uh, in FY, let's go all the way to the to the front. In FY21, you spent $1,17. Uh, $196.25 in FY22. So, said the 10,000 plus. Uh, 1,600 in FY24 and 2,92 in FY25.

Yeah. Our run rate is like 15, you know, somewhere between $1,200 and and $1,800 or 2,000. The 10,000 was the study, I'm pretty sure. And that was a I thought it was a separate article. The 10,000 the 10,000 and FY23 was almost exclusively legal bills um that should have been build elsewhere. If you take those out um it leaves you with roughly these two expenditures here. uh Barrett Planning Group and Environmental Systems, which would have clocked you at just under $3,000.

Yeah. I mean, I think that the the fair number, honestly, the fair number is somewhere between 1,500 and 25500 or 1,500 3,000. I unless we have something specifically we're planning, which then we should go and pursue. But like I I don't know how we ask for 7,500 and only spend 1,200. I I still have a question about legal expenses and I know we get push back um from the other um other folks in town um on other boards about it, but if we have a legal expense that we choose to expend out of our budget um you know and we're using it to you know get some technical expertise and might it might be in legal and it might be technical expertise in groundwater permitting or it might be technical expertise and hazardous materials, but it's still considered technical expertise. You know, I am concerned that we don't have the funds to to spend that on our own, and if the town doesn't approve it, then we have no means to get that expertise. And so, that's why I'm reluctant to reduce the budget. Um whether it's legal or other, I think we ought to still have a budget that allows for that. And I'm concerned that um you know we get I mean that's two hours of legal time is $1,200. So $500 at $600 an hour. So you know you reduce that and we're really don't have much. I'm not sure what place's current uh hourly rate is. Maybe 250 an hour, 300 an hour. Alec, do you know?

Uh not off the top of my head. I don't have the rate sheet. I mean, we should know that because I think it's really not a a number that we're pulling out of the sky, but an actual number of hours of technical expertise that we might need. So, um, you know, we should have a basis for it.

I mean, don't you have one of Sue's invoices handy? You can check or Bill Murray, right? Buried in an email somewhere. Bear with me. Sue Carter's rate is 165 an hour.

That's a bargain. Yeah, I was going to say she's a bargain. Yeah, that's I'd love to say I'm a great negotiator, but they are they are um they are very good at what they do and they come at incredibly reasonable prices.

And what about Green Associates? I don't have a rate sheet for Green Associates because all of our projects with them have been buil at a um at a scope of work and a project by project basis. So, it's done by completion milestones. I don't have a a current rate sheet for them.

All right. Well, 160 an hour sounds incredibly inexpensive, but I would say most consultants who are not attorneys are going to be charging, you know, 250 to 300 for a, you know, relatively senior person. So, shouldn't have said that out loud. Why is that? Does Nashville raise their rates?

What? [laughter] Um, I will note most um most municipal consultants do offer a municipal rate because we do offer work at a higher volume than many of their private clients do. That is at least the case um in both the case of KP Law and Meet Tyler and Costa um as an example and it's certainly uh the case in many engineering examples. I have never seen Sue and Bill's rate sheet for another client. So, I don't know that we aren't also receiving a municipal rate. We probably are. Yeah. And so, this I'm sorry, this is all in case we needed to cover a legal expense. What? No.

No. I guess it's I mean, wasn't it applicable to the traffic study thing too when we asked for a little extra like another um look? wasn't that.

So, as an example, yes, this account can be expended if the board has specific projects or additions to projects that they want to pursue, whether that's independent study of an intersection, um independent evaluation of a of a piece of land or soil type, etc. Additionally, and I stress this is the most important just in the way that we do planning board accounting here in Boxboro. Um, if you run into a situation where, most notably in a site plan review application, an applicant is unwilling to cover an expense. However, you don't feel in your current capacity that you'd be justified strongly enough to warrant a denial, the only way for you to go out and get those answers is to hire an independent third party. You can still have the work done, but I can't always guarantee you the consult that that the applicant is going to pay for it. I've gotten good at building that relationship with them, creating the foundational piece so they are willing to help cover those expenses because they see the work the board is putting in and they understand the process as it's going in. It's a lot of just transparent communication with them. But I can't guarantee that's always going to be the case. Every once in a while, you're going to run into the person who just clashes with my my approach and they're not going to be willing to cover something and you might have to be asked the hard question. Well, do I deny this project? Do I approve it without feeling comfortable with the information I have in front of me or do we have to come up with the money somewhere to to pay for this analysis?

Go ahead, Mark.

So, the fact is we haven't spent a lot of money in the last few years and that and they're coming on to hard times in town hall. So, they're looking for places to cut. So, they're going to look at us and say, "Well, you guys haven't spent the money and how do you justify it?" And we say, "Well, because we might need it." And that's kind of worked, but it doesn't work so well in hard times. If they're coming for Prop 2 and a half override in the spring, it's hard to sell a budget that they have to raise and appropriate the money for um when it's tough. So, I'd say maybe we go with 2500 and then we get a commitment, though. I think the thing we would ask for is a commitment from the select board or the finance committee, whoever we need to talk to, that we would get a reserve fund transfer in a case of emergency. And I don't think they'd say no to it. Um, but we probably have to make a case. And you know, they've they've never really said no to stuff like that. and they know when we kind of bump into a hard situation that we're going to need the help. Uh, and you know, politically it would be stupid for them not to do it, too. And there's always money to be had in the reserve fund. So, I don't think um I mean, I like to have the money there. I mean, we we've tried to keep it there, but I think we're in kind of exceptional times right now. We have to understand that. So, um, so I'd say bring it down to something more reasonable like, you know, 3 grand instead of 7,500 and then make the case, you know, in the following year if if if we had to come for more, then we can make the case. But there's always access to to to money.

You just can't guarantee it. But I'd say the odds are pretty good. And uh if Alec wants to run it up the flag pole with town hall and say, well, you know, what's the odds of a reserve fund transfer under these kinds of conditions, you know, we have an application and the applicant isn't going to kick in on the the legal or the engineering and we have to have it. I mean, I don't see they're going to say no. So, I don't feel utterly exposed by not having the budget that we've had and we haven't spent it. I mean only only one year did we dig into it hard.

We might have mentioned this but where does it go if we don't use it? Does it go back into the fund? It goes back into Well, yes, but it's it's it's taxed. So B basically when we ask for it then we're going to pay tax to have that money and then that money goes into free cash eventually or some place where it's still there. So it's not like the money,

you know, didn't go get used or at the end of the year they can roll it back over into the next year. So, I mean, there's ways for accounting for it. And, you know, that's always what I said is like, well, if we don't spend it, it's not like uh it goes poof. It doesn't go poof. It's it gets spent for something else. And trust me, they use that money that we didn't spend for other stuff in in years past cuz that's just how how the system works. They'll borrow from here and move it to there. That's just kind of how it works. So, um maybe they should be thanking us for giving them a $7,000 a year slush fund, but [laughter] um but I I don't see that happening when when I got wind of the stuff that's coming down the pike. I mean, it's going to be a May is going to be a very interesting town meeting for me. would be be helpful to know what they're talking about in the way of an override. But I just want to point out I'm looking at the reserve fund transfer policy and uh you know their criteria is reserve fund is used for quote extraordinary or unforeseen unquote expenses as determined by and according to the discretion of the finance committee and if the committee finds that an expense does not meet the above criteria it will reject the request and the reserve fund transfer will not be implemented. So I think we have to assume that we of getting a reserve fund transfer you know would have to be a pretty um

unforeseen I mean that well unforeseen but you know a technical uh uh anal I could I could see that we might have a hard time getting getting I'm just saying don't expect the reserve fund transfer and you know if we're going to have to live with a lower budget then you know that's a choice we're making but I wouldn't expect the uh you'd have to make been denied a reserve fund transfer before? I mean, do we have real experience where a board has been denied it if they need it? I've heard some FinCom discussions about reserve fund and whether they're eligible or not. Um, so you know, member here tonight. Is anybody I I can't I can only see you guys. See

Maria and Kristen and Becky, they were on fin, but I don't I don't ever remember asking for money for for reserve fund transfer, not getting it. But, you know, I'm sure it happens. There's Why don't we ask if they're here? Maria, does anyone previously a member or currently a member want to offer some? Go ahead, Maria. [clears throat] Somebody's got to unmute. Maria, can't hear you. Uh, Maria has been unmuted. I don't know if there's a microphone problem.

We can't hear you, Maria. sign language. Thumbs up, thumbs down. [laughter] Well, I mean, the policy is what it is. I I appreciate that. You know, it'd be helpful to hear from them, but I'm just saying I don't think we should plan on it for a technical review if it exceeds what what we need because it I'm not sure it would fit into that criteria. But, well, here's the other end of it is if we ask for 7,500 bucks, then what do you think the FINCOM's going to do this year? They're going to say no. Are they going to say you get three? They're going to say you get three. Well, how are other departments cutting? I mean, yes, I understand the need to maybe

those departments those departments have spent their budgets every year. So, when they come back the next year and say, "Well, we spent it last year and we spent it the year before." Um, but we can't say that. We They're going to look at our budget and say, "You haven't spent your budget, so why where's your case for needing it?" and we're we're saying we need it for an emergency like uh you know but but we haven't used it for that yet. So

I actually have data going back from FY16 and the actuals are higher than um over the those years than we if this was a uh spreadsheet that was sent to me from I don't know somebody in accounting because it looks official but $7330 in uh FY16. But if you don't know what it was and if it was all for attorneys fees that Alex now getting mostly from the applicants then could they I think that seems to be the general gist of Alex we're very good at talking applicants into paying their way whereas we just have the town has footed the bill previously.

I I mean I've advocated for that 7500 for a number of years and we've gotten it but I just don't see it happening this year. You know, I agree. Ask for it. That's what I'd say. Put in for 7500 and see what they say. But I I know I know what the answer is going to be. I I I think we like we're the board, right? I mean, what have we spent this year? I think I saw the sheet. It was like 2,000. What are we What are So, we're pretty far in this year. Does that include the um the request for the um parking? I'm not um traffic additional site.

Uh no, this is bookended at June 30th. So this doesn't capture anything in the current year. Oh, what what have we spent this year year to date? Uh I don't have that number right in front of me. We an error on our part. We only asked for the past five years. I didn't ask for the year to date. I I suspect that we're probably hitting the top of our 75 if if we ask them for additional work. I mean, that what that's $5,500. That doesn't get us very far with a consultant. Are you talking about the traffic consultant?

Yeah. And did we get an estimate from them? I I'm don't recall. not seen I have not seen the estimate from them. Um I have to follow up on that. We did recently get an invoice for them but I have not seen an estimate with the cost escalation and change order. So did we and is that a change yet to happen or is that something we already did? Yeah. What are we waiting for from the traffic consultants? So we had everything. Yeah.

There had been discussion at the time of the presentation. Um, a couple board members had been interested in potentially seeing an additional intersection or potentially one to two intersections having the timing redone um, just based on the the length of time it's been since June 2024 to now. Um, but I don't know that an official intersection was selected. Um, I think we are waiting on our consultant to give us that cost estimate. So, we really need to get that from them so you can finalize your decision. I think the discussion was in and at least from my comment was in and around the intersection at Hill and Burroughs and 111. I I feel like part of the challenges is that we as a planning board don't know what's coming down the pipeline, which is what kind of worries me is that it's so unpredictable that you don't really know what you're going to need to to, you know, ask for. It's it's so I don't know. I have a little bit of a comfort level holding on to something so that $7,500 doesn't get us very far, right?

I I agree, but we haven't spent it. We're going to get smoked. I mean, if this is an override year, it I mean, every line item is going to get be questioned. And if when you look on the sheet, it's going to show the past two years 1,200 and now we're asking for 7,500. It's going to get cut on the floor. I mean, I don't know for sure, but like I could predict that that very well could happen. Again, look, there there's two options here. Go in with a lower number and hope that they'll give it to us or go in with a higher number and see what they do do to us. But I mean, those are your two options. So, go in with the 7500 and see what they do to it. You're going to have to go talk to them, make the case.

Can we get some data around the the ask with the um the traffic consultant? I mean, because I feel like that's relevant to this conversation. I I can I but I can't get it to you in time for well your next meeting is outside the deadline I have to submit everything. So yes, we can certainly get that for you in time for when Rebecca you and I will be before the finance committee to help answer questions and and discuss the submission as it's put in. Um I just don't have that in time for for us to hit submit unless the board wants to authorize the chairperson to to submit the budget. Um, in which case then I can I can just get on the line with Green International tomorrow, try and get the quote to you by Monday or Tuesday, and uh you and I can sit down on a call Tuesday or Wednesday and and just go over what you want me to submit.

And have no problem authorizing Rebecca to submit the bud budget not to exceed what we currently have. Go. Again, I'd say go for it, but but yeah, you're going to get stuff thrown at you if you Yeah, you're just I mean, I don't know how how that's going to work for you. Yeah. I mean, if we have a I guess you're not going to know until you go. We won't know until we go. But finance committee, that's what you got to sit down with them, make your case, and then see what their push back is. And I I pretty much know what their push back is going to be. So the question is is you're going to have to answer that with some estimates of of your costs coming up.

This will end up being a conversation with the fincom. I mean we won't even get to the as far like I mean if because they're going to consolidate all the budgets from all the departments and boards and so we just have to have like I'm okay with saying all right this is what our number is. We'll get the quote from the consultant and then we'll like we we probably need to understand what else is in front of us so that we I get the unpredictability. It's okay to have margin but 5,000 of margin is a lot. So I still want to understand whether we are allowed to hire Adam Casa as special land use council to the planning board outside of permission from the select board.

No, not without permission. But that permission isn't the select board. It's been delegated to Mike and the budget for that all has any request for legal counsel has to be approved by the town administrator. Even when I want to pick up the phone and talk to one of our attorneys about something I think is going to go to litigation, that's got to get approved by the town administrator and therefore it comes out of a different budget, not a planning board budget. Is that a firm policy? I want to understand that.

The the guidance we've been given is that everything goes through the town administrator and that legal budget. If it's something that's totally outside the bounds of the the the legal budget, then yes, there's a world where you might be paying for it, but it still has to be approved. Any legal cons consultation has to be approved by the administration. Our important to understand which budget is coming out of,

right? And and we don't just come to you with rogue legal bills saying, "Oh, by the way, pay this." If you ask for something, the policy has always been I go back, I talk to the town administrator, if need be, talk to the select board, but that hasn't happened in my tenure. Um, talk to the town administrator, confirm we have permission, and then I initiate the communication depending on who the attorney is. Okay. But you're not answering the question. I want to understand firmly does the PL is it possible to use planning board budget for legal consultation? Is it possible? Yes. It's our budget. We can do whatever we want with it. Well, I'm told otherwise and that's why I'm trying to understand in that.

Okay. Use our budget to go hire council without permission from the TA. No, that is not allowed. And if we don't get permission from the TA, then that budget that we were hoping to use for perhaps some legal expertise, we can't use for legal expertise. Is that correct? If we don't get permission from the TA, we cannot get legal expertise. I don't know if that's true, Alec. I mean, we have control of our own budget. I don't know, Mark. I've been told otherwise. That's why I'm trying to get a fine point on this.

I I I think I I think we're going down a very different path entirely unrelated to this. But the way that any municipal lawyer works is that the select board or whoever they delegate authority is the only one who can contract with an attorney. Otherwise, you run the risk of boards and committees hiring their own attorneys to fight each other. And that's just poor practice. Okay. So, I think it's a safe assumption to not include funds for legal counsel in our budget estimate that we're not going to be able to access those. That's how I perceive it anyway. So,

so you're saying if it's as long as it's not an attorney, then it's fair game on our budget. So, if we want to go get a consultant, we don't need permission, right? Yes. So, only for a legal counsel? Yes. I' I'd be curious to ask that question myself, but um you know, it's been a bone of contention for a long time here. So, you know, we've been down this road before, but but again, right now, I I don't see that we're going to need that. So, I unless we could point to a an instance where we're going to need it, I don't see why why they would give it to us.

So, Rebecca, it sounds like you would still like to get one number back before before we hit submit on this. So, I would recommend the board make a motion authorizing the chair to submit budgets on behalf of the board. um up to Rebecca, you would you had set a number. Do you want to set that at 7500, which is what it had been in previous fiscal years? I mean, if if everybody's okay with that, I just think that that's a a relevant piece of information because we've um you know, we know it's out there. So, yeah.

So, you would hold on before they do the motion. Another option is um I mean, we haven't come close. If you even if you went in at 5,000, right, you it's still plenty of room and it shows that we are, you know, we we need we we don't, you know, we we there's some uncertainty, but we understand and and we're we're taking a reduction optically. That might be better. Yeah. Volunteering a a modest reduction up front. I still feel like I'd want to see where that thing came in and then if we can bring it down, we can bring it down, Rich. But um

well yeah I mean what you've got to show for for invoices that's what you get to work with. But if you can only show three grand worth of invoices and then the year before that was 12 and the year before that was 12 going to have a hard case time making a case for five. Yeah.

I mean that's just you know the way it is. So I I'd say I I'll I'll give you a card blouse. you can go in and ask for as much as you think you can get, but um I just don't know what realistically you can expect them to to say yes to. And again, the way I've always, you know, put it to them is look, you get it back if we don't spend it. So that part, but again, they're looking at the effect on everybody's tax bill and everybody's going to be squealing next year and they're going to say, "How come you didn't, you know, squeeze every nickel you could find?" That's and that's the fincom's job. I mean, I would be supportive of a slightly reduced budget um with the caveat that, you know, or the understanding, I guess, that we're not allowed to spend any legal expenses, but any other consultant, you know, we can get 20 out 25 hours or something out of it. Um, for five grand, you know, I mean, I'd be I think it's important to to show a little bit of movement on the budget as well. Um, but Rebecca, I think you you should get that scope of work from green because if we've already got a scope of work in front of us, then that's

then you can point to something. Agreed. We need it for this. That that's really what you need. If you walk, if we can if well, we'll get the document. We'll find out what that magic number is and then if we can reduce, we will try to reduce. Yeah. Is that the consensus? Yeah. I think if Yeah, you got the 7500. If you can find a path to getting showing some reduction based on all that then do it. Okay. So, madam chairperson madam chairperson you would seek a motion authorizing the chair to submit budgets on behalf of the planning board for fiscal year 27 up to $7500. So moved.

Second. Okay. Uh thank you. Uh moved by Mark White, seconded by Cindy Marowitz. As I see you Chris Dowy. Dy. Mark White and I Sunny Mark Witz Mark Woods I Gazardi Kazardi I and Burner I thank you. Okay, last topic you're going to get your midnight meeting. Um Priestlane bond release Alec.

All right, Madam Chairperson, thank you very much. Uh the Jeans and Brothers have uh have filed for a complete bond release. So, you'll remember the board had reduced it to 25,000 at a previous date, noting that the binder coat needed to sit for the entirety of a winter prior to being able to do top coat paving. Um, Sue Carter uh has recently been out for final inspections um for reviewing the site. Um Ian has been doing a great job. Uh we let Ian take uh take charge of this bond release, just running through the checklist, reviewing the different materials, um evaluating the different topics. Um, one item that had come up at the time of the last uh, bond reduction, um, was a matter of a stone wall. Uh, and we had to do some digging into this because Priest Lane itself is not a scenic road. Um, you remember your decision had alluded to a a stone wall permit being filed if any stone walls were going to be moved, removed, etc. Um but a fundamental component of land use is that you cannot apply uh different permit types without them being already subject to it. So for example, you can't say that a project at this location is subject to a stonewall permit if it is not on a scenic road. Your stonewall permit is directly tied to scenic roads. Um so in that instance, unfortunately, that permit type is not valid. Um you know, it's my understanding. I was not here at the time of this permit, but it's my understanding this one went through the ringer. It had to it had to go through a little bit of a legal battle. Um it was coming off the heels of another legal battle. Um and so unfortunately I I don't think you got um the best advice on that one condition. I think it could have been better addressed if there were concerns about how to mitigate um the removal of stone walls. But in this case, whether there were or weren't stone walls, whether they removed or not, um this site is not subject to a stonewall permit. Um and so unfortunately, that's not um an avenue. That's not something that they're

obligated to do. Um and they would win on a challenge of that basis. Do you have a copy of the decision, Alec? Uh yes, a copy of the recorded decision is included in your packet. See it?

Yeah. Uh we included the original change writer. So that is when we reduced the bond. Uh the endorsed set of plans, the bond release request, the closeout checklist that Ian tracked down and ran down multiple people, town officials included, to get all the information available, as well as the decision and uh the asbuilt plans. The new materials for reference are the uh the bond release request, the asbuilt plans, and the updated closeout checklist. So, what's the issues?

Uh, no issues. Um, our consultants, um, and various town officials, uh, correct me if I'm wrong at any point, Ian, but to the best of my knowledge, all town officials, all town consultants have signed off on this one. Final inspections have been done. Um, to their credit, they did a great job. They kept the site clean. Uh, there was minimal concern or question throughout the construction project outside construction process outside of the typical, "Oh, my neighbor's doing something. What's going on? what's happening. Um, they ran a clean site, they ran a clean operation. Um, and uh, I was impressed with the work I saw. So, so there's no issues? Nope.

No, uh, no neighbor complaints, concerns, work not completed, somebody's drainage is outside of the the typical stuff of, you know, my neighbors cutting down trees, what's happening, what's going on? Nothing. It was a standard cut and dry, which is not unheard of. I know this was a subdivision application, but it was two homes. Typically, you'd see this done by ANR and um and just simple building permit, but in this case, subdivision was the only mechanism to create the frontage.

Look, um I see I'm looking through the checklist now. I'm sorry. I didn't really have time to look through this ahead of time. You're the dates that you put in 11:18 11:118. Is that 2018 or is that November 18th of some unspecified year? Uh that was in 2024 when they came in to first request bond reduction. Yep. In hindsight, I will update in the future. My own checks will be um 2020. I I'll make sure to include the date on it, but when we first put together this checklist, we kept it rather shorthand, assuming these things would be done much quicker.

Um and but I don't see the landscaping sign off because that was an issue too was um and I'm curious about the Stonewall issue. Uh, I wanted to go back to the decision. I don't think we were wrong in whatever we said about the Stonew wall because it was an issue at the time and it might have been in the original subdivision. So, I'm not 100% what the issue is. What's that?

Why is it signed off? It's checked off. Subject to condition stone walls confirmed 1118 24. I thought Alec just said something about the Stonewall doesn't apply and I didn't understand that. I'm sorry, but I'm just looking at documents while you were explaining it. Yeah. So, best way to do this, um, Cindy, if you can give me the specific condition number you want to go look at and it does correlate with the number on the closeout checklist. So, whatever number that is, um, point me to it. I don't know. You you referenced the Stonewall. Sorry, but I I haven't looked through this yet, but you said something about the Stonewall permit doesn't apply because it's after the fact. I didn't understand that explanation.

If it's [clears throat] not a scenic road, it doesn't doesn't apply. Originally a scenic road, we can't apply that now. Where is it in the decision? Because I don't think we did the decision incorrectly. I wanted to I think the decision might have referenced a stone wall from the original subdivision. That's what I'm looking for. There is a stonewall condition. Condition number 22. No stone wall shall be removed from the site without applicant owner first obtaining stonewall removal permit.

Thank you very much, Ian. So, yes. So, I will pull this up now. Um, you'll see condition number two. As Ian read, no stonew wash should be removed from the site without the applicant owner first obtaining a stonewall removal permit in accordance with the stonewall bylaws. The stonewall bylaws only apply to scenic roads. This is not a scenic road. Therefore, they don't need to file a permit to remove a stone wall. Well, I might suggest we go back. There's some history with this um from the original subdivision. So, I'm just saying it might apply. And I'm just I I remember when we went through this decision, there was a it was a topic of discussion. So I I will get myself comfortable with it. Sorry, I won't take up your time.

Is anybody complaining about this stonewall being removed? Uh we have not received any complaints on the stone wall that was removed. So then I don't see what the big deal is. Let's just sign this guy's thing. And the stone wall is on a property, right? It's not It was on the property, right? It's not like on a It's not on the road. Not on the road. That's right. visible to anybody? Is it visible? Uh, it was visible from the roadway. But this also this stands that Priest Lane itself is also not a scenic road. So even if the Stonewall was in the right of way, it's not within the right of way of a scenic road.

And in this case, it was in my opinion I in my opinion it was quite far set back from at least from where you can see the the remnants of it are. That's outside the bounds of the the right of way and it's a right of way of not seen. Yeah. So, what do you do? We need a motion. What do we need on this? Um, I am recommending that the board uh pass a motion to release the bond. So, moved. Second. Moved by Rich, seconded by Mark White. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Um, we'll take a a vote. Chris Dowy. Douty. I Mark White. White. I.

Cindy Marowitz. Um, I'm abstaining because I'm just not up to speed fully on this one. Rich Kazardi. Kazardi. I and Verer I. Um, okay. Next motion. Who's going to make it? I motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Rich. And seconded by Mark White. Um, any discussion? All right. Chris Dowy Dy. Uh Mark White. Sydney Markitz. Mark Woods. Ei. Rich Gazardi. Gazardi. I And Verer I. Thank you all so much. Thanks Ian. Thanks Alec.