Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Hi, good evening. Um, I'm calling the uh, Boxboro Planning Board um, meeting to order at 700 p.m. on December 1st, 2025. Uh, this meeting is being conducted by Zoom as usual. Um, and you can access that through our agenda or you can um, there's a meeting link there and then there's also a simple call-in number as always too if you're not using a computer. Um, so first I'll start off by taking roll call. Um, folks as I see you Mark White present. Uh, Rich Gazardi Gazardi present. Chris Dudy Dudy present. Uh, Cindy Markwitz. Markitz present.

And Verser present. Thank you. Um, at this time I'd like to open it up for any public comment um that uh is about items that is not listed currently on the agenda. Uh if you have a um a comment or a question for the board, uh please raise your hand and I'll call on you or you can also uh press star line on your phones. Um Abby, I'm seeing you. If you could say your name and address, please. Hi, Abby Reap 205 Old Harvard Road and I wanted to make a comment about zoning along Massav. I hope that the planning board will consider working on um an updated zoning bylaw that would um encompass Massachusetts Avenue business district and into Town Center. Um, in light of the approval, the site plan approval that you just did for 975 Massav, I know there was a lot of discussion about the appearance of the building and the types of businesses that will be um using that space um and the types of business that it it conflicts with the types of businesses that um the people of Oxboro really desire. So, I would hope that you would kind of start to get to to work on that. Um, and as part of that zoning bylaw update, it would be great to include the design review board as um having um a greater um authority with regard to what the buildings look like uh along Massav. That is our main street and um I really feel like there's something that we should be doing about it to to make it look better and make it serve the interests of Boxboro residents more. Thank you. Thanks, Abby. I appreciate it. Um, any other public uh comment at this time?

Okay. Um, all right. So, moving on to our next uh topic. Uh, we have is it 7:05? It's just 7:05. Uh, a master plan annual update. Um and the planning board and the um select board is is here for a combined meeting together to discuss um the Boxboro 2030 master plan um annual progress report. Um so with that I Kristen I think you probably need to call your board to order if you'd like to go ahead and do so at this point. Go ahead.

Kristen able to see. Yeah, I had to wait to be um to be allowed to unmute. Hello everybody. I'd like to call the box select board meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on December 1st and we'll do a roll call vote um using the faces I can see. Bob Stmple, are you here? Stmple eye is here. Sam Anderson. Anderson I and Hillberg. Um Priya is unable to join us. She's at work and I don't see Wes. Wes is here. Oh, there's Wes. And I'm Wes President. Thank you. Okay, off we go. Perfect. Thank you. Um, Alec, I'm going to turn this over to you to make your presentation.

Great. Thank you everybody. So, uh, we do have a pretty packed agenda, so I have endeavored to make this year's presentation nice and short. Uh, each year we get a little bit a little bit shorter on the overall presentation. So, just bear with me. I'm going to get this up and then we can get started. All right. So, while it is still 2025, this is the annual progress report of 2026. It's always a retrospective. We look backwards on a year full of success, full of great things that we accomplished, and reflect back on the things that we can continue to do to improve our planning functions here in Boxboro. Um, for those of you watching at home, my name is Alexander Alec Weight. I'm the town planner here in Boxboro. I also work to oversee the office of land use and permitting, but it is the function of a town planner predominantly in almost any town to help facilitate the implementation of a master plan. That's what the Boxboro 2030 plan is. And as you can see from the tagline here, uh, in 2015, we set out to become a rural and engaged community for all. Those are really strong words that have resonated with me since I joined the team here in Boxboro, but clearly resonate with the people of Boxboro even more. So, a quick rundown of how this is going to go. Uh, every year we give this presentation. This board, uh, both boards are probably sick of seeing this slide, but we have to look at it each time. We're going to do a presentation by myself. That's going to last about 15 minutes. Uh we'll do Q&A with the two boards and then you the public will have the opportunity to participate via a public comment period that runs starting December 2nd, which is tomorrow, all the way through the 31st. If you want to get something in on January 1st, you're welcome to. I won't be checking my email, but uh I'll catch up on it on the second when I get back into the office. I will ask that both boards hold their questions to the Q&A period. That'll just let us get through the initial

presentation part pretty quickly. Um, and I will note that both boards have received the written progress report in advance of this meeting. So, uh, you, the public, will have the opportunity to view this and read it in full online starting tomorrow. Uh, the boards have had time to to look at it ahead of time. Uh, and so they know the majority of the substance as well as the lengthy words that go with the many slides here, but we're going to dive right into this presentation. So, what is a master plan? A master plan is the comprehensive roadmap that every community sets forth to become what it wishes to be. I always say that it's the job of the planning board, the select board, the many volunteer boards. It's your job to tell us what you want your community to become. Uh it's not the job of the people who apply for different projects or different applications. It's your job through a comprehensive master plan, then your zoning bylaws and your and your general bylaws to establish what you want the community to be. This ranges from infrastructure to planning and legislative matters as well as your overall philosophical goals. So for example, Boxboro has committed to being a rural and engaged community. That means maintaining the rural character that we always talk about while continuing to promote a community that's engaging for a diverse range of populations. The way that box roadmaster plan is structured is through sets of aspirational goals and then tangible action items as a trickle down by which you can implement and make steps towards those larger aspirational goals. A total of 125 action items were developed in 2015. That was the last time the town did an update. In 2002, you published your actual master plan. In 2015, you did an update. Uh Mark White worked hard this year to help actually unearth the original 2002 master plan which is available on the website if anyone wants to download and read. But those 125 action items are tangible things that we as professionals

as well as you the volunteer boards and committees can actually undertake to become the community that you envisioned. The process we're setting forth tonight, this is our annual update and progress report. So I want to outline that. That doesn't mean we've updated the plan. This plan, as you can probably guess from the title, lasts until 2030. It's a 15-year update plan. Uh what we're doing is an annual progress report. So, I kind of I kind of shake out what that looks like here. On the left hand side, you can see our annual updates. That's the process by which you, the boards and committees, as well as the many other boards and committees of Boxboro, provide us your input, your analysis. We develop a simple tool by which you give us your progress. You tell us what's working, what's not working, what action items have stalled or otherwise been able to move forward. And then we in the planning office take all that data, that very qualitative data, we convert it into a quantitative format, which turns into the prettyl looking graphs and the numbers that you see tonight, and we provide back a comprehensive analysis and recommendations. The goal of this annual progress report is both to take a temperature of the room, see where we're at, what's working, what isn't, as well as to help advance other projects. As you'll see tonight, we had a 4% increase from the actions that are being acted upon or otherwise completed as we did from last year. So, tangibly, we're making progress year-over-year. At that rate, we could maybe get to 100%. But, as you'll hear me say, no master plan is ever 100% enacted. That's just not practical. Uh but through this progress report process, this joint meeting that we do once a year, which is set forth in your plan as the actual method for annual updates, we take really good steps. We make sure the process is moving forward. And tonight, we'll actually set forth to start planning our next master plan or our long range comprehensive plan as you're going to hear me start to call it.

So before we talk about the future, let's talk about where we are today. So after doing this progress report uh after seeking feedback on all 125 items, we're able to break down the report and the overall progress into these four categories. Complete, in progress, delayed, or no update. No update is assigned exclusively when there was no update provided. Perhaps a board provided an update, but they have chosen not to report on a specific action item. Uh delayed is usually means that they've provided us feedback and they've told us why the project hasn't moved forward or why they're having trouble moving it forward. Complete reflects an action that was a one-time or a short-term project, something that could tangibly be completed versus in progress, which make up the majority of our action items. So, an inrogress action item is a positive thing in this case. Um, when you look at these four categories, you can break them down to two key categories here. Either are not engaged or are engaged actions. A master plan like yours often includes goals that will never be fully completed. That's because they're things that are done every year. You know, continuing to maintain properties in a certain way, continuing to to seek out and evaluate uh new parcels for conservation or recreation purposes. Those are things we're going to do every year. You're never going to stop doing that because if you stop doing it then you'll stop taking progress towards recreation and conservation. We're not going to do that here in Boxboro. So those are just to give you a couple examples. When you really boil it down, 86% of your plan has been engaged. That's a huge number. It's fantastic to see. It's fantastic to be a part of. And it just goes to show the work that this community puts forward. not just the professionals in office which make up actually a pretty small percentage of the action items or outright responsibility but the work that so many boards and committees are doing oftentimes with the help of associated staff as I said earlier we

made progress by 4% this year last year we had 18% of our action items were not engaged this year that's down to 14 and similarly we're up to 86% engagement of your master plan uh if we continue at this rate by the time we wrap this up we'll be at 102 2%. I don't know if we can actually achieve that, but we're going to keep trying as best we can. Uh the success we saw, those 4% we grew, I want to kind of highlight where a lot of that comes from. Um that's not to say that the boards, committees, and staff we're talking about here are the only ones that did work, but these are the ones we're really highlighting for the success they had. Uh we're going to highlight three in particular. Uh 2025, the economic development committee took huge strides in implementing its grant program. So you remember it initiated a grant program in 2024. 2025 they then worked with the various applicants of the grant program. They ended up creating 12 new jobs in the community uh as well as opening a new business and stabilizing multiple other businesses here in Boxboro. Similarly, the sustainability committee continued to build off their success. They actually ticked off their final the final master plan action item this year. uh that was specifically preparing a climate action plan which is scheduled to be brought before the select board for adoption in January of this upcoming year. That's a really exciting uh step forward. It's a really comprehensive and progressive step for the town. not only saying that we're going to be a green community, which was previously achieved, but now we're going to take steps at a policy level to make sure that the people of Boxboro, the business of Boxboro are taking equal strides to be energy efficient and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. They also opened this beautiful swap shed that you can see here. It's a fixture at the transfer station today. Uh, and it's a real community resource. Uh, a lot of it done was by a lot of it was done by volunteer efforts as well as Ian, our associate town planner, who's been assisting them throughout the way, but

they are our highest achiever this year where they have achieved all of their master plan action items and now we're looking for new work for them to do. And then I always like to give a quick plug for the work being done by different staff, departments, and teams. Um, this year we're giving a quick plug to the Sergeant Memorial Library. um specifically uh they play host to Dewali Fest and this year they had upwards of I believe it was 1,700 people uh participating. They have made significant strides to making Boxboro a very inclusive community but also uh really being an anchor in the community. When we think about the the municipal spaces of Boxboro, the library is probably the most beloved by so many. Um it's a space that they are actively working to improve. They're doing a redesign of the interior space, not through construction, but uh layout adjustments and working to make the space more conducive to libraries in 2026. Um and overall just continuing to make it a very welcoming space for a lot of people to use. This photo was snapped the day of and you can see the whole library alone is just absolutely packed. Really great work by Peson and the team. So our actions going into 2026, our recommended actions. Um when we're making recommendations, we look for specific projects that can be undertaken, things that can be done that achieve multiple actions within the plan. Some that had been not started, others that are in progress already. Um some of these are holdovers from the previous year. So for example, our very first recommendation is prepare a housing production plan. Uh this was a recommendation last year and over the past year we continued to see the need for a housing production plan in Boxboro specifically as we were going through our MBTA communities compliance work. Um it was stated by many boards multiple times that having a housing production plan would have assisted in the process. Uh the housing board has worked with our associate town planner to begin scoping a housing production plan. Uh and actually tomorrow night I will be attending the housing board meeting to

work out exactly how we finance and move that project forward. But we expect by this time next year, we will have either received the grant funding necessary to complete the work or we'll have gotten a head start using housing trust funds. But the housing board will discuss those details tomorrow night if you want to tune in. In 2025, we were successful in grant funding in its entirety and economic development plans. So, we used $15,000 of regional money as well as $60,000 of state funds. uh at no cost to the Boxboro taxpayers, we'll be able to complete this economic development plan in 2026. Uh we're working out the grant contracts now and we'll be able to kick off this work beginning in February. This will be a very exciting project that scopes out the emerging sectors, the areas for us to target and to work with as the boards consider potential use code changes and as the planning board looks at its zoning moving forward. All right. So, uh, next item, uh, preparation of a greenhouse gas inventory, as you'll hear in the climate action plan coming before the select board next month. This is a really important part. Um, this is a key component to any climate action plan, but it takes stock of what your emissions are and how we can affect them. Uh, and then additionally, we are also seeking funding this upcoming year for revision to the town's design guidelines. We just heard a member of the public talk about the role they can play in shaping the physical infrastructure at Boxboro and how we want it to look and we intend to take action through pairing them with a consultant or potentially our regional planning agency. Uh and finally, uh I am recommending that the town of Boxboro convene what I'm calling a local historic preservation summit. Uh so this has been a kind of odd theme that's been emerging. Uh if you look at the actual data itself, you'll see that our historic commission has already done a lot of work and there are certain action items that have been fairly stalled, but other boards and committees have seen an emergence of need to reconvene this conversation and have a more robust discussion, whether that's about

historic district commissions, demolition delay, um or other steps that can be done to preserve more historic spaces. But all of that requires a deep amount of public input. So my expectation is that in the coming year we will convene a lot of these stakeholders from the design review board, the historic commission, the steel farm advisory committee, likely the planning board and select board as well to take stock of where we stand as a historic community today. Um, notably there are a few historic properties that are coming on the market in the coming years. And without uh a action plan, an intent of what to do, it's hard for us to make steps to actually preserve those if that's what the community wants to do. So, in a moment, I'm going to turn it over to Q&A, but I do want to map out what the next 5 years look like. As I said, this is the Boxboro 2030 master plan, and we are looking ahead to what the next longrange comprehensive plan will be. The last two updates I've given, we've shown a simple graphic that kind of maps this out. But the work starts this year as we get into 2026. Uh we're still five years out, but a long range comprehensive plan takes about a year and a half to actually write, which means you need a long time to plan it. You need to be able to map your stuff out. You need to be able to fund the project all to get to a January 1st, 2030 turn on date. Uh my expectation is that between the select board and the planning board, we will have adopted this master plan prior to January 1st, 2030, effective on that date. So the work will have already been done and will transition right from one master plan to the next longrange plan in 2026. I'm specifically seeking for the select board and the planning board. The planning board being the authority of a master plan. Uh I'm seeking for you to work with me to specifically put together our initial stakeholder group. Whether that's a long range comprehensive planning committee, a subcommittee of one of the two boards, or an advisory group of some form in which we can begin mapping out the

chapters and the methods in which we want to conduct our next long range comprehensive plan. There's a lot of work that goes into that. I won't bore you with it tonight, but this is the first step in a 5-year process to get to our next longrange plan. All right, Q&A. That's record time for me. Everyone knows I'm very long-winded. Let me answer your questions. What do you have?

Anyone? Go ahead, Rich.

Yeah, it's maybe less of a question, Alec. Thank you for putting this together and boiling it down to those kind of critical things. And I appreciate your approach to, okay, we need to time to start preparing for the next master plan. My my concern is always that we we're you know we think about the past, we're focused on the future and today's right in front of us and we're you know so I and we're not getting it done right. But if I look at those things that you summarized, and you can kind of wind back a couple slides, those are all really important pieces to the mass to go back to the the things you summarized. The housing production plan, the economic development plan, the design review guidelines, the historic preservation, those are like fundamental tenants of Boxboro 2030 that like still have a lot of work to be done. And they're and they we made progress, right? We got funding on a couple of these. We we've identified the need to go get some funding on others, but like I just don't I just want to be careful that we're focused, you know, these are critical to close out 2030, right? And if you were to come and say, "Oh, okay. What chapters do you want to talk about for the next master plan?" It's going to be these, right? So, I think this is great work. like we're making progress, but like these are really important to kind of close on over the next two years

for what it's worth.

Wholeheartedly agree. It's very important that as we look forward, we continue to work on our previous plan. Um a really actionable long range plan like this. Uh even when we're in 2028 launching our new pro our new process, we will still be doing work. It isn't until 2029 that we'll really slow down on the existing plan. Um, in this phase, the 2026 strategizing phase, this is probably about three meetings in total of either a long-range comprehensive planning committee or an advisory group. Um, they'll be spaced out by quarter, but effectively meeting one, we come together. We kind of make our plan, our our mission statement of what we want to achieve in 2026. our second meeting, we actually start to think about what those chapters are that are important. And then in 20 in the third meeting, the final meeting before this annual report in 2026, uh we then actually map out uh the public engagement strategy so that we can bring them back. So by no means a heavy lift, but important work that we have to start early both to build awareness as well as to uh actually make the path possible. Go ahead, Sydney. Yeah, I think I made this comment in planning board meetings, but we have a number of planning documents that have been prepared over the last few years and um you know this is more of a prospective recommendation but I would also like to see it addressed here somehow a way to sort of incorporate all the work that's been done all the recommendations out of those plans so that we don't lose that um you know those that work and and those recommendations as we move forward, it's almost, you know, a an iterative process to try and continue on the plans that we've been working on. So, I guess sort of a just a a thought for going forward

about this progress update um perhaps to include all the other sub plans and then a suggestion for you know the future is how do we incorporate those sort of make more living documents across the board. So, I just uh I don't have an answer to that, but it's something I've been thinking about and would like to see us make better use of the work that's already gone into all of those sub programs um to get here.

That's really great feedback. Yeah, really great feedback, Cindy. Uh you're picking up on something that several communities have actually done in which their master plan is actually a conglomeration of other planning documents. So, for example, some towns don't do an economic development plan. they do a robust economic development chapter of their master plan. Um, and so that's really great feedback. This can be a really great tool to memorialize and actually emphasize the goals of things like the trails master plan that was done so many years ago. Um, but you also are correct. We can't put those in the we can't put those in the review in the mirror. So next year, let's see what we can do to kind of re-emphasize and realign or at least highlight where those other those other plans and other objectives align with the work of the master plan, too. Great feedback.

Perfect. Any other questions? Uh Bob, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Um, quick, Alec, if one of the items that is we can't get to or we haven't got to it, can we roll it over beyond 2030 into the next plan? Yes, without a doubt. I'm sure uh especially some of our items that some of our items will be automatic rollovers. So, for example, we have continual renewable housing production plan, um continual renewal of the open space and recreation plan. If those aren't incorporated into the master plan itself, there'll be action items that are rolled straight into it. So, very common that communities roll action items one plan to the next.

And and and do you get I guess my question is not that you get dinged, but do you do you get dinged if you know for ones that for ones that you just haven't accomplished?

No, not at all. Um some of the some of the brightest planning philosophers have said um any planning process whether it's infrastructure related or a document like this it's about flexibility. What you envisioned 15 years ago might not be practical. I mean 15 years ago we weren't talking enough about what a global pandemic would look like and then smack dab in the middle of the plan we got hit by one and it's totally changed the way that we are rural but still engaged. We're a very engaged community now in new ways than ever before. So entirely normal that items are left on the cutting room floor and and some items that we never envisioned end up getting implemented. Great. Thank you. Anyone else?

All right. Thank you, Alec, very much for pulling that all together for us this evening. Um, shall we move on to the climate action plan reporting from Ian? I believe so. Uh this is not on the joint meeting agenda of the select board. So Kristen, if you want to go ahead and adjourn your meeting for those of you who want, you can sign off and enjoy the rest of your night. I I would like to to say welcome Ian like uh thank you for joining us and it's the first time that I've actually met you and I plan to stop in at town hall when it's not a snowstorm this week or uh whatever, but I will stop by and say hi. So welcome.

Thank you very much, Wes. Yeah, it's great. It's great finally meeting you, even if it's not in person, but uh just know that my door is always open and I'd love to sit down and chat anytime. Maybe not tomorrow, but we'll see. I'll say my my friends on the Conservation Commission have have wonderful things to say, buddy. And uh he's doing great work. Thank you guys very much. Okay, Ian, your head just got big. You can let it go now. Bob's here to tear it down.

Hey, someone's got to get All right. So, um before I entertain a motion to adjurnn, I am planning on hanging on and um listening in on the campanelli. Will there be a quorum of the select board or are at least watching on the uh box TV? So, I will be out. Awesome. How about Bob and Sam? Likewise. Okay, perfect. Then um I'll enter you a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. No one moved. So bad. So moved. We're so bad at this. Okay. Um, any further discussion? Roll call vote. Bob

stumble. I um Sam Anderson I. Wes. Uh, folks. I and Hillberg. I All right. Thank you so much for having us. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Alec, uh, Alec, Ian, good luck. Uh, you got a a fun crowd. But I will say that this is my second favorite update. Last year was my favorite. So, good job, guys, and keep up the good work. Thanks, everybody.

All right, so thank you. I'll get moving. I'm looking at the time here and I'll start my timer. 7:31. I should be able to do this in perfect Alec time. So, uh, yes, my name is Ian Gillson. Um, for those of you who have not met me yet, I am the associate town planner. A couple days ago, actually just became my 6 month mark. So, uh, I'm very happy to be with Boxboro. It's been a really great time so far. A very welcoming community and, uh, this has been a great project that I've been working on for a couple months here now. Um, kind of was one of the first ones I picked up and, uh, worked on it a little bit over the summer and definitely a lot more this fall. Um, I do have a background in environmental science, so this isn't completely out of my wheelhouse. One of my previous jobs actually, uh, saw me going through dozens and dozens of university climate action plans. Um, so yeah, thank you very much for your time. Uh, it's been a long time coming that I've been working on this. Looking forward to what the planning board has to offer to this. As we get through this, um, you'll see that there's a lot of tangible steps, um, and kind of a lot more. Uh there's a lot that the planning board can do for this plan and I'm excited to get your feedback and comments on it. So first for a little context, credit where it's due. Boxboro climate action plan is not a new project. It's been in development for about a year now. our sustainability committee chair Kate Davies got a group of TUS um urban environmental policy master students to begin this work last winter and it's been changing and and coming in many forms and receiving feedback over the past year to shape and inform um what it is today and uh eventually what its final form will be um before its adoption. So, what is the climate action plan? What is the climate action priority plan? It's important to distinguish

these two. Um, first off, I'll plug this little um QR code if you did want to open it up on your phone. It's uh a really great document. Um, a super guiding document that's been really integral to uh this project. So, um I want to start with this is a this is a very big deal. Boxbar has no formal document that guides their um sustainability efforts as of yet and this is exactly what this uh plan will serve as. Um Alec was mentioning um the the goals and the purpose of a master plan and this is just like that. Um, it will be for the town to use to guide their next years of development in a sustainable manner as well as improve education across the uh sustainability education across the community as well as identify areas for improvement and increase sustainability. So, let's get into this. I said a lot of the groundwork has already been laid out with the climate action priority plan seen here on the left. It did a lot of preliminary research and technical analysis into Boxboro's demographics and um and the concerns regarding climate change within the community that would go on to identify um these five focus areas and 10 priority strategies and recommendations that are really at the core of Box Barrow's climate action plan. Um so what this is in the process of becoming Boxboro's final climate action plan will be an expansion of the work um that's laid out in the priority plan and include clear deliverables on the implementation strategies as well as identify stakeholders and partners for their execution um and incorporate feedback received this summer and fall and of course tonight from the planning board. Um the climate action plan will

be deeply informed by the town to ensure everybody is on board uh with how this will be implemented following its final adoption. So I should add that the climate action plan it won't include emissions data. Um some climate action plans it's common for climate action plans to do so. Uh but where we are in the stage right now it won't and it will in the future it's one of our very first goals. Um, so it will be light on emissions data. You can see that. But we hope to have this done as early as possible so that our first update to the climate action plan can build upon our goals with um data and emission reduction figures as well as targets. So I'm going to go on kind of a timeline here of how this feedback came in. Starting here, the climate action priority plan survey. Don't want to spend too much time on this. I know it's a lot of words and numbers on the screen. Um, but I do think it's important to review. Again, I put the QR code here. If you do want to go into the data analysis section of the priority plan, it starts on page 49. And this was a really robust outreach survey. Um, that identified a lot of the concerns that Boxboro residents had. Um but at a high level we see a lot of concern regarding extreme weather, flooding and heat and water scarcity. Uh as well as residents concerned about their water quality and health. Residents also want to see financial incentives for sustainability brought into Boxboro. And a key theme that was first brought up in this that we see throughout this feedback is that Boxboro has a strong desire for more education on this topic on sustainability. And uh climate action plan is great, but pointing residents to these educational resources and actions to further reduce their carbon footprint and improve sustainability is definitely

at the forefront of many minds in town. Um, and then lastly, I'll just say uh there's definitely a lot of uh thought and priority towards transportation or I should say low emission transportation and mobility options seemingly around the town center area, but um you know, anybody driving around town uh you can tell that there's definitely uh more need for sidewalks um all over the town. So, as I said, that survey that we were just kind of digging into informed five focus areas and 10 priority action strategies. Um, all equally important and a lot of them much easier to achieve than others. Um, the priority plan identifies timelines, loose timelines for these methods of implementation. Um but the climate action plan in its final form will build on these um using the feedback that we receive and uh yeah we'll come back to this circle very shortly to talk about those timelines. So, one of the first items of outreach that were done was this summer the sustainability committee and town staff uh were present at Feifers Day to engage dozens of residents on their interest, knowledge and support on the climate action plan. You can see this is the visioning poster that we did. Essentially residents would come up uh the sustainability committee members as well as the sustainability intern would engage them discuss with them their concerns and priorities regarding uh climate change and then pointing them to uh this this circle that identifies the focus areas and strategies and asking them about which were the most important to them. As you can see, um water, waste, and resilience we'll see are constant priorities for residents of

Boxboro. Um as well as the education and use of incentives over regulation is another theme that we see throughout this outreach. Um whereas this says expand zero emission mobility. Um it has since been changed uh in the in the priority plan. Um it seems a bit EV related and a bit framed towards zero emission vehicles, EV vehicles. Um but you also see at the first part up can right here there is desire for sustainable transportation which is definitely much more um open-ended for transit options including walkability and mobility uh in the town center district as we mentioned. Um lastly, we also saw that energy and buildings recognize that a high priority um but with no existing greenhouse gas inventory, it's a bit hard to make measurable goals for those. So that's why um we will see the greenhouse gas inventory as an early short um short-term goal. So later in the summer or during the summer actually, Sarah Martell was hired as uh Boxboro's first sustainability intern to collect feedback on the priority plan to then inform the the development of the climate action plan from the town's boards, committees, and local regional partners. Um and although I'll say limited feedback was received, we got about we heard back from about eight committees. Um but about three of those uh did not believe that the the climate action plan was relevant or addressed their mission um just because they were very very separate um or very distinct um goal oriented committees that might not meet that often. So we did get five

pretty robust responses from um some of the boards and committees in town. Um so and these were the key takeaways that we were able to get on that that across the board again um we saw a lot of agreement on these five pillars. Um the boards and committees also um a couple times identified that they have these existing plans that guide Boxboro's development um that aim to uh address some of these goals and they want to see that the final form of the climate action plan addresses and build on these existing goals which we'll also get to in the very next slide. A lot of them recognized that there was limited staffing and funding needs to implement the goals put forth in the climate action plan as well as uh significant support for interdep departmental and intercom committee um coordination and uh goal setting as well as um the boards and committees just wanted to know how they could help and support the final implementation uh of this which is like I said one of the um key distinctions between the priority plan and the climate action plan is that in its final form it will identify stakeholders and partners that will be integral in implementing the strategies uh put forth. So, speaking of those overlapping goals, um earlier this summer actually I was uh a new employee working to familiarize myself with uh these guiding documents of Boxboro. Um these goal setting documents like the open space wreck plan, water resources report that came out more recently and these other plans here, especially on the right column here, the 2030 master plan. And uh one of the exercises I did was um cross referencing the the five pillars of the climate action priority

plan with the goals put forth in each of these plans. So I'm not really trying to reinvent the wheel here. I do think that cross departmental and committee collaboration is integral for um a strong climate action plan and implementation of the um of the climate action plan. So I did prepare this um in order to identify where the most where the highest levels of um overlap are. So the dark green you can see are very strong overlap between uh like the water resources report and the implementation strategies of the priority plan as well as energy reduction plan and our strategies for energy reduction put forth in the climate action plan. So these are documents that I have been using to inform myself on what Boxboro's current goals are, but also the sustainability committee and um the planning department are using to move forward and see, okay, we already have this plan. How can we think bigger and and continue building off of these goals that have already been put forth. So back to the circle, I just want to briefly go over the the timelines that we have here. Um the climate action priority plan identified some timelines short-term, medium-term, and long-term. And as you can see, the greenhouse gas inventory, as we already mentioned, is short-term, as well as the education of private wellwater. Um reduce solid waste emissions, um that is starting in January. more education efforts is an ongoing effort that can start as soon as this plan is published as well as community research and then increase institutional capacity since that is a very um long spanning goal. It's better to start that as soon as possible. Uh medium-term you can see some of these the greenhouse gas inventory may not be

done within the first year. Um yeah, I don't think I need to get into many of these. We'll get into a lot more in the next slide which is a bit dense. Um, so I want to spend a good amount of time on it. So this is ultimately kind of where I was going with this presentation. I wanted to uh do a deep dive on these 10 strategies that we looked at. Talk about possibilities for the planning board to um to assist in the implementation and the development of the climate action plan. So, we have our 10 strategies listed here off to the left. Um, you have pros and cons or challenges, their cost level, key benefits, and then the opportunity for the planning board. Noting that it's 7:45 now. Um, I will leave this up on the screen since the next slide is for questions and comments, but I will go through some of them. Um, so obviously a work in progress. This is going to continue developing. Um, and I'm looking for your feedback on some of these tonight. what you guys think, where you think we can go with these. Um, there's a lot of areas that the planning board can assist with and some are a lot more straightforward and concrete than others. Um, I'll try to stay just to the right here. So, looking at outreach, education, and water resource information, as well as, uh, waste management were all identified as top priority throughout the many outreach processes that we've done. Um, so I I' I'd implore you to begin thinking about that and and look at what we have here on the right. And moreover, I think um through developing these that the most tangible and concrete um items for delivery for the planning board to commit to are with zero emission uh mobility here. Um, we've already heard in one of the comments we had earlier tonight that

there was a desire for um town center zoning um increased uh improved town center zoning, especially off the heels of a very successful um village for a day event. Um, also as Alec was talking about, we're in our next master plan is only a short a few short ways away. We're also in the beginning, we're in the process of developing a housing production and economic development plan. The planning board will also be very helpful to work with um in creating the on the ground changes that increase sustainability in the town, be that through new zoning or bylaws. Um, and uh, lastly, I just want to put on your radar. The, uh, reduce solid waste emissions and adopt adopt specialized stretch code are currently being worked on by the sustainability committee. This January, we're going to see the uh first meeting of the new and improved waste reduction working group who will be working to identify ways to reduce waste within town, but also implement uh pay as you throw program, identify the pricing schemes that would make that an affordable option for Box Borrow to implement. And then the specialized stretch code is currently uh on a timeline to be adopted either next spring or next fall. And we're planning on using the um the energy reduction data that we gain from our green communities project to inform and um and educate residents on why a specialized stretch code would be beneficial to the town of Boxboro. Um yeah, I'll stay here. The Oh, sorry. Timeline forward. I lied. Um we are right here. We're in the final draft of the uh draft, sorry,

draft final draft. We're in the final stages of drafting the uh climate action plan and it is going to the sustainability next week for its first view and then it will sit with them as well as you guys and all the other boards um for revision period going to January before adoption by the select board. Um, now it's comments and concerns and I will go back to this in case you guys wanted to go to it. So, I did not beat Alec on the time here, but um, yeah, thank you guys very much. Very happy to hear what you guys have to say. Let me grab a pen so I can start taking notes.

You did fine, Ian. This is really really exciting. I'm super super stoked to to see all of this information pulled together in one place. I'm hoping that you'll circulate this to everyone um after this meeting because there's a ton of awesome information in it that um I'd love to just dig into with more details. So um thank you for pulling this together. Um board members questions, comments for Ian at the time. Go ahead, Rich.

Yeah, I'll ask the question. I may have asked this not for this presentation. Thank you Ian. This is really comprehensive and you've done a nice job of laying this out. When we move forward with this priority strate action strategy deep d well this is this slide is your deep dive. We're going to adopt a plan. Do these specific things become goto actions or like because for each one right there's there's a a value like there's the pros the challenges right you there's a there's a plus and a minus to everything right and so the we have to go through each one

and come to a conclusion okay is you know how do we implement this is this the right thing to implement what's the cost yes go is that what it is or is it? No, these the decisions been made. These are all we're moving forward with all these because like the cost level piece is you have dollar. It's almost like going to a restaurant, right? It's a this is a $1 restaurant or a $5 restaurant. Um at some point like the costbenefit analysis on like and I'll be very specific to adopting specialized stretch code and I know there's been a lot of talk about that and I hear very positive things about what it can do. I also hear some not so positive things like it creates more costly housing and people that want to put an addition on all of a sudden have to you know do a whole bunch of things that they never intended to do. So I guess what do we do with this? Is this go do these or is there is there a deeper dive to go do the assessment on what we are going to do?

Yeah. So um I'll say it's not a super clear answer to that. It's yes and no because these of these 10 strategies that you see on the left, some of them are cut and dry. Adopt specialized stretch code. Establish a greenhouse gas inventory that has a start and an end. But expand zero emission mobility. That's more of a goal than or it's more of a strategy rather than an action. Some of these are actions, some of these are strategies. Um, I went to a workshop at uh at a planning conference that I went to a couple weeks ago that kind of broke down what is a goal, what is an action, what is a strategy and it put a lot of this in perspective. Um so some of like I said four and three and some of these are are cut and dry like the stretch code and the inventory but the um expand zero emission mobility that will have actions attached to it in the final version of this that are going to be recommendations for the planning board and I'm hoping for um support to some extent for these actions that are recommended in the final version of the of the climate action plan that are saying you you know, this is X, Y, and Z that the planning board hopes to accomplish with town center or sidewalks or EV um parking requirements that are actually as attainable as, you know, adopting a specialized stretch code or establishing a greenhouse gas inventory. Okay. Yeah, I just there's a lot here that I'm not familiar with and I'll have to do my homework on it.

Mark,

sorry. Um, I got a couple of questions and comments. Um, so when you say cost level, that's cost to what? The town or to the consumer? Uh that was total cost in general. Be it to the town, be it to the consumer. Some of these are um some of these are more directed at the consumer. Some of these are much more directed at the town. Um that's probably, I will admit, one of the ones that um were the least informed. There's no price tag necessarily on any of these, but rather just general estimates. Um, yeah. But more specifically, I'd say uh to the town rather than the consumer itself.

Okay. Because I mean some of these things I I think the way I see them laid out here I sense that it would be a relatively low cost to the town to pursue but there might be higher cost for the consumers the end of the day. So um at some point you may want to break your cost levels into two columns. Okay. So, you know, consumer, what's it going to cost the town to do this? But what's it going to cost the consumers in the long run? Because this is a long run game.

This is a long game. So, um the the the other thing, and I'm going to I said this the last time we spoke about this climate action plan, and it does concern me because, um things like this get legs real real fast. And uh 140 residents answered a survey upon which most of this data is based. and uh that's 140 residents uh driving a plan for 6,000. And so I don't think that's a very representative sample. Um and so I think your outreach is going to have to a better define the cost before you talk to people about the proposals. Um so that people clearly understand you know what we're going to ask for from them in taxes to pay for pursuing these aspects of the plan but also what it's going to cost them.

Uh pay pay per throw for example is I mean we we pay you know pretty high taxes right now and uh we don't have to pay per throw. I understand the motivation behind it, but uh but I'm not going to be happy having to pay to throw on top of it. So, uh you're going to have to kind of break those things out in a way that people can can absorb it. But but again, it's this is 140. What we're looking at here is what 140 residents, you know, pointed you in a direction. And I really got to wonder what the other 5,9 850 of them said. So, uh, and maybe they're not interested and they're not going to really be interested until they start to understand the implications of these say, and most of those are going to be cost implications. and particularly the specialized stretch code. The specialized stretch code because I'm in the construction trades. Uh I I've seen how it plays out in other communities and it starts to cost a lot of money, a lot more than people think. And it may not come to them directly, but it comes to them in the cost of their housing primarily. So, I mean, I'm good with a lot of the things. I mean, we're looking at this screen now, and that's unfortunately, I mean, if I had a copy of this, I could be flipping back through it, and I can't, but um there's a lot about water in here, and certainly Boxboro is deeply concerned about water, and I think we've done a good job, you know, approaching that, you know, with our water committee. Um, so you know, I rank that high on the scale here and and it seems to get lost in the in the in this strategy list.

It where it's really a bigger part of everybody's concern, but very very minimally um represented in in this chart. Um but again the the uh my concern is how a small how a small sampling of how people feel becomes a driver for what the select board is going to have to act upon um as like a matter of fact and and and and again that that always is a problem because if it's a small sampling then then how how effective um or or how repres representational is that um for us. So So I I I don't know how you solve that. I think you know your outreach efforts are going to be obviously your your engaged community part of this is going to be a big part of it. So um but otherwise I think you've done a great job of kind of breaking it out into something that we can digest. Um but again I go back to the small sampling that that that does concern me.

Thank you. Yeah. Um Bob, before I open it up to you, I'm going to just make sure there's no other board comments and then I'll open it up to public comment. Okay. Um Cindy Maritz, go ahead.

Uh yeah, this was a really great presentation, a lot of information, so appreciate all the work that's gone into it. Um I know the sustainability committee over the last number of years has done a lot of uh implementation of things on the town side and I think it might be helpful. I don't know if it makes sense to make it part of this reporting, but it would be interesting for folks to see sort of what has been accomplished at the town at the municipal level. Um, you know, somewhat to Mark's point about, you know, investment um versus, um, you know, kind of payback. Um, so that might be a useful metric to include or metrics to include.

Um, a and perhaps forward metrics. looking at these, you know, it may not be easy math, but um it might be helpful to get some you've got a cost level there, but maybe there's and you've got qualitative benefits, but maybe we can drive a little bit more about, you know, putting in a little bit may have some additional financial as well as other benefits. So, you know, just to drive some of the um thinking behind and then that may become more apparent which ones are are worth the investment um a little more obviously, but you know, that's going to take a little more work, but that might be helpful to have um explore that a little bit further. Thanks, Cindy.

Thank you very much, Jenny. Any other board comments before I open this up to public comment? Okay. Um Ian, you got what you needed from planning board members this evening? I did. Yeah. Thank you. And I'm I'm gonna supply you guys with this uh as well as keep an eye out uh later next week. I'll I'll have uh um the document the document itself in its first draft um it first final draft um for you guys as well. Perfect. Thanks, Bob. Go ahead.

Thank you. Thanks, Rebecca. Ian, nice. This is really a nice graph because you can check off things that are done or things that are being worked on. It really just lays it out, you know, in in a detailed uh format where you can see exactly which which one um you're working on exactly where it plays out. My my only question and you mentioned it a couple times and I just want to make sure I understand um it's I think it has to do with more with um item seven, the expand environmental education. It has to do with filler center and walkability. You mentioned sidewalks a couple of times. Um were there My question is the sidewalks were you were were people talking about sidewalks on side roads their home you know their side streets or were they talking about Massav?

So I think um I'll point it to number three I think is where I was mostly talking about sidewalks was the zero emission mobility. It seems that with um let me see here with the Fifers day outreach I was seeing that people were interested in the goal of sustainability sustainable transportation options and this s this strategy zero emission mobility is often framed as and understood as electric vehicles. Um, and so where there was kind of a misalignment because I'll go back here and just show that there was actually zero zero dots here on this strategy. Um, but you know, six dots here. uh it pointed to a theme that there was a desire for sustainability options, sustainable transportation options, and we would assume that that probably meant expansion of um the MART bus route uh as well as a down a walkable downtown, which is kind of bringing in the information that I received at the village for a day event where a lot of residents uh came up and spoke with myself, spoke with Rich as well and members of the EDC mentioning that they wanted to see more mobility around the village center.

Okay. Okay. Great. you know, I so so the MAR bus would definitely be one that the MAR bus could be, you know, go to Feifers Day or in in transport people along those lines and along in other events in town because my other question or my other comment I guess is, you know, sidewalks um on on 111 Massav it would, you know, I think as you just mentioned, you know, I think that was kind of a um a s a sore spot, a sore spot with a lot of people that they couldn't walk

from on the on the village for a day from one to the other because there are no sidewalks. So what my point is on this whole thing to summarize it and then I'll get off was that sidewalks in town. Yes, the town would have to pay for and the reing the residents would have to pay for sidewalks on Massav the state would pay for and yes eventually the residents would get it through their state taxes but it's at a you know at a much higher level in that the so you know I think one of the things we need to look at with this is if you know if we if we approach the state to get sidewalks on 111 to connect more of the businesses on 111 the upfront costs would be on by the state versus the town versus the residents.

No, that's a that's a really good way to frame it that I'll note it's not specifically put that way in the in the original plan. So, um yeah, thank you for that. It's a it's a good way to to build uh support for for that item. Thanks again. Thank you, Bob. Okay. Um any other public comment about this topic? Okay, I'm not seeing any. Thank you so much, Ian. That was really great. Thank you guys very much.

Okay, so I'm noting that it's now 8:05. Um, right now we're going to continue the public hearing for Beaverbrook Road, OSC CD 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 Capanelli Trigate Sub LLC to amend OCD97-01 and OCD01-01. Um, so, okay. So, we are, boy, we're at the decision uh process. I think we dug in pretty deep on that last uh meeting that we had. Um, I believe we're going to pick it up from there this evening. Um, we probably have a fair amount of information to get through still on on that decision. Uh my goal is going to be to um uh wrap this discussion up at 10:00 tonight because we do have other um meeting agenda items here, but that gives us a solid 2 hours. Um and if we do need to continue it at that time, we we'll go ahead and do so, but hopefully we can get through it. Um first, I'm going to open it up for a brief um public comment period. Um so if members of the public uh have comments that they'd like to say, uh at this point, we'll allow that to happen. So raise your hand. Um Abby, go ahead.

Thanks, Rebecca. Abby Ree, 205 Old Harvard Road. Um I'm just going to reiterate uh with my um EDC hat on that um I do hope that you will move this project forward and approve it. Um, I think that it does, um, provide great benefits to the town and it'll also, um, help develop that that site and bring good, uh, good business and jobs to, um, to Boxboro. So, thank you.

Thanks, Ivy. Any other public comment at this time? Okay, I'm seeing none. Um, with that, um, Alec, do you want to go ahead and pull up the decision where we left off?

Absolutely. Um, for members of the board as well as members of the public who might be following along, uh, the planning board previously took up this decision at an October meeting, uh, we finished that portion of the meeting on page 13 just prior to additional findings. Uh there are also additional versions of this decision with board member comments integrated that you'll see me from time to time dragging and dropping into this. So um without further ado, I will drop the next set in right here. So these comments come from uh Cindy Marowitz's draft. these additional criteria that as Cindy noted um were called out in the applicant's application materials uh and the question was raised whether or not we need to address them here in this decision.

Where where are we on this? We're we're after uh this is just before additional findings and at this point we are in the Apologies. Special permit criteria. So just below the special permit criteria.

I don't think we have to include all that. Yeah, I was going to say if strictly speaking this the application is an amendment to the original um to the original application. So something that is not being changed in any way wouldn't need to be mentioned and the site plan stuff would be specific to an individual building for construction which we're not talking about right here. So, I don't think we would need that yet. Mark, did you have a comment?

Um, so where exactly did we leave off? You're saying we left off right right here where what we're looking at on this screen.

Yes. Uh, we had left off at the end of this paragraph here. Um, and there had been a lingering comment regarding the proximity of the structures or proposed structures that might be on lot 800 to the Trail Ridgeway condominiums. And then from there, I imported the last comments on uh Cindy's draft. Uh, Rich and Rebecca did not have comments immediately at this point. Okay. So, what we looked at, what we were looking at last time didn't have these additional criteria in the document. You've moved them from the comment side of the document into the document. That's correct. Yes.

Okay. I mean, we never got done talking about the document without talking about all the additional stuff that got added to it. I I'm I'm getting confused here now. I mean, this is how we we did it um last time. um we we would bring in comments as as um we've got through the document and then either yay or nay them um as a team. So,

okay. Well, uh I I don't know how why we would need to have site plan approval as a condition of a special permit process when site plan approval is a foregone conclusion. And we've went through this multiple times throughout the document prior where there's no need for us to reiterate things that are are prescribed by law elsewhere. I mean, dimensional requirements, it's prescribed by the code. Parking criteria, it's prescribed by the code. Um, multiple buildings on one lot, prescribed by the code. So, I mean, why are the why we have to add additional criteria on top of that's already prescribed by code to a special permit that is it just confuses things for me. So,

Sydney, I probably should have let you explain your thoughts behind this. Um, do you want to go ahead and do that now?

Um, yeah, thanks. I I think um so as Alec is correct that this was originally identified as the um the uh areas that needed to be met as part of the application. Um I put them in here and I might defer to to uh special land use council but um I do believe we we will need somewhere to discuss the dimensional requirements because those are not those are different uh what's being requested is different than the uh what's in the bylaw. um the applicant has requested some changes on the dimensional requirements. Similarly for partner criteria the applicant has requested some changes. So this was really just to capture and make sure that we address them. Whether this is the right place you know remains to be seen but each of these items was identified by the applicant as being applicable. I wanted to make sure that we at least spoke to them even if it's a brief um reference or or something. So I might defer to to Adam Costa on what how best to do that, but that's why I included them. They were identified by the applicant. I think they are gerine as some of them are not um consistent with our zoning bylaw.

Attorney Costa, I know I saw you're on here. Um do you want to speak to that for us, please? I I can. Sure. So I I suspect what prompted uh Cindy to request the addition of these what four or five topics is when I look at the applicants special permit application form for an open space commercial development uh under section four of that.

Is that me? No, it's not you. Okay. Adam, can you still hear us? I can hear you. Can you hear me? Yes, we got you back now.

Okay. Some somehow my video went away, so I apologize for that. Um, so the the application form asks the applicant to identify the applicable sections of the zoning bylaw. And the sections that are listed here are all included. Section 2.3, special permits, of course, but also section 2.5 site plan approval. section 5.1 dimensional requirements etc. Um I don't think that the board has any sort of an obligation to for example make explicit findings with respect to the special excuse me the site plan approval criteria because this is not an application for site plan approval. It's an application for a special permit with a recognition that there will be future applications for site plan approval for indep individual buildings within the development. Uh to Cindy's point, when it comes to things like dimensional requirements, parking criteria, etc., there may be a basis for you discussing those in the grander context of the special permit application or modification application to the extent that there are dimensional modifications or uh parking relief that's being requested. the question Cindy. So were you getting on the dimensional requirements were you getting at and I pulled up the presentation from Campanelli I don't know uh June 16th of 2025 um where they reduced the maximum stories in the prior in the now expired OCD was 60 ft um and then it's been reduced to 45 feet four stories to three stories are you and are you citing in addition to the parking like where is that specified somewhere like

yeah I mean I think we haven't talked about the dimensional requirements um the applicant has asked for slightly revised dimensional requirements on the table that they provided and I think we need to discuss it so whether it's here or we can just reference exhibit A you know attached um but the board needs to decide if we agree with those dimensional requirements so again if this isn't the right place you know we can move on and make sure that but I just want to make sure that these get addressed somewhere in the in the findings and or conditions. So,

yeah, I I'm good with the attach the exhibit six approach that was in their presentation. I see uh attorney Schneider has her hand up, so I can I'll yield, but I agree. We have to somehow address what the the new dimensional requirements are. Um but anyway, I'll I'll yield. Attorney Schneider, do you want to speak to that?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, members of the board. Johanna Schneider on behalf of Campanelli. Um as uh members Marcoitz and Gazardi did point out, part of our application materials um do include as the other permit decisions did a chart with the updated uh dimensional requirements or you know dimensional adjustments that we are seeking approval for with respect to the new buildings on the site. Um, in addition, there are numerous references throughout the draft decision that we have been reviewing um to the proposed reduction in the number of parking spaces. So, I think that those things are addressed in various places here. Um, I don't think that they necessarily, and Cindy, I'm happy that you called these things out because you're right, we just need to make sure that they're included, but I think they are included um without needing a separate discussion um for calling out. But again, we've got that attachment which is mirrors the attachment that went with the prior iterations of this permit. It's just we're looking to substitute that in. And as I said, the parking reduction is documented throughout this uh draft decision.

Thank you, Johanna. Rebecca, if I may, I'd like to ask that these placeholders be left here as we go through the rest of the document. Um and then circle back just to make sure because again we haven't yes the exhibit has been provided but we haven't discussed uh the the exhibit about dimensional requirements. So um you know I'm just asking that as placeholders you know we we can continue on with the findings but um I want to make sure that we've actually render an opinion on these items if that makes sense. That makes sense. Um Alec can you highlight these to be returned to? Um, Rich, go ahead.

No, I'm I'm good with continuing to move. Okay.

I guess if just back up one second in the spirit of continuing to move, the the I had one comment before we got into this section at the end of the last piece where it talks about Trail Ridge condominiums. Applicant will be required to mitigate any identified impacts to the abuing condominium complex. So, we're requiring a mitigation, but that mitigation would come in the form of a of an agreement condition on a site plan approval, not here. So, one way to do it is just to put a put sort of like a a com, you know, tail end of that say as um provided in any site plan approval. Um that's an easy way to do it. Uh the language may be a little strong for this permit this request. Um but my you know my simple approach is just to add a comment at the end um you know pursuant to to be deciding a site or pursuant to a site plan uh pursuant to a future site plan. Yeah. And then that was my comment there. And then I was going to hit it right Rebecca as we went to unless there's any discussion on that. I was going to go right to additional findings and make a comment on A and B. So I think A does a good job of describing what's happening here. Um B is confusing and it's background information. Um it I mean it's talking about the the prior decision from 01 phase one

development blah. I mean it's just going on and on about phase like the what the prior period was. I don't know that we need any of this, but if you go all the way down to the end, there's a sentence there. The board finds that the rationale set forth in decision 9701 and 0101 applies to the 2025 master plan and accordingly finds as follows. I would keep that. Like everything before that I'd get rid of and I would keep that because I think this section of Romanetses actually does a I think some of the language needs to be fixed because I think there's some things that are out of sequence with the with how this was rewritten. But I think yeah that now we get into okay what's happening here with the 2025 master plan. Um the and so the like we can go through each of these I but the to me this is where the rubber sort of meets the road is what is happening with this master plan and I the timing of things and I know there's language in different places that talks about how the timing works that may not exactly be consistent with this but this is the place to start I believe

I thanks I I'm wondering if and uh Attorney Schneider, you should speak to this, but if was that left in as previous verbiage from the the the um previous agreements? Yes, Madam Chair. That's why that's in there.

But I but I don't disagree that we could probably do without it. You know, again, as we've talked about, as we've been reviewing this decision al together, we did try to port over as much language and as much of the approach from the prior permit decisions just to, you know, have some continuity, but I don't I don't have an issue taking out sort of the background and the history notwithstanding that it is largely based on the the 01 decision. Alec, can you scroll up because it's a fair amount of information that is proposed to be stricken. U just like to give the board a chance to read through and see if people feel comfortable with that.

Cindy, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think there's a a definition here of the commercial development period that we're going to need to address. Um, so I want to make sure we don't lose the actual stated definition. I think the reason this is in there was that the applicant was teeing up sort of the next few um phrases based on what was previously granted. So, we just need to be careful that we're not granting something that um doesn't uh you know that doesn't still want to be um identified. So, we just need to be careful as we go forward.

Yeah. And then when you So I'm sorry. Yep. No, that's fair. If we need to make sure we're defining it. Yeah, it needs to be somewhere

and it and actually when you go to Romanet 2 and down below it says uh once substantial use of this permit is commenceed, the applicant's rights shall fully invest in this special permit will not be left till the expiration of the extended commercial development period as defined in subsection 4 below. So is that now the new commercial development period or I hope we don't have yet another definition of extended commercial development period. I just but we're providing for a place where it's defined in subsection 4 below and then you go to subsection 4 below and I note that that's different from the front page of the document. The subsection 4 says that uh the commercial development period shall commence on the date of recording of the new open space restriction uh and ending the 20th anniversary. But in the very beginning of the document, it just has a date certain of January 1st, 2045, which I kind of like. This is the date. I mean, we can debate the date, but I kind of like the specificity of a date. So there's just some consistency back and forth, but I I think the um that section does a is trying to do a good job of outlining exactly what's happening.

So I guess um my two cents would be this would be something that you're pointing out the inconsistencies with dates and and schedules and stuff like that. That makes me a little nervous um without Adam taking a peek at that closer um about striking such a a chunk of information there. I guess um it might be useful to have him take a closer look at that.

Yeah, I'm asking you to do it on the fly. It's a chunk of information. I'm sorry, Adam. mostly references the previous decision. That that's where I'd say it might be redundant given what we've already amended like the background portions to. Cindy, you were um starting to say something.

Yeah, I mean I think um we could best use Adam's expertise by identifying what the specifics of the issues are and let him craft the language. So, in other words, um I'm still not comfortable with open space. Uh I think we're what are we calling it now? Uh open space we're calling I think we're either going to call it conservation restriction or somehow equate those terms. So, that's one issue I have. Uh the commercial development period itself, we need to define what that's going to be. Um can you scroll down a little bit further? Um,

yeah. So, let's let's take each one of those if we can. Open space restrictions. I think that Alec did a nice job and put some information in there. I think we do want to change that, right? And I I don't know if the applicant has a concern, but it's it's what are we talking about? A conservation restriction as opposed to an open space restriction. Is that right, Alec? Um, yes. It's my recommendation after meeting with members of the conservation team um and better understanding what can be done with an o with a operations and maintenance plan that we can achieve the goals set forth by the applicant for the conservation land as well as the previous goals of the open space restrictions through an outright conservation restriction.

Okay. I believe the applicant has previously um expressed that they were fine with either or, but uh Johanna, would you like to go ahead and confirm that for us now?

Yes, we are entirely agnostic as to the approach that the board wants to take on this, we're fine. Um if the board would like it to be, you know, a formal statutory conservation restriction. And the only thing that I will note um and I think Alec can add some more color to this is that if we are going to do a formal CR as opposed to just an open space restriction which is how many of the restrictions previously were done um those can't be done within 120 days which is what this draft currently contemplates. That's a 12 to 18month process um you know through both the town and through EA at the state level. Um, and so if the board desires to do this as a formal conservation restriction, again, we're fine with that, but I think that we do need to significantly alter the suggested timing. Um, so, you know, we should just keep that in mind as we work through this section.

Madam Chairperson, if I could uh pick up from what Johanna said, I would echo the sentiment from the applicant. Um, if we went the the formal route of a conservation restriction, which again is my recommendation, that does require review and approval from the state. Um, it is a much more structured and firm restriction type. It leaves less ambiguity, and it provides better preservation uh preservation ability to the land itself while still maintaining open access and the ability to to conduct recreation on the site. Um my recommendation would be the the applicant's language and the conditions that states 120 days be revised to 18 months um as that can often be the regulatory timeline by which the state needs to review and approve. However, at the end we get a much stronger restriction that is actually in my recommendation monitored and maintained jointly by Sudbury Valley trustees and um by the conservation commission.

Thank you. Um board members, are you in agreement? Um have any comments or questions about that? Cindy, go ahead.

Yeah, so I I want to um try to make that uh conservation restriction happen as quickly as possible. Um I don't know if there's a mechanism by which we can call it one and change it to another, but I'd like to see that happen um you know upon uh expiration of the appeal period or at least the beginning of the process. So um whether that's um you know there's language that can be put in to either call it an open space restriction to be converted to a conservation restriction, that would be helpful to know. But my my hope is to have that um process begin as soon as possible. I think that would be most protective for the town. Thanks. A good point, Cindy. Thank you. Um, Attorney Costa.

You seem to be muted.

Let's try that again. Apologies. Technological difficulties tonight. Mhm.

Um, so what I might suggest through you, Madam Chair, is sort of a two-step process that I suspect attorney Schneider's familiar with where upon the issuance of the decision in the passage of the appeal period, a declaration of restriction can be recorded at the registry of deeds. It doesn't require approval by EOEA and effectively uh reflects the intent of the parties to restrict the land. Um, I think that's a better approach than a two-part process that would involve the recording of an open space restriction that would then be converted to a conservation restriction because they serve slightly different purposes. So, it's sort of like starting with an apple and turning it into an orange. I think that the better approach is a declaration of restriction that is an applesto apples comparison with a conservation restriction uh with the exception of it not having been approved in advance by EO uh EOEA and then that declaration of restriction can provide a degree of protection in the interim because I concur with what Alec has said that the process is a 12 to 18month process and I've had experiences where that process has taken longer than 18 months months. So, uh it is it is good to have some protection in the interim. Obviously, you have the condition of your decision which would be enforceable, but having something on record in the chain of title in the short term is also beneficial.

Thanks, Adam. Uh so, any thoughts? Any additional thoughts on that? I like that. Shall we Okay, make this revision. Yeah, I think Cindy, you rais a good point and and Adam, thanks for the solution because I think that is there a chance that it doesn't actually get approved. Go ahead, Adam.

So, it it's rare, I would say, in circumstances like these. Um, there are instances where the conservation restriction uh would not get the approval of EOEA for a number of reasons. Number one, because the land for some particular reason doesn't qualify to be uh restricted conservation land. Um because you can't find a holder of the restriction. That tends to be the most common one. Uh you can't find a third party that will be willing to hold the restriction because of the nature of the conservation parcel challenges with respect to enforcement and future costs of enforcement and a funding source for that enforcement. Um so there are instances where uh conservation restrictions don't don't don't come to fruition. Um I think that you know by including this as a condition of approval and requiring first the declaration of restriction and then subsequently the recording of a full conservation restriction following EOEA approval. If for whatever reason, unexpected, but if for whatever reason the applicant can't obtain the approval of EOEA, well then the applicant could come back before you to modify the condition to potentially substitute an open space restriction for the conservation restriction. But again, I don't foresee that happening in these circumstances knowing what I do about the parcel.

I like it. Um, Russ,

thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, just a question for Adam. I do like what he's suggesting. Um, we've seen this done by other boards in other communities in the past, but I just want to make sure that the way I understand it is correct. The declaration of a restriction would allow us to come into the planning board with an actual site plan approval. Um, and should that site plan approval be successful, we would be able to obtain a building permit without any of these restrictions limiting the time frame to advance an initial development. Would that be correct, Madam Chair? Yes, please go ahead, Adam.

So, I I I hesitate to speak for the board uh in terms of saying what will or won't or would or wouldn't satisfy the board, but I certainly that would be my intention. The intention here is that um you're the board doesn't want to place an obligation I wouldn't think upon the applicant that is beyond the applicant's control. The the reason that we won't have a conservation restriction ready for recording at the registry of deeds in 30 or 60 days is not going to be the consequence of anything the applicant does. It's going to be because um we know the process and the process requires negotiation of the terms which it's a form document that's provided by EOEA. So those the terms are not particularly negotiable but then it requires submittal to EOEA which then gets assigned to a staff reviewer who's going to perform a full review and get comments back which are then going to be incorporated into the document. And that process can take over a year in my experience. And so I think the objection here the objective here is to provide a two-part solution starting with the declaration of restriction eventually replacing it with a CR. But um regardless of which of those happens to be on record at any given point in time, I would view the applicant as being in compliance with the terms and conditions of the special permit and therefore able to proceed with whatever aspect of the project it wishes to proceed with, including the making of applications for site plan approval for individual phases.

Thank you.

Okay. Um Cindy, go ahead. Yeah, this is just a question. I'm looking at the original master plan map and um on that map that has the shaded conservation or proposed conservation areas of 94 acres in green. There's lot 17A, lot 16 and then there's this little parcels A and B. Um have we captured that? And is the I don't know whether those lots are still formatted that way. Does the applicant know what I'm referring to? And is it their intention to include lots Andy which are highlighted in green as if they're to be included in that conservation? Uh yes, Madam Chair, if I may.

Go ahead. Um yeah, Cindy, if you look at uh Romanut 1B, it um lists out the areas that we are proposing to make subject to what is we're now I think calling a declaration of restriction. And it is open space restriction areas AB and D um which are smaller areas and lot 16 and 17. I'm not seeing AB and D. Madam Chairperson, do you want me to put the map up on the screen? Alec, if you could pull something up for us to look at.

Thank you. So up there in the right hand corner is A and B, but on that list and I think I remember the applicant submitting something that might have removed some of that language. So when you went when you just in the document it only referenced 16, 17 and D. So what happened to A and B?

Is that proposed to Are you able to are you able to zoom in a little bit more? So I think this is the land in question which looking at the decision it's not included in um in IB that section bromanet I letter B um is it in your int is it still the applicant's intent to place these two um these two minor lots. I assume that A and B refer to these two minor stretches that are separated by the way here. Is it still your intent to place these into a conservation restriction?

Yes. Yes. I will on the side update the language here with those so that when we jump back over it'll be there.

Cindy, did that answer your question? Yeah. And I I just wonder whether we ought be identifying those part by parcel numbers because this map is and I think the map is an exhibit but I think it would be helpful to um you know sometimes the exhibits don't come along with the uh decisions. So um it might be useful to have them all identified by parcel if that's possible.

Uh Russ go ahead. Um the the two small lots that are being referred to as A&B, it is the intent for those to be restricted use as described. Um the ANR plan that was approved many many years ago refer to those parcels as AMB. So that's just consistent to the deed plans and the recorded plans of the past. Thank you for clarifying,

madam chairperson, if it if it would please the board. Um, in the administrative review of this decision following the close of public hearing, we the staff can go in and we can swap out these areas A, areas B, lot 16, lot 17 and replace them with their parcel numbers. I mean, I suggest you use both because this will be an exhibit to the decision. So, we can do that, too. Yep. That's great. Thank you, Alec. I'll switch back over to the decision now.

Thank you. So that was the open space item Cindy that you listed. Um I'm sorry if I could just comment the the um I know Cindy you were going to mention the the time period development period but before we get there in three um I was okay with uh two two ramen at two three it talks about um no eventually the applic you know it's really now the um the declaration of determinate or intent to uh we'll have to come up with the right words there. But unless and until all final permits and approvals required for the 2012 a match plan have been granted and all appeals and all appeal periods have thereupon expired. What are all the final permits and approvals? Is I guess I was of the belief that this is the permit for the master plan. Am I is there something else that I'm missing? Alec, do you know?

Um, I I in my opinion that could be up for interpretation. I think between myself, attorney cost, and attorney Schneider, all three of us could have different interpretations on it. Obviously, theirs have more teeth than mine. Um, so I would ask the applicant is it was it your intent in drafting this section that this would refer to final approval and appeal and lapse of appeal period on this permit or were you referring to subsequent permits as well? The intent was really for it to just be this permit. Um but again cloning language from the prior permit decisions, you know, in an attempted continuity.

So So Rich, I agree with you. This is kind of ambiguous because I wasn't sure if that referenced um you know, building permits. Um again, the I think the intent is to try and get these recorded sooner than later and I think with with this with this permit only. So can we change that language?

Yeah, I think what this language is I agree. I mean I think what this language is trying to say is look the the the conservation restriction or the in the notific what Adam you said it so nicely and I tried to write it I can't read my writing declaration of intention I think um to file a conservation restriction. I think the whole point is that's not going to happen until or they're not obligated to do that until this has been approved and the appeal period has expired. after that then yes um they'll file that and we'll have to pick a time frame you know I don't know how long you need for that is it 10 days 120 days like I I don't know how how long it's just I think we'll we can figure out what the right timing is for that assuming we agree that that's the right approach um okay you've cleared that's been cleared up for me then

right but I think we should put a time on it has a what's the right timeline uh Adam or Adam, go ahead.

Sure. So, I I don't know the entire history because I obviously wasn't involved when this was originally before your board. Um, but I I've seen um these sorts of conditions crafted before where uh the applicant has made a commitment and therefore the board requires it as a condition of approval that something be done that would be irrevocable like conveying away a parcel of property. um divesting itself of an interest in in a in a in a a lot or a parcel of property, granting a conservation restriction. And typically an applicant's want want some assurance that before it does this irrevocable thing, it is guaranteed that it's actually able to use the permit that it's receiving in exchange for this commitment. And sometimes there are ancillary permits. It's not uncommon for an application to the planning board for a special permit or site plan review to be accompanied by an application to the zoning board for a variance or an application to the conservation commission for an order of conditions or an application to the board of health for a title 5 permit or a septic permit. And so we have this language that says that the applicant isn't required to do this irrevocable thing in this case recording a conservation restriction unless and until quote all final permits and approvals required for this plan have been granted and the appeal periods have passed. Well, this is a little different because we're amending a permit that previously issued. the applicants before us, the applicant is effectively telling us, I think, and and Johanna can correct me if I'm mistaken, but essentially telling us that no, we don't need to go back to conservation, the conservation commission uh in connection with this 2025 master plan, and we don't need to go to board of health and we're not before the ZBA. This is this is uh the application we've made and the application that we need approved. And so if that's the case, then yes, you can

strike that generic language about any and all final permits and approvals and you can just say the applicant shall be required to record the conservation restriction within x number of days uh following expiration of the appeal period. 30 days is more than enough time. Um once the appeal period passes, this appeal can this decision can be recorded the next the next day um the next morning. And so it only seems fair that the conservation restriction or the declaration of restriction um will be uh will be recorded soon thereafter. The only caveat here is we do need to work through the language. So if you're not including a copy of the declaration of restriction as an attachment to your decision, which would be unusual, then we do need to work through that language. It's not terribly complex. Typically not all that controversial. Um but I I actually just pulled up the last declaration of restriction that I worked on. I actually worked on it for a private client. Um, a board required it as a condition of approval. Um, and we negotiated it and I I remember the negotiation. It I went a few rounds with staff trying to get the language tweaked. Uh, so it said what we needed it to say, so it said what the board needed it to say. Um, so 30 days, 60 days, somewhere in that time frame is probably enough time to get that done. Um, but I see Johanna has her hand up, so she may have other thoughts.

Go ahead. Thank you. Um, it may be a 30-day or 60-day process. We had originally proposed 120 days just so that we were not under the gun. Staff wasn't under the gun and Adam wasn't under the gun. If you want to shorten that period, I think, you know, 60 or 90 days is fine. Um, I think 30 again, maybe too short a period just because we haven't put pen to paper yet. We don't know what this is going to look like.

Thank you. Yeah, I think 60 or 90 is is fine if you want to put 60. I mean, for my personal opinion, um yeah. So, you want to delete that uh section unless and until all final permit permits. Uh

you have to keep the appeals period though. It's in it. It really I mean it's really in um I think we lost the bubble on this. Un unless and until this permit has been approved and the appeal period has expired

until this yeah madam chairperson um for the sake of continuing on I think this last sentence here captured is the intent of what we want it to do. Um, I would recommend that we proceed on to additional items and that staff circle back to this and revise this section specifically and then a subsequent condition um to to cover the the intent.

Rich, are you comfortable with that? Yeah, I I think there's sufficient language in here that I would I would think if we can reach like an understanding of the tenants and then let Adam and and um and Alec and Miss Johan, you know, Ms. Snider, whoever else work out the language, I'd be totally fine with that. Okay. Um continue on, Alec. Um the next big thing and uh multiple people had flagged this too uh a couple places in the document but um or finally coming to it uh the question of how long uh the the development period will be.

I'm not comfortable with the 20 um 20th anniversary personally. Did the last meeting we had I thought there were two options. One, it was the 20th anniversary or two, this was two options offered by the applicant. 20th anniversary, 20 years or 15 years from the issuance of a permit for the first building. But those were the two options. Yeah. With a timer on if after 5 years we have we don't have a permit for the first building, then the timer starts. So it ends up being at worst case 20.

Yeah. And just to clarify, those were the two options presented by the applicant. Um but we, you know, of course this is our decision.

Yeah. I think um I like the second one that they offered. So there's a you know, they obviously have a a vested interest in actually having buildings happen uh sooner. Um and then it's a shorter timer of 15. I understand them wanting to have a significant chunk of time to work with because it it takes a long time uh to to build things like just you know just the experience of the review the thorough review that we give it takes significant time and then they have to actually build build construction and they don't they don't um build and then look for a buyer they need to find a buyer and who has basically cash in and ready to do something and then they want to throw up a building very quickly. So they want that tight turnaround time, but it'll look very very um calm up until they have one. So I understand that that needing that long window of time.

What time frame are you were you thinking, Rebecca? I had originally thrown out 10 years honestly um to just get this ball rolling um but I certainly would not go over 15. That's that's what the original agreement was. Uh and I concur. I don't believe anything more than 15 is necessary. The applicant will always have an opportunity to come back to the board for an extension at that time. But I think 15 years is more than reasonable and is consistent with the prior permit.

So what was the wording um of the prior permit? Um if it said 15 years um what were the contingencies like on um when the project like building permit was issued and stuff like that? Like when did the clock start? It was commenced on the date that the restrictive covenant was recorded with the registry and terminated on the 15th anniversary of such date. Reading this historical language that I wanted to delete.

Yeah. See that we're I mean I feel like where I just want to get can you get back to that piece? I just want to read it again. It was up above. It was um deemed to have lapsed after a 2-year period. Do you find that language? I mean, I might be inclined to, you know, comply with this original recommendation.

Yeah. I mean, to me, I guess it comes down to what what's the applica? What's what's is that okay with the applicant? I know this is, you know, we get to write conditions. Um, I'd like to think we could write something that's not appealed. Um, but the only question that I have to that, Rebecca, is what if they like this is a pretty substantial project and it's going to take time. What if they need more time? Like I'd hate to see something get rushed. Um, I know we're still talking 15 years. I'm not I'm not, you know, naive enough to think that we're, you know, we're only talking about 5 years and that's a problem. But that's my only concern is if we we truncate it and they get rushed and then what are the consequences of that?

Yeah, I guess the last time that happened when the 15-year expiration was approaching, they came back and asked for five more and they got it granted. So, um, you know, seems to me that that would be what would happen.

Uh, Johanna, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think that the board can tell from what we had proposed the two options either 20 years being on the date of the recordation of the open space restrictions or 15 years from the first building permit. Those are the scenarios that we think fit our business model best and will provide us with sufficient time in order to um you know be able to plan and find and attract tenants. Um you know as has been noted these are you know not spec buildings. These are build to suit structures and you know we think that that you know either 15 years from the first building permit or 20 years from you know basically this winter um is the appropriate window of time to allow us to um you know to build this out in accordance with the master plan without rushing things. Yes, of course it's possible that we could come back and ask for an extension, but I think for, you know, financing purposes and long range planning purposes, it's hard to count on, okay, well, we'll come back and the board will give us a 5-year extension because we don't know if we're going to get a 5-year extension. I'm assuming that at that time, many of these board members, with whom we've worked very closely over the years, will no longer be serving on the board. I know we all get tired of our evening gigs of public service. Um, and so I think it's not assured that we would get that extension. And so I think we would appreciate having the certainty of either 15 years from building permit or 20 years from the restriction.

And the 15-year from building permit, Johanna has a 5-year clock on the like so it wouldn't exceed the 20 years. Are we understanding that correctly? I don't know that we built that in, but I don't think I should let Russ answer that. But I but I don't think we have an issue with that. Basically, we're saying we get the 15 assuming that there's some a project within the next year, two years, it's a shorter overall development cycle cuz you don't want us to take this permit mothball it sit on it and then right, you know, cry that you know we're out of time. Madam Chairperson,

yes, go ahead. If I could interject, so typically our decisions are written that um that it has to be recorded within two years or the permit shall lapse. Um Johanna, if we're and to your client, if we were to write this as a as a sooner than or which of the the sooner options were to occur, either issuance of the first building permit or 2 years from the date of decision at the time of recording, would that be acceptable to you and your client? Alec, I'm just doing math in my head, which always takes a while.

That would max out at about 17 years from the date of the lapse of the appeals period. If there was no building, if there was no building, if there was no building, um, I'm going to see if that's acceptable to my client.

That would be acceptable. This is Russell speaking. Thank you. I can get my head around that. I mean that that delays the Well, let me just before I say before I go there, that that delays the conservation restrictions. That delays everything. Yes, Alec or no?

No. The obligation for the both recording the declaration of restriction starts at the end of the appeals period and then the 18-month window would theoretically come before all of that. However, it's my my opinion that the two could be concurrent. The conservation restriction does not have to hamper their timeline for proceeding um to a a site plan review and then a building permit. Whereas they've already declared through the declaration which lots would be in conservation restriction.

But they but the in the absence of a building this this decision they would have two-year window on. Yes. And they'd have but they'd have a a more immed and they'd have a more immediate time frame 90 days for the conservation. I like your solution. I see Russ and lawyer lawyers are all of a sudden putting their hands up. So maybe I'll stop talking. Russ, did you have a comment here?

Yeah, in the effort of I think um in a conversation with Alec today, someone had tabled perhaps just making this a little simpler and placing a time frame and disassociate it with restrictions and building permits and site plan approvals. I would propose to the board um that we at the commencement or the the duration of the permit would commence when the appeal period expires, which would be sometime in the first quarter of 2026 and have a 17 1/2 year run. And we could just put a date out front and it expires then. It's not reliant on anything else other than that. So you're basically I think Russell if I understand what you're saying you're saying the 20 years is now 17 and a half

which would commence once the appeal period expires for this decision. Yes. Yeah. I I favor an actual date as opposed to a a complex formula. Yeah, I'm okay with this because it's the it's the way the old decision was done. I think um I think it's slight I think it's slightly different, right? It just, you know, launches it as of the date that, you know, we can be certified as there having been no appeals and then it's, you know, 17.5 years from that. It is a heck of a lot easier to to track it and to measure it.

Yeah. Because if there was an appeal, your concern would be, well, then the appeal is even Do you have a Do you even Right. I'm okay with that. I'm not comfortable with changing the terms of this from the original um document. So, you're saying that but with 15? I'm saying I I feel like we should probably be keeping this highlighted portion of this.

Madam Chairperson, you're specifically referring to the 15-year period um commencing on the date that the restrictive covenant was recorded with the registry, right? Because when the restrictive covenant gets recorded, remind me again what what did we have there within 60 days? 60 days from the end of the appeal. So um basically shortening it by 2 years and uh 3 months I think.

Well, what was the timing? When did they have to file the the um when did they have to file the decision last time? uh within it was not timed based on the decision. It was based on the restrictive covenant, right? Which had to be

filed by when? Was it after the appeal period? I thought everything waited till after the appeal period because uh I think as uh attorney Costa noted the wanting to protect yourself from doing the irre I can't say that word uh the thing you can't go back on waiting until all of the appeals have you know timed out so that you know that you're sure on it at that point. I thought that's how all the clocks ran.

Adam, I see your hand up. So, I was through you, Madam Chair. I was gonna try and answer the question. I I do have the original permit in front of me as well. So, it it referenced the restrictive covenant being recorded with the registry, quote, upon completion of the golf course and issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Therefore, well, that's helpful. Yeah, that's consistent with my recollection, which is that there wasn't actually a time frame for getting that done.

Um, you know, I'm also going to um complicate things a bit, but I'm I'm I'm going to say a few things. So, um, if we if we look at the language, uh, I think it was on the next page, Alec, if you could scroll back down to There we go. So the way that this uh Roman numeral 3 is structured, it now says that in no event shall the applicant be required to record the conservation restriction. Um uh I guess we're going to say um we're going to strike that as well. And we're going to say the applicant shall be required to record a declaration of restriction. Probably say no later than 60 days following the lapse of the appeal period for this decision to be followed by a conservation restriction. That's fine. Um but I want to say a few things. So first of all, this is a special permit. So, you need to remember first and foremost that the applicant has the right to proceed at risk with a special permit. Now, I'm not saying that this applicant's going to do that. Um, we've already heard the applicants council make reference to financing and we know that certainly institutional lenders don't appreciate uh applicants proceeding at risk under a permit that is subject uh to a pending appeal. But the law does give applicants the right to proceed at risk under a special permit. So I suppose that to do that the applicant needs to comply with the conditions of approval. So even though the decision wouldn't require the applicant to record a declaration of restriction until 60 days or between zero and 60 days following the lapse of the appeal period. the applicant could choose to voluntarily do so and then to attempt to proceed at risk with the special permit uh by for example making application to the board for site plan review or site plan approval of a of a phase of the project. Um, I say all that because I think that it also causes me

to question whether the wisest approach here, highlighted by the fact that when you just asked the question, well, when was the restrictive covenant to be recorded before and you didn't like my answer, which was upon completion of the golf course. Um, I wonder whether it makes sense if not to go with the approach that the applicant has suggested, which is the the choice of a date certain. And I'm not suggesting that date certain should be what Rebecca is saying it should be calculated 10 to 15 years from uh from the date of issuance of this this decision. I'm not suggesting it should be what what uh Mark and others have suggested it should be which is maybe something less than that. I have no position that's up to you as a board. But I guess you could either choose a date certain or simply tie it to the date of issuance of the decision. Let's not mess with appeal periods. Let's not mess me mess with subsequent recordings of a declaration of restriction or a conservation restriction. You ought to just establish this uh commercial development period as calculated from the date of issuance of the decision. That's going to be a date certain. You know the date on which your decision issues. It's the date that you bring it to the town clerk and it gets stamped in. And so it's easy to calculate the time period whether it's 10 years or 15 years or 17 and a half years. Um, I think it makes the most sense to either choose a date certain or calculate it based upon the date of issuance of the decision. When we begin to try and tie it to something like the recording of a document that hasn't even been drafted, much less negotiated or recorded at the registry, or we talk about trying to run it concurrently with or piggyback it onto the 2-year laps provision that exists in the statute and in your bylaws for special permits, it starts to add layers of complexity that um I don't think we necessarily need to add here or I wouldn't recommend because I can I can make this conversation even more complicated by talking about the rights you have or don't have to alter

that two-year lapse period and whether the recording of the declaration of restriction constitutes a vesting of rights that triggers that two-year lapse period. So, it can get real confusing real fast if we don't choose a date that can be easily calculated. That's great feedback, Adam. Thank you very much. I do like the clarity around that. Um, it does simplify things. Um, go ahead, uh, Johanna.

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have an issue at all with setting some sort of, you know, term to the permit. Um, I am somewhat uncomfortable. However, Adam would not um providing for some sort of allowance for an appeal period. Um if we do it you know from the date that the board issues a decision and then you know 22 days later somebody's filed an appeal we could be tied up in litigation for you know 2 to 5 years and at that time the time that we have to perform under the permit is just frittering away and it sort of ignores you know tolling of permits during the pendency of appeals. So I you know I guess a way around that is to have an even longer commercial development period or to go back to I think what Alec had originally suggested which is that you know when the appeal period runs you know which is issuance of the decision plus you know 30 days um maybe key it that way for simplicity and then again to make sure that we are not um losing time on the permit if someone does appeal it.

Makes sense. Thank you Joanna. Go ahead, Anna.

Um, through you, Madam Chair. So, so I I I I appreciate that that perspective, and that's not wrong. Um, this was addressed in the original decision back in 1997 where after the the the definition of the 15-year period, the following sentence appeared. It said the commercial de development period shall be extended by one day for each day that any necessary permit or approval for all or any portion of the commercial development is the subject of a pending appeal or litigation. So effectively it it it incorporated through that sentence a tolling provision that said if there's a a lawsuit that's filed there's an appeal that's filed um however long that appeal lasts you're extending the commercial development period by that number of days or another way to look at it is the commercial development period is not starting until that litigation is resolved. Um I I I think that that language is fine. It's it's it's it's reasonable. Certainly, it's consistent with the perspective of the courts with respect to to appeals of land use decisions indicating that there's no expectation that an applicant is is is going to proceed during the peny of an appeal. I think the only way that I would possibly modify what was in the 1997 decision is maybe adding to the end of that, you know, so long as the applicant does not choose to proceed at risk. If the applicant chooses to proceed at risk, well then the commercial development period should be running concurrently with the litigation because that's the applicant's choice and that language wasn't in the 97 permit. I don't know why. It might have been because I don't I don't remember the year that they changed that provision in 489, but it might have been after 97. Um

yeah, so maybe it didn't exist at the time, but it exists now.

Thanks, Adam. Uh go ahead, Mark. Um, thanks Adam. I think that's been very helpful what the two points that you just raised. Um, so I'm in favor of that. Uh, because you just tacked that on to the end and I think that would probably satisfy the applicant from what they just said before. And then the real question would be how many years? And if it's 15 that Rebecca can live with, can can the applicant live with it? Rebecca and Cindy both stated 15 is kind of like their hard number. Can the applicant live with that with a tolling period?

Go ahead, Russ.

Um, let me just say it this way. I think there's other items to be negotiated throughout the conditions of this permit that are very sensitive to a bunch of um, concerns and beliefs. Um, I'm reluctant to agree and parse a decision without knowing the entire decision. We I think we've got some sensitive decisions about a buffer at back of 800. We've proposed something. Um, there's been some discussion on a building height and discussion about a duration. Um, you know, we we've been here for 4 and 1/2 years and um, you know, the es and flows of economic cycles are things that we cannot predict. Um, and we've gone through an office pandemic. Uh, I don't think 20 years or 17 1/2 years is unreasonable. I just don't think that the 15-year period aligns with the amount of investment both in financial capital and human capital that's being being made here. and just just going through how these restrictions will be created over the next 18 to 24 months is a significant financial burden. Um, and we just need time to to harvest a opportunity that's being permitted here. And I would like the board to um to think about that as they as they tack a a period of time on here. I the last offer was 17 1/2 years. I I personally of course somewhat selfishly believe that that's very very reasonable and um I would like the board to consider that.

I Okay, thank you Russ cuz I mean I just wanted to hear you weigh in on that. I I mean frankly I I don't understand what the push back is from between 15 and 20 years. So uh I mean I'd be happy with 17 years. I'd vote for that right now, but uh we need four votes to get this done. And so the question is, do we have the four votes? Um sounds like 17 you'd be okay with. Uh sounds like 15 two members may not be okay with. Um so how do we get how do we kind of get to where we got to go here? Because I mean we're just now now we're talking about two years is as as an obstacle to getting this done. I I think Mark, not to Sorry if I'm cutting it. Keep

I'm done. I What I'm hearing is there's probably about four or five things we need to get through. Yeah. Um and maybe we maybe we just table that one and let's get through the four or five things. Like I you know, Cindy, you wanted to talk about um the the dimensional table, right? we talk like so like what are the what are the things that we need to that are the sort of deal points here that we can kind of talk through as a board and then we can tick through that and say what will work what won't

yeah I was going to suggest that we just highlight this item here to come back to and then you know when we've gone through all of the um all of the items as as Russ is identifying there's probably a couple of sticking points So, um it might make sense to just get through them um and then revisit this. I I just don't want to lose the work that we've just done to get this far. I mean, I I guess if it's down to simply the number of years,

um then we're somewhere between 15 and 20. and uh it would start when they received their decision and if there was any appeal it would be extended by that amount. I mean if we can get that as a baseline then when we come back to this and then all we're going to be talking about is how many years will this decision Yeah. I think we're we're somewhere between 17 1.5 and 15 right now, right Mark? And yeah, so we just need Do we do we vote on that now or do we do we get all of the items on the table and look at a an aggregate?

No, I'm okay with going I mean that that I think Mr. Deian said the same thing is is is let's see what the rest of it looks like because they're going to feel more minimal uh with what they hear or not. So, uh, but but I just don't want to come back and go all over this from the beginning because it sounds to me like from the date of the permit is when when the clock starts and uh and extended only by the uh any period of appeals. And I think the the wording was there in the last opinion in the last decision and it sounds to me like both parties can live with that. So, when we come back to this, we're just going to be talking about what that number is. 15, 17, whatever it is.

I believe that's where we are. Yeah. Okay, good.

Um, okay. So, we'll we'll table this for now. We'll just keep moving through. There's a lot of language in here about uh buildings permits and expiry and 6 months after issuance of the building permit. Like I mean I'm okay with what's here but this a lot of this is sort of follows the normal process like a completed building is a completed building. Got it. A permitted building you know there's this sixmonth period after issuance of a building permit. I like I don't want to get in the building inspector's way here right code. I mean I'm okay with the language but Alec I guess I'll look to you if this Um yeah, I I madam chairperson if I could um it I would agree with some of the sentiment that Rich is is sharing here. So I Adam, maybe you can weigh in on this, but I get very weary of of a planning board um interjecting itself in the building officials process. If a building official were to choose mid construction to pull a building permit, that has to be for very specific reasons under their sole discretion. And so I I do get I do get conscientious here. Not that this applicant would ever engage in this activity. Sure, there are cases where people have pulled building permits, slow rolled them, taken very little action, and a building official has chosen to to revoke a building permit after a reasonable period of time. But I become hesitant to to place such language in uh a planning board

decision when we don't even know how the building officials decisions 15 years from now could shape what this looks like now. Um, Adam, I'd look for you to weigh in on it, but my interpretation is I would I would refrain from including any language regarding the building permit and its administration in this decision.

So through you, Madam Chair. Um, so, so I don't I don't disagree with anything that Alec has said, um, in in terms of what's within the planning board's perview versus what is typically and traditionally within um, the purview of the building official. Um, having said that, I I don't know that that was necessarily the intention of these provisions that are on the screen. Um, and again, I don't I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the history of these provisions. I think that these are provisions that are mirroring language in earlier earlier um versions of the special permit, the original or the two subsequent modifications. And so I think the uh the intent was probably and again it's nothing more than a guess on my part but just sort of reading between the lines and maybe Johanna has some some some firsthand knowledge but I my sense is that the objective here is to um be very clear about when rights have vested and when rights haven't vested with respect to the lapse of this permit because the preceding provisions are talking about the lapse of the permit and when the rights no longer exist. And so I think there was some concern that well, are you saying that if we've obtained a building permit or even a foundation permit and we're under construction and then the the anniversary date hits, we have to drop the shovels and the hammers and the and and we have to leave a partly constructed building, partly constructed inevitably, and till we can get an extension. go, you know, god forbid we don't get the extension, then we have a partially finished building, which would be, you know, an economic disaster for them and probably not what the board would want to see either, a half-finished building. Um, but I think that that's what I read here. This was an attempt to try to um resolve when rights have you know to to quote this sub item A uh fully and irrevocably vested with respect to the special

permit and when they haven't vested and when an extension would be required because the master permit has lapsed and is of no further force or effect unless there's an extension granted. So I think that that's the objective here. Maybe it could be more simply stated without um you know referring to um the the building inspector, but again I think it was more of a passing reference to the building inspector only in the context that once he's issued a building permit the rights have vested and if he hasn't yet issued a building permit and the anniversary date um hits, then the the rights have lapsed. Thank you, Adam. Uh Johanna, your hands up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Adam, I have no additional history on this. Uh, but this was language that was in the prior permits, and I read them the language exactly as you do, which is that it really is to establish that if you're sort of midstream on a building at the time that, you know, the commercial development period lapses or expires, you can keep on going. Um, if you haven't started anything yet, then you know you can ask the board to extend the permit, but basically once the permit's over and you've not done something on a particular lot or with respect to a particular building, you know, you're out of time. Thank you, Johanna. Um, Cindy, go ahead.

Yeah, I guess I don't have too much problem keeping this language, although it would be nice to make it simpler, but I I do have a concern. What um I think what happened with Cisco building was that two foundations were installed. Um and you know I want to make sure that we're not we don't then leave the permit open indefinitely because two foundations were installed. So I just want to make sure that this language at least covers that scenario that you know those foundations um were then you know allowed to grow grass over and uh weren't used but the permit did expire. So I just want to make sure um again maybe this language can be made simpler by our attorney and also that it covers that eventuality that even if a foundation is put in it doesn't mean the building permit stays open you know indefinitely. So

yeah and I read Cindy the the um and such construction shall be pursued in good faith continuously to completion so far as reasonably practical under the circumstances. I read that as the good, you know, the effort to continue on, not to just stop. Attorney Costa, please.

And I I think that um Rich and Cindy, I think that that may be where um where I would go back to what Alex started off with, which is, you know, that that phrasing that uh shall be pursued in good faith continuously to completion. That's directly from the Massachusetts State Building Code, or at least the version of the code that was in effect um a number of years ago. I don't know honestly if the 10th edition has that same lang language any longer, but it was in a number of earlier editions of the code um in connection with the six-month lapse period for a building permit. So I think that that's where we have to we have to defer to a certain extent to the building official to do his or her job and ensure that if a building permit issues and 6 months pass and the the the work is not uh continuing expeditiously uh toward completion uh that that building permit is is uh allowed to lapse is is rescended is pulled. Um but certainly I think that we can include some language in the decision, maybe a simplified version of what's here to make it very clear that that is the intent of the board. Uh that the the applicant again not saying that this applicant would um but the intent is that the applicant wouldn't circumvent the commercial development period by artificially extending it through the installation of a foundation that is allowed to sit for seven or eight or nine years before any meaningful construction gets underway. Thank you, Adam.

So, can we put a note in there to that effect and then move on with the intent to get that language clarified next next go round?

Yeah, I think if like my vote would be we conceptually think we're I don't know if we're aligned. I mean, I'm thinking that, hey, this is really a like we don't want this to become a tool for like building a bunch of foundations and then everything kind of stops, but it at the same time, we need to give the building inspector the ability to execute the state building code, right? So, maybe it is just a little attorney cleanup um after this.

Right. All right. I just want to make sure the concern that the foundation doesn't make being allowed to keep the foundation maintains the permit indefinitely. I think I'm not sure if I this language tells me that it talks about the building code, but once the building permit lapses, is that what it's saying? After 6 months and then you then the building permit would lapse if they're not pursuing it in good faith. Is that what this is stating? I can't quite parse it. Madam Chair. Yes, please go ahead, Adam.

So, so I think that was probably the intent of this language. And again, I'm just guessing because I wasn't involved in the crafting of the language, but again, that that that phrase that I see that that sentence or portion of the sentence that says that uh that the construction shall be commenced within 6 months after issuance of the building permit uh and shall be pursued in good faith continuously to completion. That's language that's found or was found in the Massachusetts State Building Code uh in uh in describing how it is that one can avoid a lapse of a building permit. When a building permit issues, you've got to not only commence construction under the permit within 6 months, but you have to continue that construction in good faith continuously to completion as far as reasonably practical to avoid a circumstance where your building permit would be deemed to have lapsed and you would need to reapply for a building permit. And so I think that that's where that language comes from. But I I think that there's a way without necessarily quoting the building code or stepping out of our lane so to speak. I think that there's probably a way to capture in this um in this decision in in with substitute language in this Roman numeral 5 uh the intent of the board which is to ensure that that commercial development period is not artificially extended by uh an applicant as you say pulling pulling a foundation permit installing a foundation uh and then making no meaningful progress for some extended period of time.

Yeah. Thanks, Adam. Okay, so Adam's gonna massage this around just a bit, it sounds like. Right. Any other comments on the rest of this section?

Um, just number C was, you know, at what point um do they request the extent if they request an extent in the commercial development period? How far out? Um, yeah, I suggested 6 months or maybe something even further. Um, I don't know what's typical, but I just thought there should be a time frame associated with that.

That makes sense. Um, Adam, Johanna, either of you have a recommendation for that? So, um, Madame Chair, I I I guess I would say you you're you're talking about when an application application would be made. How far in advance of the expiration of the commercial development period? Um, this is for a maybe I'm in the wrong section. This is a a request to extend the commercial development period,

right? And and so your question is requiring the applicant to make that request a certain number of days or weeks or months prior to the expiration. Yes. Why would we tie the hands of the board? It's at the board's option. I just wonder if if Cindy what you are looking for here is just you know prior to the expiration of the you know that the request for extension has to be made prior to the expiration of the or the termination of the commercial development period

right and and presumably um you know there'd need to be some time for the board to consider that before the the permit actually expires. you know, it's more a logistical thing, but it seems that there ought be a a time if if uh I I think that makes sense to put in a a date by which

I think it may be very hard to predict and and again would sort of tie the board's hands if you're trying to build in, you know, a certain amount of time. Um I know that in lots of other jurisdictions, as long as you apply for the extension before the permit lapses, um you're good. Um so I would just sort of suggest that rather than you know prescribing the amount of time the board has to act on it.

Yeah. Like if you if you you know make it clear that your intent is to extend then discussion can happen and conditions and what have you but that that shouldn't there shouldn't be a timer that has to be satisfied before. Uh so yeah, as long as the uh the intent for the extension is there before before it ends, that's that's perfectly fine. It could be after too, couldn't it? Like let's say and then there was a oh we have this project. Boy, we'd really like to extend it for a year even though it's lapsed. Like I I don't see us saying no to that. Yeah,

I think we have we haven't said no to that. We we've actually done it explicitly done it. Yeah. So it's so I don't think we necessarily need that language at all. Um okay. I'm just thinking about well that's a scenario where the abutters are being um you know there's a lot of construction traffic and the abutters are are continuing to have concerns um and then the last day that the permit was supposed to lapse the applicant comes in and asks for an extension. I mean, I guess the board would could take that current consideration, but I'm just I'm just trying to think it through here. Um, you know, it doesn't seem to make sense that you would ask for it on the very last day,

but um I don't know. Does legal counsel have a thought about that?

I I I I do. I mean, I I will tell you, just to be candid, my experience is the same as that of Attorney Schneider, that um the the advice I've consistently given to the boards I represent is uh if an application is made prior to the date of expiration of a special permit, then they've gotten under the wire and they've requested uh an extension in advance of the expiration of the permit. Um, some boards, as it sounds like your board maybe has done in the past, have been willing to even retroactively extend permits in instances where applications are made after the date of expiration of a permit. Um, in those circumstances, we often have the discussion, is this a modification or an extension? Is this really a new application? At the end of the day, it's six of one, half dozen of the other because the standards are the same. Um, the law doesn't differentiate. Chapter 48 section 9 doesn't differentiate between new special permit applications and modifications or amendments. The standards apply equally to both. Um what I would say to to your point, Cindy, and maybe provides you with some assurance in that in that scenario you just described with neighbors or abutters who are concerned with ongoing construction traffic. If an applicant chooses to wait until the day before its permit expires to make an application to extend that permit, which of course is not going to be heard that same day, it's going to be heard a number of weeks later when the matter can come before the the board. Um that permit is not automatically extended in the interim because they've made an application for the extension. So, they're really shooting themselves in the foot by making a late application because if they've got a project that's underway and they're continuing work, they're mid construction. They're not supposed to be out there constructing 2 days, 3 days, 4 days later. If they've only applied for an extension a day before the expiration and they're not scheduled for a hearing for three, four, five more weeks, uh they're supposed to stop work in the interim because there's no guarantee they're going to get that

extension. So, a wise applicant, if it's a project or a series of projects that are underway, is going to make an application a number of months in advance.

Uh, yeah, I'm fine with dropping that that time frame. I was just trying to envision a scenario we might want it, but it sounds like that's not common practice. So, I'm okay with uh with dropping it. But, I guess uh we have no ability, the planning board has no ability to enforce. So, if construction goes on beyond the time of the permit and we don't know about it, you know, if it's the building inspector or somebody is supposed to be out there, but you know, we do have uh concerns about that type of enforcement. So, I was just trying to protect against that type of scenario happening. Um, but if if the attorneys don't or, you know, Adam doesn't think it's an important point, then I'm willing to move on.

All right. Thank you. Do we want to strike that then? Um, Alex, just delete the comment or respond to it. Is it to be edited by attorney Costa or is it just being left as it is?

I think it can be left as is. Thank you. All right. Moving on into decision. me real quick. U madam chairperson, uh your version of the decision had um pile of stuff. Yeah.

Yeah. A few comments of the forward and and as did um as did member Guzardi. So I just need to import those all over. I'm going to do that right here at the start of page 16. I I kind of re organized these. Um I don't know how you want to do this if we want to go through the ones we have written or we want to talk about the ones that people are requesting. Um cuz these are all I just put them up here personally because it was just um added conditions that I I saw um that I'd like to see. Um and I kind of reorganized it a little bit in my own notes here in front of me. So I can dig into those if that makes sense. Um they will correlate to what we're seeing on here in some form or another. I just I've reorganized it a little bit. Um, is it okay to just jump into these new ones, additional items, everybody, or do you want to go through this in a different way? Do you want to go through these first?

I I mean, if you have items, Rebecca, let's let's do it.

Okay. Um, all right. So, the first thing I know it's maybe not correlating to Yeah, I guess it kind of is. Um, so I'd like to see a condition for um a maximum height of 35 ft um placed on the buildings on lot 800. Um, that's the ones closest to Harvard Bridge. Um, I know that um, so I was looking at the document and I'm going to pull it up here that was um, provided in the response letter from the applicant to some of my comments. Um and I um you know looking at the maps that that were shared with us um I think that there is actually you know it was in response to my comment about the the buildings being at the same level. Um I I've gone back and referenced those those documents that were shared with us. Um and I do think that there's an error in um the the comment that um it's uh 355 plus 355 in elevation um at the 100 ft setback. It's it's actually according to the topography it's 365. So um I was correct in in stating that those buildings are going to be at the same level. Um unless there's a a plan to you know I don't even know how you would do that. you can't cut that much fill off the back of the the building. So, um um it is um they're going to be eye to eye. So, um actually think it's um let's see the proposed building. Oh, the proposed building has a potential to be higher than the neighboring units. And um I think it might be easier if we just look at this. Um maybe Alec, do you have access to the um the letter response to my comments? Um do you it was um the meeting last

uh so for reference this is jumping back to our October 6th meeting I believe uh was it October 6th the letter is dated October 27th. So that it'll be um yep in your October 30th item. Yeah. Uh Campanelli follow-up letter to our burner comments. Yeah. And bear with me. Go to page five.

Um, sorry, it's five in the document. It keep going down. It's the first um Yeah, this one. Um, if you look at the 100 year uh 100 rear setback um there's a 265 coming through there. that line um if you will. I don't I can't make it move here. Yeah, that's 265. 255 is up towards the front of the lot. Um so at 265, um you know, we have a house a building proposed. You know, if you go to the next one, it says 255. If you go to the next sheet, it says 255 at the at the 100 foot setback. So right there that this is mislabeled by 10 ft. Um so this whole building structure potentially goes up another 10 ft here. And so it does go and and becomes higher than the the building, you know, facade of the the neighboring building. So this is why I'm saying I I have a concern about that. Um I think that this is not the same project that it was originally approved. Um, now we have neighbors and I'm very, um, you know, I feel for these guys going to be looking into this building. Uh, might need to them. Um, let me just go back to my note here. Um, so the top of that building, so potentially potentially if it gets built out to the 45, um, it would be at 310 versus the reflected 301 eye level at the top of the residential unit. Um, so there's my concern about lowering that building. Uh, Russ, I see your hand up.

Thank you. Um, could you go back one slide to the site plan, Alex, please? I just want to walk through this. So, so if you see the 255 line, it's just to the left of the words that say septic discharge area. So, of course, the front of the building will be to the left of that dash line, and the grade between Beaverbrook Road and the front of the proposed building would be at 255. Alex, could you kindly scroll back down to the building section? So, on the right hand side of this building, we're showing a 255 elevation. That would be the planned elevation of the first floor of the building which then would be consistent as it moves towards the rear of the site. Now these buildings will all be designed as Johanna has said previously of built to shoot. We don't know if these depths will be less than this or or these depths. But what we do know is that it will be 255 at the back. It won't be 265. So the building will be either built into the grade and we've done this before. We've used the rear of the building as a um as a retaining wall or there will be a small retaining wall between the building and the setback. So a retaining wall is considered a structure and we're proposing a 100 ft rear setback which nothing no structure could go into that 100 ft. So you see there's a small grading area that is shown by that wiggly line. It says grading area to an elevation of 255 at the rear of the building. So that is correct. And if if a building was built

to the maximum allowed by the current zoning bylaw, which is 45, it would be at 300. And the slope from 255 goes up to about 275 to 277 at the basement of the town homes to the left and then it rises to 282 and is that just us. Yep. On my end, too. But I understand what he's saying. The 255 is at the front.

Yeah. That's the elevation through the back. That's where the front door is. And they'll keep it level. And yes, they will cut

and what he's talking about, but it's what we're showing is impacting the slope, right? So, we're impacting the vegetation. Um, so what is shown in this graphic is going to be impacting the slope and the planting material that's already out there and existing. If they have to change this the grade of the slope, then they need to cut down trees, right? Um because otherwise it would be 10 ft higher than what they're showing. Um so we either show uh the proposal with a wall or we show a proposal with um you know grading this this building into the into the grade. But I I'm very very sure that I do not want to see um that uh vegetated buffer um impacted out there.

Is that a site plan issue, Rebecca? Yeah, that's what I was raising my hand for. like I I'm pretty sure this is explicitly within the purview of site plan. Perhaps it is, but if we go forward with this as it is, you know, it's now an allowable thing if we change the grade. So, I'm I'm pointing out an issue. Um, and I I just want him to address it. Um, Johanna, have you been able to see if he's having difficulties or He's having difficulty. Yeah, just trying to log on right now. Okay, terrific.

So, the question, Rebecca, is the dimensional height for this building. You're you're asking it to be 30 or 35 ft. Is that right?

I am. Yeah. and and you know just going into some of our bylaws you know um the purpose of 7.5.1 um uh the bylaw is set forth to protect the value of real property to promote more sensitive sightings of buildings and overall um site planning to perpetuate the appearance of Boxboro's traditional New England landscape to allow land owners a reasonable return on their investments and I guess in this case I would say that would be you know, our neighboring parcel here. Um, so I'm questioning that. Um, 7.5.6, uh, the proposed buildings, uh, need to be designed with harmony into the natural features of the site, the site plan, uh, to best extent possible. Needs to preserve the topography, views, vistas, uh, wildlife habitat, etc. Um and let's see protecting natural features is also an open space um design standard here. um and so not adversely impacting or um abuing properties. And I do feel that if this is as high as it might be, it will be impacting the neighboring parcel there um affecting that. So I think the the point you originally brought this or just now brought up with this was that if it's if the 45 ft started at 265 then it could be basically you know whoever's on the top floor could could see it could be eye level. That isn't the case as drawn because the actual because the front of the building would be at 255 and they would keep it level. though at at 45 ft it still would be it would be

below the sight line. I absolutely understand that Chris, but that's not what I'm saying right now. So that's why um Russ I'm seeing you um coming back on. He's fine. Yeah. Can Russ um be unmuted? Uh Russell should be able to unmute himself. Yes, I've replied to him as co-host, but let me see. Hi, Russ. Welcome back. Yeah, sorry about that. I What a bad timing to lose a connection. Sorry.

No worries at all. Um, so I guess um if this was to stay at 255 um and you're going to dig this building in a little bit at the back or do a retaining wall. I guess my big concern at this point is that um what is proposed here in this elevation is actually regrading the slope between the house uh the the buildings the residences and and this new structure. Um it doesn't show a retaining wall or burying this building 10 ft in the back. Um so with a regrading that looks like it's being proposed here. um you're going to be impacting the plant material on this slope um as as shown. Um so I guess some kind of commitment I guess to the fact that we would keep this down at uh 255 and or bury it um you know 10 ft in the back. So, it's not going to exceed the height of um what is it 300 ft um elevation and we're not going to impact that vegetated buffer behind.

Yeah, if I understand your comments, um our our goal here is to leave the 100 ft buffer untouched. There would be no manipulation of contours, no removal of vegetation and as as everyone experienced on the site visit that that's pretty heavily b buffered area and um you can see there there needs to be some additional space to create the correct grading that would need to happen. There needs to be fire and life safety access around all four sides of the building. We do not need truck access, but we do need an apron for for firefighters to get around the back of a building conveniently. They just need to get to three sides, which we've met with the fire department, and they're completely content with the access. They just need to have personnel be able to travel along the back, and we would do that. But the issue here is the existing vegetation is dense and we're proposing a no touch zone for that buffer.

Right. But you're not showing that here. You this is showing an impact to the buffer.

Right. So So Alec, could you go back to the slide before this again? And and I know I took this grading plan off the town website. If if you if you go to the line that says with your cursor, please that says 100 rare setback proposed. That dash line. That's the 265 line there. And as you can see, it swings way off to the right as it comes right there. So there's a portion of this site that the 265 line is in the setback, which would mean the the grade would be even less right around where the word setback is. It's probably about 262 263. And then the 265 line really wanders over to the right hand side quite a bit. So this is just a snapshot of a portion of lot 800. Um and again we don't know the size of the building and I think this is one of these situations that site plan approval is being reserved to look at the condition of the buffer. Maybe the building never goes as close to the 100 foot buffer because the the user doesn't need that large of a building. Um, that would be great for all parties, but but we do have to, you know, set a node touch zone, which we're happy with the 100 foot node touchstone. And the grade the grade varies over the over the portion of the site. So, um I guess I would want to guarantee that we're not going to exceed the 300 ft elevation per your sketch. Um and I would like to say like identify that this 100 foot setback is

a no touchstone at all. I guess those two things would get me over the the height difference here, the restriction here.

Yeah. And and I I totally respect your comments and I can um we've we've talked with our civil engineers to talk about the appropriate grade of the front of the building and we landed at 255. Um with the zoning height limit at 45 that does put us at a restriction of 300 ft. So I I can agree with your comment and agree with that as a stipulation to this decision. Um so I have no problem with that. And then as far as the 100 ft rare setback piece, I'm very happy to add the words that hasn't been spoken up until this evening as that being a 100 ft no touch zone and um that that I'm completely content with as well.

Okay. Thank you, Russ. Um, so someplace in our, if you want to go back to our decision, um, Alec, um, we'd need to identify those two items in the decision. Go ahead.

Can I ask Sorry. Sorry, Rebecca. Um, yeah. So, I don't know. Are we going to reference exhibit what they've called exhibit A? We may have to rename it and work off of that because that had a bunch of proposed dimensional requirements. Um, which I think we should be going through with many of them are the same as what was already there. But this is one of those items. I think there's only a couple maybe that we needed to discuss. But should we work off that table or do you want to work it off? Just work off the conditions. I think we should look at the table. Exhibit attachment A, I guess, is referred to here. Can we bring that up

just a second? Um, applicant offers 45 foot um maximum building height not to to exceed elevation 300 per that that topography map. I would say just in case it's actually 301 because the topography is a little bit different than that map says. You know what I mean? it then it should be allowed maybe to I don't know to have a tiny amount of I just want to have a reference point. Does that make sense? I'm fine with that, Rebecca. No problem whatsoever.

Because then that has a reference to the neighboring parcel as well. So I would reference both of the um those two documents we just reviewed. Alec.

Okay. So, I've named it both by the the map itself or the graphic that was drawn, but we will specifically reference the exhibit number for this follow-up letter. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Jess, for walking through that. Um, uh, Cindy, sorry. Do you wanted to go and reference something else or?

Well, attachment A is the table they provided with the dimensional requirements or proposed dimensional requirements. So, I don't know if you wanted to update that table to reflect this language also or um um, sorry Cindy to cut you off there. I just want to make sure I'm jumping to the right one. Is it is it attachment A within one of their PowerPoint presentations or is it a standalone document? Um it might have been in their PowerPoint. I think it's a again it's a zoning table dimensional table they provided. They see the left there it says has set forth an attachment A. So I think we should be bringing attachment.

Uh there we go. Uh it is a standalone document currently. Uh exhibit ZB. Uh I'm going to open that up. um and pull it up on screen. Right. That's the one. So, do you want to add notes to this attachment that match that language that you just discussed?

It could be a good call. Bear with me one second. already in there. I think this already reflects that maximum or minimum rear setback at lot 800 100 ft maximum building height across the park 45 ft.

It does, but I think Russ wanted to note that it would be a no touch zone. You know, just this is going to be an actual exhibit. I just want to make sure it's consistent with whatever is agreed upon. Russ, you had a a comment? Yeah, Alec, the way um this has been handled in other situations is put a footnote for example where it says minimum risk setback at lot 800 it says 100. If you put a footnote one and then below the table you might say one refers to 100 ft being a no touch zone for existing grading and vegetation. And then the other item that Rebecca commented on is the maximum building height which is 45 perhaps after the 45 ft that has um the footnote number two. And footnote number two might say a maximum height of 45 or maximum elevation of 300 ft will be the um maximum allowed at the at lot 800. Um so it might be easier to handle it that way. And I just to help you Great. Thank you.

Okay. Um uh another um item that I had was um getting a condition that preserves the areas located behind the house u the buildings um as natural grassland or woodland corridor. Um, I'm hearing now that we need um a retaining wall potentially or grading into the the the um the um up against the building, I guess. So, um I would love to see additional woodland for any area that we could have behind the the buildings. Um and the purpose of this would be you know um 7.5.1 says encourage preservation of open land for scenic beauty open space forested and recreational uses to um to provide the natural environment to protect the real estate value. Um traditional New England landscape um and allowing land owners a reasonable return on their investment. Um, preservation of views, vistas, wildlife habitat is also listed within that. Um, go ahead, Chris.

I was going to say, isn't um, can we just reference that site plan review will will stress these, you know, these areas of importance rather than rewriting the whole the whole thing in here?

I'm I'm not comfortable with that. That's why I bring it up. Okay. So, any of my comments are because I'm not comfortable with what we have currently in front of us. Um, so I'm tossing this out there. What do we have in front of us? Maybe that back to that map. Um, I actually pulled it up in my is that whole area behind those three buildings that's 100 like what does that look like in the end? Is that a um that's a 100 foot no touch zone? Does that effectively become a corridor? I'm just trying to understand. I

that 100 ft I think passes the woods and gets into the the grassland bit of it. Right. I wasn't I wasn't there during the um the site visit, but I've been there a lot. It's hard to tell. Russ, go ahead.

Thank you. Um John Rockwood u included this in in at least two perhaps three times when he talked in previous hearings. Um the majority of the now rephrased 100 ft no touch zone is a woodland natural wildlife carter and will be used extensively. Um the grassland piece is being um restored on lot 17 and we'll be working with natural um heritage to create a uh a birdlin habitat there um replacing uh any um alleged birdland habitat from lot 800. So certainly um and John John also mentioned that birdland habitats are not wildlife carters because uh predators from above um come down um and and poach off animals on land and all animals move through the woods for protection from from anything above. But I'm just indicating what he made statements about in his presentation. So, I'm not really sure. I think you're asking for a larger buffer than 100 ft. Is that what I'm understanding here?

I'm asking for um not a lawn treatment. So, um something that is more um wild than just um adding more green lawn in the back of this this property.

Oh, okay. I I I would agree with you. We would want anything certainly anything on the sides or in the back um can be something that could be taken up in site plan approval um with a landscape architect in a landscape peer review for something that would be of a material more native to um what you're trying to do here is trying to provide um really native grasses that are there today. And I I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Um, so I have made um, so that that might go back into the sustainability um, issues that I'm going to discuss in a little bit. Um, so maybe we can revisit um, this at that point because I have a few comments about that. Um, I'm just making a note so I don't forget. Um, okay. Um, I lost my place. Sorry about that. Okay. Um, have we discussed any limitations on hours of operation or has it just been deferred to site plan? Um, I don't I don't recall. I'd have to rely I'd have to allow the other board members to remember, but I do just as a landlord, we don't restrict VR leases, hours of operation of the buildings. We we have quiet uses. Um, we have sometimes in an R&D facility, we have some um procedures that are being

babysat overnight. Um, we went through this in the TUV proposal. Um, these aren't these these aren't trucking maneuvers. These aren't a distribution center. These are R&D facilities that occasionally they are um with a with a skeleton staff. And that would really it it would really be a barrier for creating a good business commerce if we if we placed hours of operation on the building. My concern is is mostly about 800 versus, you know, next to this um residential use. Um you know, just those those like big windows and stuff that we might have on this side could be really bright um through the night. So um

I think I think we might have had a conversation on this. We we I'm fairly certainly agreed to no windows on the back of the building. Got it. Okay. Um, I'm not sure I recall seeing that elevation. Um, did we receive an elevation that we we haven't designed a building yet? That would be something review. Okay. Is that something that you'd feel comfortable with um writing into the decision about um uh not having windows on the back?

Yeah, I I would be comfortable with it. And maybe maybe what we could say we I mean there's we're we're going to need skylights and that's a building code item now. Okay. Um because natural daylighting is required as part of a sustainability piece. Um and you know I can't I can't control that building code element. Um so but but I I would strive the intent would be for no windows to be on the back of the building. Um, but let's take it up in sight plan review. They could be filtered, they could be shadowed, they could be tinted, they could be mirrored if they had to be there, but I don't have any reason. There's no windows in the back of TUV. And that's been our our sort of test tube as to a a nice user for this park, a nice quiet, sustainable user. Okay, got it. Um, let's see. Uh, soundproofing screening of rooftop equipment was another um comment that I had.

Yep. And then we um had no problem with that. during site plan approval. The um the office buildings have larger um rooftop equipment that Cisco built and they have um pent not penthouse, they have um rooftop equipment screens. Um TUV has a slight we went with a slightly different strategy there. It's all heat pump technology and electric uh energy recovery units. Those units are a little bit smaller than the large air handling pieces. Um, as you drive through the park and get up and down Beaverbrook Road or through any of the parking lots, you can't see any rooftop equipment at TUV cuz they were positioned in a strategic way that they couldn't be seen. And the parapit wall of TUV is actually higher than the roof. So, the wall actually screens the views to the equipment as well. So, so that's essentially a a site plan approval thing. But the answer the issue is we did a sound um study that got peer reviewed with TUV and and certainly sight lines to rooftop equipment and noise would be reviewed as site plan review.

So is that uh we're not willing to to do that right now or look or consider anything for that at this point? You're deferring. No, I thought I just agreed to it, but but I don't not designing a building me because I'm like struggling with a a nice little Thanksgiving gift of a cold. So, if I didn't if I didn't understand you correctly, I apologize for that, Russ. Um, no, no, that's okay. I I I think we were saying we're on the same page and we did we've already have an example in the park and it would come up in site plan review and the sound would get peer reviewed by the by your um places folks like it did previously.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um again, apologize if I missed what you were saying. Um okay, thank you Alec. Um, one thing that is kind of a boilerplate for us is um, and we did this for TV um, but um, banning the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers and rodenticides and just um, generally just trying to do carbon neutral practices. So um, this was something I did go back and look at for TV we we incorporated. Um, so I'd like to kind of put this boilerplate into this um, decision as well.

Yep. No, no objection there.

Madam Chair, if I may, and I apologize. I know there are other members of the board who also have their hands up and I don't mean to preempt them, but I think that, you know, the difference with the TUV decision and this decision is that this is just for master plan. TUV, we had an enduser identified. we had a building designed so it was really easy to talk about you know carbon neutral practices and screening and buffering and soundproofing um you know and what was and wasn't doable from the standpoint of you know what kind of fertilizers or redenticides would be used. I think it's really difficult at the master plan stage where we are right now to be talking about those things because we don't have anything specific to put in front of the board. So, I would respectfully suggest that these are all very valid items for discussion, just not in the context of this decision, but rather when we're back with specific users and projects um for the board to really do a deep dive into.

Thank you, Johanna. Um Chris, your hands up. I mean that was that was essentially my my comment that a lot of these details are absolutely appropriate for site plan review but since we don't have particular building to discuss right now it it feels weird to review a theoretical plan that hasn't I mean they've definitely shown um the applicant has shown extreme willingness to be very flexible and and reasonable with all the all the requests that we've had to date. So I I I think I can trust that that pattern will continue. So I think I think we can rely on oursel well presumably ourselves uh to you know handle handle those details inside plan review if and when we get to that point for for this for the master plan. I I don't think we need to need to do this yet.

Thanks Chris. I'm my goal is to hopefully get Russ to a yes right now. So, um I just I appreciate the fact that he's willing to talk through these things with me right now. So, um uh sustainable practice is really my last um thing and there's a couple things that you um Keanyelli is already um committed to which is fantastic. Um one I just want to make sure that these got captured in here. Um, one was, um, and I'm gonna read this, hopefully I copied it correctly, but all new created, um, all newly created public parking spaces, five on lot 600 and five on lot 700 once development is realized will be constructed of Grass Creek was one of them. And these can be copied out of the letter um that Campignelli presented to in response to mine my comments if that's easier for you or I can

the only thing this is not to you Rebecca the way you said it is correct. I think um I think Alex is doing the typing. I think what we committed to was the visitor spaces, the five visitor spaces, not all new spaces out of Grass Creek. And you were in reference the five spaces, five on lot 600 and five on um lot 700 and that that is correct. We we're committed to the grass there and you know there may be you know site plan and review for other parking issues but yeah you might want to identify just per their note like what um you know where they said that five on lot 600 and five on 700 just so they're only obligated to what um they wanted to be obligated to on that and again I got that from the letter response and there is a condition later in the decision that discusses the provision of those total of 10 public parking spaces on lots 600 and 700 00 that might be the appropriate place to just throw in that those um spaces will be grass.

Yeah, I certainly did not order these in any way, shape or form. Leave that to the the um better paid folks out there. Um the other um commitment was that all tenants will be required to submit a TM uh DM similar to to TUV which um may include van and shared transportation methods as appropriate for the end users operations.

All tenants Oh, sorry. Bannon shared. Yeah, Alec, you'll go back and get their their real verbiage for this, I'm assuming.

Yes. Just to confirm, did this one come off the same letter from October?

Yeah. Yeah. Um, and then, um, lastly, and I'm noting that it's 10:19. I said 10:00, but I just want to push through my last couple comments here. Um, we heard actually at the beginning of our meeting, um, just the sustainable goals of our community. Um and so I am asking for some kind of a commitment to um you know helping us joining us to to um you know make a sustainable um effort towards new development. I feel like uh 2025 is just the responsible thing for developers to be doing and it's definitely a very important thing to the town of comm um of Boxboro um to to have green growth and and sustainable practices. So, um I'm looking to you, Russ, to see if you would be willing to to put some wording into this, um document that that you are committed to, um some kind of green development out here on this project. Um we certainly are committed to sustainable principles and um you know energy saving um heating systems in which we've which we've exhibited in the construction of TV in multiple ways. Um, I'm just not so sure how to do it because the technology changes so quickly that even some of the things that we've put in TUV in 2022 moving into 2026 are already there's new technologies that are providing even better energy efficiency than that building. Um, so I don't want to put any specifications in

there, but because I'm looking at, you know, some of our sustainability um, intentions that are listed in our NEPA certificate and and I'm just reading through this and some of that is already a little bit tired because the sustainability technologies is advancing at a quick rate. But the quick answer is our best practices and what we do here at Campanelli and do in Boxboro is very much that and we've we've been committed to sustainability practices here and we we will continue to do that through site plan review with the help of this board and and others.

Yeah, I understand you can't um and and I totally understand that you can't like obligate yourself to technology that might come down the road in 101 15 years. So, um I wonder if we could um you know s um support suggest supporting the sustainability committee's um sustainability practices or something like that um which is how would that be an enforcable um condition though? I mean how would that be measured for compliance because it's so vague? Is that correct? Yeah, that's that is my

um I'm just trying to get some sort of commitment to uh green development and um I'm not in any state to be able to figure out exactly how that is best worded. I guess I just want to make sure that we're doing good development, smart development out here,

right? And as and as we've said, you know, the very specific features that comprise a sustainable or green development will be before the board as we go through site plan. And you will have the option and the opportunity then to say we want more of this, less of this, this works, this doesn't work. Again, I just get very nervous about, you know, kind of this aspirational condition that's not really measurable and I don't know how it would be, you know, how we would judge compliance with it.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from on that. So, I guess we need to put our heads together a little bit on that. you know, speaking from previous experience, um we have been in site plan review and um we've requested very similar um items and they have been deferred or not put into place. So that's why I'm trying to capture this a bit earlier. Um so that when we have site plan review, we're actually able to, you know, get some of this in, you know, get some teeth in it. Um so that we're doing good development and and um on the next project,

if I could just comment, I apologize, Rebecca. Um

go ahead. Um, I know I I'm not sure if I know what you're having a problems with, but this is where the MEPA document because we cross thresholds of development where larger developments are scrutinized by state agencies as well as local agencies and we're obligated by the MEPA um regulations and our MEPA certificate to be um hyperfocused on sustainable construction practices and energy management techniques where a smaller building going for site plan approval in in any town Godboro or or Actton or or Harvard will not be because they don't have a MEPA certificate. They haven't cross those MEPA thresholds. So, a lot of what's being put into this OCD permit is already in a MEPA permit. Um, and that's okay. Um and and sometimes you have small projects that don't have AMEA guidelines. So, but we are certainly in our best practices. We are a state-of-the-art builder um with state-of-the-art buildings and we're we're just committed and I you know, our track record shows it and I look forward to bringing a a nice sustainable project within reason to uh the planning board very soon and via site plan approval. Cindy, go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. Uh, well, so Russ touched on I I don't know what version we're working off of anymore, but I think in my earlier comments, I had incorporated some of the MEPA um measurable um requirements because, you know, MEPA is actually not a permit. It's an approval process that allows you to go obtain permits. So, I'm not sure what the applicant's uh obligation to report is back to MEPA other than where it says, you know, please provide self-certification. So, I tried to to kind of uh parse through some of the MEPA requirements um to see where we could potentially put some measurable um conditions on and uh I mean, I'm just sort of cherry-picking my own list here, but you know, one had to do with air quality, the mucala process. Um the applicant uh committed I believe to uh reducing their proposed greenhouse gas emissions by 392 tons per year um and then was going to self-certify. So my suggested condition there would be that the applicant report um to the planning board when they self-certify such reductions. Uh similarly for uh um let's see parking reduce the amount of imperous parking and we can talk a little bit more about about that water conservation measures the applicant shall employ water conservation efforts as described in the MEEPA certificate including you know use of drought tolerant plantings automated automatic drip irrigation installation of low flow plumbing and I know we usually put those in site plan review but this would be a holistic way to sort of pull those items out and apply them to the whole park, you know, the remainder of the park. Um, and I had put those in my earlier draft. So, happy to repeat those. But that that is the kind of measurable thing that I think we could include um, you know, in this under the conditions. Um, and I had some others, but uh, you know, if the

board wants to go through those, I'm happy to go through them uh, when we start bulleting out the rest of the conditions. But I think there are some measurable sustainability things we can apply to this project that uh you know the applicant is really already committed to through the MEPA process.

Hello. Am I still No, I we can hear you, Cindy. I'm sorry. I'm reading Okay. what Alec is writing here. All right. I'm not even seeing what he's what he's writing. Apologies. So, Cindy, I just carried over from what you were describing that the applicant shall provide a copy of all MEEPA self-certifications and testing to sustainable practices and and an explanation of how these are being met. And yeah, I mean, and this board has time to review all those. And I mean, if they're filing them with the applicable state agency, right? I mean,

well, the only self-certification actually is the green that I noticed is the greenhouse gas um uh inventory, but um sorry again, I'm toggling between multiple documents here. Um but you know uh things like a reduction of impervious we haven't really talked about the you know the parking um you know the existing perh impervious pavement perhaps a reduction there um some other um items let's see what else might be measurable traffic number of traffic trips you know we t I think uh capella is going to go back and review if their um traffic study identified a certain amount of traffic trips that I had called out um and whether they were able to reduce that amount. Um I think Rebecca already talked a little bit about more traffic management. Those weren't provided in the meet the certificate. Um

but I guess they're doing like I I'm I'm just I've lost the bubble and trying to connect like that that all has to be done as part of their MEPA filing. And are we um so that are we asking to condition this with that or I'm I'm just trying to understand what we're I understood what Rebecca said right

um in terms of the you know the green aspiration. I understand the concern that attorney Schneider raised about and if we're saying that okay the validation of that is these reports to MEPA maybe but like I don't want to read all their reports to MEPA like that's that's a compliance activity

right so yeah so the only thing there I believe and I might be wrong on this is the self-certification on the greenhouse gas emissions but there's also a commitment about water conservation but there's no reporting going back to to NEPA So I tried to pull those commitments into this as you know these as uh as conditions of approval. Um looking through the rest of this you know again I I had all these conditions in my original draft. Um I think that might not have made it to this version but you know I thought we were going to go through a list of conditions at some point. I was going to just bring them up as as we uh got there.

I think probably we just jumped into my bulk comments um Cindy that were just up at the top so we didn't roll through the the them in order but um we certainly will move into that after we get through the things. Um so where are we landing on this? I guess um you know ask for some kind of a commitment here and um I don't want it to be too subjective per attorney Schneider's um comments but I don't want it to be too definitive either just because you know trying to I understand you want to you know design your buildings and you you're going to need some flexibility with technology and such. So, um, is there a way to lightly put this in there that doesn't make attorney, um, Schneider feel like we're just, you know, not a way to to navigate it, I guess.

Can can we say I don't know if you were asking me, Rebecca, but I have a thought. Can we can we put the the aspirational I'll call it that statement in there right on terms of what the expectation is and that it'll that that specific endeavor will be proposed in the site plan right so you're you're going to measure it in the site plan I know that you know John you're probably going to say well it's still not measurable but it still has to be the site plan has to be reviewed and approved right I mean it's it's all kind of funible until shows up there. But what we're saying is the expectation is that as and I'll say it Russell just as you did it on TV you would bring something period consistent with kind of that approach right so so it it gets sort of presented proposed in the site plan a commitment that then finds its way into a site plan and then the board can either approve or condition the site plan approve a condition or deny or approve the site plan. It's always subject to site plan. I don't know. That might be a way to solve it rather than try to have specific reports or metrics put into this.

Thanks. I hope that gets where you were going, Rebecca. Yeah. No, I'm just reading through what um Alec has just written um for us to look at. Um the applicant shall propose sustainability practices in site plan approval um defining measures taken at each uh proposed building and something like that I would feel comfortable with but um I'm looking to the applicant and attorney Schneider to

I think something like that is fine. Good job, Alec. Uh Rebecca, if I may, I think we did get a request from our sustainability chair that the applicant consider um the Oh, I always forget the word. The uh the uh not the stretch code, but the next level uh the specialized the specialized code. Um that could be a commitment the applicant could could make um you know as as far as uh building design. Uh

and again we are absolutely delighted to talk about compliance with the specialized stretch code and any other code and any other sustainability practices when we have actual buildings and have proposed operations and proposed end users. I think again and I hate sounding like a broken record but talking about these things in a vacuum I don't think is a good use of you know time or paper for this decision. You're going to see us again. you're going to have the opportunity to ask these questions to impose these conditions on actual buildings. Right now, we don't have any actual buildings. Okay, that was the list of my questions um or comments noting that it's 10:35. Um, we do have other things on our um, agenda for this evening. Um, I'm willing to give us another 10 minutes and then shift over to the other things in the hope that we can get through that quickly today. Um,

Rebecca question is there it would be great if we could and I don't know what we can do in 10 minutes. Um, but it would be great if we could like what are all the do we have the main issues out on the table and if not should we just list them because I you know and just a suggestion it might be good like I think there's a lot of stuff here there's probably a lot of staff work and a lot of Adam's time and maybe bouncing off of Johanna's time like there's a lot of work that can happen behind the scenes with what we've got if we can make sure if we can try to get everything on the table and let let staff do the work. Just a thought.

I was going to say something very similar is you know that I would love to see this draft kind of reworked in the next for the next round um so that we can get you know we can look back um in the interest of time look back at what the changes have been and just be well verssed in it for the next meeting. Um, I think we have your comments, Rich, and I I'm and Cindy, I'm I'm I'm just kind of gleaning from your your comments earlier that you might have some additional comments. You want to go through all of these decision criteria, correct? No, I So, we went through the criteria the last time. What I was my only comment most of my comments were tied to what we

Sorry, the conditions.

Yeah, we spent we spent a fair amount of time. It was in the findings piece before the conditions. I think we spent a Unless we're in the conditions. Let me pull up my document. Hold on. It I think we've addressed many of them because it was the Yeah, it was in the decision and um we talked about the permit time, you know, when do when does the thing the construction period begin? So, that was addressed. Um that was in item three. And I think all this language needs to be fixed up to reflect what we talked about in the prior section. So that's already been discussed tonight. The only other thing I had and I don't know if the applicant has a thought about this or whatever, but like some of these things just there's no time frame, right? Like um the applicant should Let's not do that one. Um let's see which one. Oh, the item five is that the one there's like the conveyance of the parcel to the town of Boxboro. There's the conveyance of the deed on the 46 acres to the town of Harvard. There there are things here that and then there's the traffic mitigation. And I thought there was a time phasing of that like at at certain development points and I've kind of lost like it just do we need to be a little more specific about some of the timing on some of these? That's all that was my comment question.

Thanks Rich. So maybe you can make a note Alec that um timelines should be addressed kind of typically. Yeah. And if the applicant has specific thoughts on that, I like I'm trying to go back to the presentation. I know there was something about like I thought there was timing on implementing the traffic mitigation measures. There was timing on the speed bumps. Like I thought things sort of cascaded in a in a time order. There's there's no reference to time in these condition in in the decision. and we're happy to work with Alec and with Adam over the next week or so to suggest timing consistent with what we've proposed to the board in the past.

That'd be great. That'd be that'd be spectacular. Thank you. That was the bulk that was basically my comment. Thank you, Rich. Um looking to other board members for comments or do shall we try to scroll through these comments? are these conditions.

So I again I have some comments on the existing conditions and some additional conditions but um which I could send to Alec for the next version but I I don't know whatever is easiest I guess. Um I I probably in the interest of time if you have a markup of this that you can share with Alec um that would be good to to do. But let's start by scrolling through a few of these um conditions if you have comments. Okay. Uh I think number one is still there's a redundant sentence in there. Future site plans for any building is that stated twice in item number one. Looks like it's just duplicated twice. The whole thing.

The whole thing. Yep.

Madam Chair, if I may make a suggestion. Um, and Cindy, I don't know if you still wanted to go through attachment A, but as I was reading through this draft decision um, in preparation for our discussion this evening, it occurred to me that it may be useful both for the board and for the developer to include some language maybe in condition number two, just making clear that and maybe it's condition one, maybe it's condition two, but basically saying that you know the new dimensional requirements apply only to um the lots and buildings thereon that are subject to this master plan and that the pre-existing buildings are not going to become pre-existing non-conforming because they were built in accordance with what was the plan before if that makes sense. Um, madame chairperson.

Yes, please. I would actually echo this sentiment um in part because I would like as one of the enforcement team members here um I would rather not inherit what is it five uh nonconforming lots as a result of this decision. I would like to preserve the conforming status of lots 200, 300, 400, and 500. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of despite the revisions being made at this time. Yeah, I think that makes good sense as well.

Right. So, Alec, maybe we want to include something like notwithstanding anything in this decision. So, the contrary, uh, do you know structures within the park constructed in compliance with the prior OCD permit? And you could do open parenthesis 200 300 400 500 closed parenthesis shall not be deemed nonconforming

and we will workshop that behind the scenes. We're moving on to number three. Any comments on that? So, I'll note this is the condition that will need significant revision to to clarify the um declaration of um restriction followed by the increased timeline for uh conservation restriction.

Some of that language looks a little different than the version I was working off of, but suffice to say it's going to be looked at. And the next one is redundant. Would the board like to strike this one for redundancy? You need to include lots A and B. Um, again, I don't know. I I think I think we just need

We'll just mush them up. And Cindy, your point about clarifying the parcels is definitely noted. Okay. Ah, yes. Slot 100. So, I know that there was a question about the timing, you know, of assorted actions, lot 100 being one of those things. I think that the concom had suggested that it would take two years uh for this to kind of play out at the town level.

Really? Mhm. So the the the two years is a number that I had and and apologies for jumping in, madam chair person. The two years is an amount of time that I had thrown out to the conservation commission and the recreation commission as the most reasonable amount of time. I think that work could be done in a shorter time frame um because that's a lot of volunteers I can task with public engagement exercises. However, I would question whether the applicant would be willing to make the $25,000 payment in advance of the actual conveyance of land as that would be helpful in us to actually doing the design and visioning of the site.

Russ, are you still with us? Can you respond to that? Yeah, I was looking for the hand raise. Um, we would have no objection to that request. Cindy,

I would like I would like to make a comment. Um, you know, the $25,000 um sort of seed money to fund some planning exercise be used for that. I think there was a comment raised at the last hearing that it could be used for any purpose that the town felt credible. So, I'd like to keep it focused on the land, but at the end, it's really up to the town and up to this board. Yeah, that that was my comment actually. Um, you know, my preference is to have language that gives the town flexibility to use that money for other purposes. You know, there's lots of competing projects right now. Um, so I don't want it and I think we put it up in the findings because I think we worked on language up higher up in the document on this to say either or. Um, so I I don't know if I'm on board with that. We're I mean this is a gift of land. Well, it's not a gift. Well, I I guess it's technically a gift. I don't know how it gets conveyed. Um but the $25,000 is to is to then build this parcel into into the master plan for this master plan and how it fits into the town. Like, so we're just going to take the land and the money and run. I don't know.

Why have we Sorry. Go ahead. of my comment about this because I originally brought this up. Um I just if it's just $25,000 um as generous as it is, it could just go towards um something that gets built out there a few benches or you know what I mean? It might not necessarily need to be planning and design processes. It might just be constructing something or cleaning it up or you know what I mean? It it could be maybe reallocated for actual labor, I guess, not necessarily um design, right? If it's

I'm with you. Yeah. if if it's if it's if it's tied to the grant, the conveyance of the land and the and the active use of either figuring out what to do with the land or implementing something, I'm all for that. I just don't want to turn this into a general fund 25 grand. As much as the town needs the money like this isn't the place to get it in my opinion.

Well, I'm I think we worked on language above um that gave the town an option and I think that gives us the most flexibility. This isn't a parcel that was on the open space and recreation plan as an identified parcel. And I'd just like the town to have some flexibility with regard to um the funds. We agree to disagree.

I mean, if we don't want the land, then don't take it. I mean, I I'm, you know, I think I was going to say I think the that gift is tied to the land and andor evaluation of, you know, cleaning up of or use of in some way, uh, if you don't if you don't tie them together, it it gets weird. Um, it looks like it's just just, you know, that that we need the money for the school, for the fire station, for lots of other things, but I don't think it'd be appropriate if we took if we used it in a way that wasn't tied to that parcel.

Well, Dan, I'm just suggesting that we leave some flexibility in there. Um, let the town decide how it feels it should best be used. Um, you know, this is a parcel. Like I said, it wasn't on a priority list for parcels to obtain. I think there's going to be an ongoing cost for maintenance of it. And um you know, um yeah, I'm just suggesting we have some flexibility and give the found some flexibility on it.

I think we can pull the language that we had before. It could say for planning and design process or for other purposes. like something whatever we used above.

Yeah. Either way, it should marry with the um above comment, right? Yes. and and I'd say it broader than what you've just put in there, but we can keep keep going and marry it up. Madam Chairperson, yes.

Can I get out ahead of this one? Um, I don't know that I've seen it. It might be in the documents, but um to attorney Schneider and uh Russell Dion, do you have a time frame in which you intend to deed the parcel to the town of Harvard or to the sorry to the Harvard Conservation Trust? We do not. Yeah.

Um you know, we would follow their lead and work on their timeline. Okay. Shouldn't there be some kind of trigger on that one? It could sit for a long time, you know. Um, that might be something that uh I can workshop between the Harvard Conservation Trust and the applicant behind the scenes.

That would that would be terrific. Again, we didn't want to be presumptuous and suggest a timeline for them. Um, you know, understanding that they have to be ready and willing to to take it. Yep. Conservation Trust to run, you know, it's predominantly if not entirely uh volunteers too. So, it's not as as simple as just we'll facilitate within 60 days. That might be infeasible for them. So, we can have that conversation to work out something that's amendable to both parties. Terrific. We're happy to do it whenever, but but again, we didn't want to presume what would be acceptable to them.

Yeah. And Alex, if it if it helps you, um most almost all my communication has been with John Lee, and he he um has usually been the liaison between Campanelli and the Harvard Conservation Trust. And you know, we've basically made a commitment that once once we get past an appeal period, we will um begin to work on on the transfer of this parcel and and agreed that pencils it down until we get to that point. But once we get to that point, he seems very excited to get to work on this and I think it it'll be done in a a reasonable time frame.

Okay. Again, lots 16 and 17 should include A and B on the uh wherever you mention it. getting light. You're doing great, Alec.

Yeah, and the parking spaces are both captured here as well.

Uh, number eight. So, are we up to number eight? Yes. Okay. So, that last sentence about the plan and rules and regulations for public access have been shall be filed with and approved. I thought we were going to have see something sooner than later on that or is that we we talked a little bit about what was that supposed to consist of and because there's going to be public access areas now throughout the park. Um, so I thought it was important to have a schematic or some kind of a plan included as part of this decision.

Well, right now we have a plan of the designated areas to be put into restriction. The recreational amenities themselves are not necessarily called out. Um Johanna, was this taken directly from the the previous permits? Most of it was. Do was this specific section on a plan and rules? A plan and rules and regulations for public access. Was that part of the the carryover or was that your unique language? I don't recall, but I it doesn't look like something I would have drafted myself. We talked about it was carryover.

Yeah. So, my thought is my my thought is between the the seven clear multi-gallon bins that I have uh upstairs in town hall, I'm wondering if we have this on file um and I can pull out what the existing language is to give it some context. Well, I think the issue is well you can but um because now sort of the volleyball and basketball which I believe are private now are going to become accessible by the public. So those were the kind of amenities that I thought we want to make sure that we identify so that there's no concern for public use in the future.

And Cindy, are you saying you're not comfortable with this as a condition as something that we submit later? You want to see that before this decision is finalized? I thought that's what we discussed. Um, I guess I'm just not sure what it'll consist of, but you know, I thought I thought you were going to present us something, but um, if you know, if we said we were, I apologize. I don't I didn't have it in my notes, so I don't think Rust did either. Um, it's something we can work on, but, you know, given where we are in the process, it may make more sense to have it be something that gets submitted after, right? Um, well, maybe we can.

I imagine it's probably something that might evolve too over the course of its lifetime, right? These are rules and rags for public access. I mean, times could, you know, the times could change. There could be a different facility put in. There could like I imagine this, I know we have to have a baseline. Um, but I mean I don't need to see it for a decision. I mean I'm good with the fact that there should be a plan and rules and rags. Madam Chair, do you mind if I I cut in again here? Go ahead, Alex. Yeah.

Um, it occurs to me actually that this might have to be a delayed plan. um only because many of these recreational amenities, not necessarily the volleyball and the the courts themselves, but for example, the trail networks are within land that's going under a conservation restriction to be approved by a state agency. I don't know that the applicant can commit to certain recreational access until that's been approved by um by the executive office. That's my only hesitation to to timelining this in advance where we'd just be setting it up to to have to be amended at a later date in time. Um, you know, that that's fine. Maybe we just add, you know, basketball and volleyball or something. I just wanted to identify that those are also amenities that the public will have access to. Um, we've listed hiking, jogging, and cross-country skiing. So maybe add a couple more things just to I think those are totally fair game right now because those amenities are on land that's not going under a CR. So I think those are absolutely something we can memorialize here. Now, here's comes the number uh 10. Um I was going to ask the applicant whether there's um potential to upgrade. This came from a resident um privately

to me about upgrading the basketball court to include a fence on the side that abuts the uh h the the trees and the shrubs because I guess the balls tend to run down run down there. So, I'm just curious whether the applicant would consider upgrading the basketball court to include a fence and I don't know if any I don't know what condition it's in.

They can certainly take a look at it. I really, you know, we we do a good job out there. Um to Rich's point, um this thing's going to evolve and this is going to change. Um you know, we um we've been asking our property managers to talk to the people that actually use the park. The people that use the park are very consistent. um people who walk, people who jog, people who walk their dogs, people who use the basketball courts, it they're not oneoffs. They're there quite often. Um I wouldn't be surprised if our property managers have talked to them. Um so, you know, somewhere down the road it might not be a basketball court. It might be coming into the town and putting a pickle ball court in or something. I don't know. I'm not suggesting that. I just I just want to do the right thing that people desire. So, we're trying to take a survey, but um but the bottom line here is um yeah, we could look at that. I I thought there's three fences around those areas, so I maybe the ball bounces over the fence, but we'll take a look at it. Yeah. So, that that is the kind of thing the pickle ball idea um sort of also crossed my path. Um, and if we don't put it in something like this, I guess how would we ever, you know, this I know this is the master plan, not building specific, but um, is there an opportunity to weigh in on some of those other amenities in the future if not as part of this decision?

We're not proposing any new amenities as part of this decision. Okay. Okay. So, if a pickle ball court were to come, it would be part of a site plan down the road. Is that Yeah, but I should probably strike that term.

Well, it was of interest. I would have brought it up anyway, but it's just it's just getting late and you know, we want to be good people. I think we are good people. Um, we're going to take a look at this fence. Um, and and we'll we'll we'll correct it if there's if there's a deficit deficit kid there. If there's a deficient fence that that has come unwired, we'll fix it. You know, we we've gone through that park and have fixed fences and and post and rails to make the scenic vistas. You know, we keep that that fence up uh every year um that that wooden post fence. So, we'll check we'll check out this basketball fence per your request. I don't think it needs to be part of this decision. I think it's unnecessary. Um on number 12 about the uh this traffic, I was going to add a um something about you know if if the planning board be made is made aware of the need for additional traffic calming measures as a result of traffic in or coming to the park. The applicant um shall work with the town to identify and uh be responsible for the cost and implementation of any identified additional traffic calming measures in the area. That's a long way.

I think we had discussed that at a prior meeting. We strenuously object to an open-ended condition that requires open-ended financial mitigation. You know, that may come to the board's attention. Um perhaps Adam can weigh in on all of the reasons why a condition like that doesn't really work. Like me to do that, Madam Chair? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.

Um so, uh I I feel as if maybe we've had this discussion before in the context of of other projects, me and and the board. Um because this is an issue that arises with some frequency, not just in Boxboro, but um before other planning boards, zoning boards um when you're reviewing a project and you have uh potential concerns about um future mitigation that may be required. And you know, the difficult advice I've got to give as your council is this is your bite of the apple. Now, I suppose the good news is with a project of this sort that this is a master special permit and that you're going to have other bites of the apple when the individual projects that are subsumed within this master special permit come before you for site plan review. Of course, I recognize that that will be site plan review, not individual additional special permits. And so, those reviews will be of a less discretionary nature than a special permit. But the law is very clear that you don't have the authority as a board to sort of defer to uh a future determination of your board or worse not to a determination simply to uh circumstances in that in your mind in the future or in the mind of your successors would warrant further mitigation requiring that mitigation at a later date. You simply can't do that. you've got to provide either um the the mitigation that is required now as a component as a condition of approval um or you have to provide defined parameters and we've done that before and this is what I think we did in the context of one other project where um there were concerns and again I'll I'll talk in hypotheticals let's let's discuss traffic if you have specific concerns that um traffic today may not justify um a certain type of traffic mitigation measure like a like a a speed hump or a

stop sign internal to a site. Um, but if the traffic volumes reach a certain uh level beyond what they're anticipated to to reach, but a level that the board is concerned they may reach, you could provide objective defined criteria within a decision that says should the the the traffic volume should the traffic counts exceed X or Y or Z, then the applicant shall u install the additional traffic mitigation measures and then you could specify what those are. So you can be specific if you have criteria upon which you can you can base a condition that is going to be structured in that manner. Um what you can't do is you can't provide the sort of open-ended condition that I think is being suggested here that says well if it turns out turns out that the traffic coming that that that the traffic is worse than we think it's going to be or the traffic coming measures that are being installed don't quite work the way that they should work well then the applicant has to come back in the future. we get to decide at that point what additional mitigation the applicant has to do. I it it it it's it's too open-ended and the courts have repeatedly said that that doesn't that doesn't work. Um so either either more defined criteria or do the requisite homework now to determine what the mitigation needs to be. But again this may be that outlier of a case unlike most that come before you where you are going to get a further bite at the apple during the site plan reviews of the individual projects. Okay. Um, I guess that's that's puts an end to that. I think the Swanson Road residents, they're going to get the uh speed radar indicators, correct? Um, but the speed bumps are going to be on Beaverbrook Road. Is that that's being proposed?

Yes. Okay. Yeah. We just have no way of measuring it and it's going to be subjective and we're going to be in probably not a great position to be able to require anymore, but we're just assuming the mitigation will be successful based on I guess your your traffic study. So, well, yeah,

I think what he just uh alluded to is that if you know, two buildings go up, traffic has gone way up more than we anticipate, when site plan review comes up for the the next building, that could be built in as a condition of that site plan, like further traffic calming measures on the road. So, we would have potentially the opportunity to address that in the future if it's needed. I did ask Russ I think last time to confirm that the numbers in the traffic report um were in excess of 12,000 daily trips. Did Were you able to confirm that? Yeah. Um

yeah, I did. I can comment on in just one split second. Um I just want to comment on um we what Chris just said and what you were saying prior. We have a baseline. Um earlier in this hearing process as an action, we went out and we put down um traffic counters at the corner of 111 and Swanson Road. So we we looked at every single vehicle that entered Swanson Road. Then we put them in our park. Then we put them at the end of our park. So we know the percentage of traffic that goes down Swanson Road. There are several other very very active commercial buildings there. Uh lots of labs that people don't work remotely. Those parking lots are full. And that is a very heavily populated area of apartments. And we determined that about I I think it was about 27 or 28% of the traffic that actually enters Swanson Road actually makes it to the park today. So we have a baseline just as Chris was just describing. As we go forward with site plan approval, we can use that baseline from 2025 and look at what's happening with any additional population of the park. So I think we're in a good position to to talk about that when the time's right. But right now 75% or greater of the traffic on that road has nothing to do with the occupants of the park. However, we want to be a good citizen. Um, so answering your question, Cindy, um, the there's a lot of data there, but I'm going to try to keep it super quick, especially for Rebecca, because I can see she's getting tired, and I do

respect that. Um the original Cisco um average daily trips was 10,000 roughly 10,100 trips and it was heavily based on an office population with a complimentary of R&D and it was also based on pre200 IT standards. Bob Misho in MDM Transportation did an update in 2023 during the MEEPA process and our park was more of an R&D park with a split for office but the it's really an R&D park with office supporting components and it was using 2023 IT data which has increased since pre200. So it's really the historic data going from an earlier permit to uh a traffic impact study 24 years later using updated data from the uh IT standard. So that that's really the mathematical difference and what it amounts to for the rest of the board members is the average trips were planned for the Cisco development at slightly over 10,000 trips at maximum buildout at maximum occupancy. And this park at maximum buildout and maximum occupancy on today's standards is at 12,700 or so 800 trips which makes for about 2 and 200 I forget the exact numbers increase. So the increase is based on the difference of data from pre200 to 2023. I hope I hope that was reasonably clear there.

Yeah. So I guess um just going back to the um the condition number what are we still at? Number 12. There was some talk about or talk about if if it exceeded a specific amount. I mean we could reference your recent study about 75% of the traffic going on Swanson Road and 25% in the park. I mean we could reference if that 25% exceeds some threshold then you know it would be worth reooking at at the traffic measures. That that's all I was trying to get at. you know, if for some reason the mitigation isn't doing, you know, the int what it's intended, it would be nice to be able to reach back and say, you know, the assumptions were X and it's turning out to be Y. So, we'd like to make, you know, remedy that. That's all I'm trying to get at,

right? But traffic calming in the form of speed bumps and radar indicators is not necessarily tied to the volume of of vehicular traffic. It's really this those are intending to mitigate speed. But did those measures come out of that same assessment? Did you those measures came out of comments from the board that you wanted us to slow cars down?

Yeah. It's the signaling and the intersections that are addressing like the volume, right? And I think as attorney Costa alluded to, it's like if if you're going to predict something, you have to be specific about it. So it would be a if trips past 12 the 12,000 uh daily trips, then X would happen. We can't just say it would then be looked at again. I think we have to have the specific conditions in place. We really know what those would be right now.

So I I'll think about a little bit. Um, but I I do think we have some metrics that we could use. I'm just not sure how to apply them. So, we can we can move on. and 15s should be adjusted to map to whatever we agreed to. It's probably misplaced now, but no, this condition still stands on it on its own. Just that they can't file a um file for a building permit until it's recorded. Um the further I see it. I'm sorry. Y

the typical language we append to the bottom of the document will have to be um will have to be slightly modified based on the discussions previously, but we'll um we'll present that specifically red line so you can see the difference. Um item 12, sorry you jumped ahead where those bullets are. So those came out of the me those should really replicate the section 61 findings I think verbatim. Um, and I think there's one about the transportation management program that our transportation monitoring pro program that was left out for a beginning of 5 years. Um, so that should be included. Um, and there was uh I did have this note in the decision 0101 section 3.13C required three years after completion to monitor traffic entering and exiting the development at Swanson Road annually if the number exceeded 1700 trips during the peak hour on a regular basis. The applicant shall conduct the level of service analysis at Route 111 intersection with Swanson Road and 495 north and southbound ramps. So I don't know if that condition will still hold if that was a prior condition.

That was a prior previous decision.

Yes. In 0101 uh condition 313C. I would suggest that that probably has been superseded by Meepus section 61 findings, but which are much more recent. Well, it's an example of a condition that indicates if the trip number of trips exceed a certain amount, then you know you got to do another level of service analysis. So again, um it's not unheard of to put a condition like that in.

Why don't we why don't we add it? I mean like we we already know what the level of service is here, right? What was the number? Sorry, it's getting late. It was Can I suggest that we have this hashed out offline? Um and we look at it in the next draft. I mean, if that was a condition of the previous decision and I guess to your point, Cindy, why can't we include that in some form in this one? Um maybe they can hash out something similar to that that's relevant to this. Yeah, Alec, why don't I just make a note in the document? It's uh decision 0101 condition 3.13C.

Uh can you repeat that? Condition what?

Uh 3.13 C. Okay. Any comments on 14 and 15? So, there's the reference to site plan approval that I had way up above. No. So, I have a list of other conditions which I'll whittle down and send to Alec, I guess. I think he already got it in my first draft, but I'll send it again.

Yeah, I'd like to get um everything in writing to them, you know, ASAP, so that um we can have a productive next round at this. Um, and I'm hoping that we can have this document edited per all these comments um, now that we've worked through it for that discussion as well, just so it's productive. So, would now be a good time to go back and just kind of confirm, I guess, what the sticking points are cuz we know one is the the timing. So, 15 years or 17 and a half years. I think there were a couple other things that were highlighted in yellow. I just um I wanted to clarify. Yeah. What are the things that we need to make decisions on?

I thought it was 11:20 at night, so I'm not sure I'm feeling like making any major decisions right now. Well, not not making them, but just flagging like this is a this is a thing that needs debate. H so timelines seem to be a big sticker and we land on this inclusion inclusion or not. I mean again I I think maybe some of these things can be worked out offline like yeah they might become move as the stuff gets tiled together. I mean there's definitely the timeline thing we're going to have to talk about. There was the buffer there was the buffer and the building height. Did that get addressed and what?

Yes. Yeah. Okay. That was addressed. So, it was really I think it came down to I think it was really timeline was I mean I there could be I mean that's what I had captured out of the four things. Yeah, that's all I had written down. I just wanted to know if I had missed forgotten about something.

Okay. So, I'm going to um suggest that we um let our attorneys go back and start um noodling over this thing a little bit more for us to have another discussion about. But um I thank the board for sitting through this um so late tonight to try to get it um wrapped up for this evening. Um Cindy or any other board members that have extra comments, uh please share those with um with Alec to share with the applicant as well. um in the interim. So, um Alec, we need to likely make a motion to continue. Uh yes,

January 5th, is it? Um you still have a December 15th meeting available if the board wishes to act on it. Um you have You took that off the You took that off last meeting. We did. Yes. because it was supposed to be used for the town meeting. Well, that's to the discretion of the board. If the board wants to strike that meeting, that's um that's within your purview,

right? You struck it though already. So, I I'm not available on that date, so I would say we're talking about January 5th. Okay. um is the intent on January I mean so we're going to get a clean copy and hopefully well ahead of that we go through it. I mean the I I'd like to is the intent that we're going to be positioned to kind of clean that up and be in a position to vote on this thing on January 5th. I hope so. I won't be here for J.

Lovely as it is to to hang out with um with uh the Ken Pelli team and and attorney Schneider, hopefully we can get a decision made. Well, Mark, you I said you're not here for that date, Mark. Okay. Not be here for the fifth. Are you gone that whole week or I am I was gone that whole week. Okay. Do we want to nudge the 5th to the 12th or I know what else do we have?

What are we the 5th and the 19th? Uh the 5th and the 21st. The 19th is a holiday, but the 21st was a question mark for some. There was at least one board member on my notes that was not going to be or might not be available that week. I can make the 12th work. Me, too. So, bumping the 5th to the 12th. Um, attorney Costa and Attorney Schneider and uh Russell, are you all available on the 12th of January? Alec, do we have anything else booked for the January 5th?

Um, tenatively, yes, we have something else booked that might be um might be moving. Um, unsure yet. I still need to communicate with the other applicant. I just want to avoid backtoback meetings. So, we either bump both applicants out to the the 12th or we look for the 21st. Right. And correct me if I'm wrong through you, Madam Chair. Alec, wasn't 984 Massav continued to January 5th?

It it was. Yes. Um it's unclear as of yet, but uh rumblings are that there might be a continuation of that further. I'm available on the 12th if uh if the applicant and the applicants council are available. I have no objection to the 12th. I'm just reminding the board that the 19th is um a holiday. Yes,

I'm also available on the 12th. Um, and I just wanted to confirm, I thought when I had looked at this previously that the 15th was still being carried as a I'm sorry, December 15th was still being carried as a meeting date of the board. Is that that's just not the case anymore? It was um dropped last last meeting. Okay. Okay. And its purpose was for our town meeting which got postponed. I see. So, Alec, you're going to figure out about whether the fifth can move to the 12th.

Um, yes. I if if the fifth was to move, it would probably be to a later date. So, potentially that 21st meeting, if not a February meeting. Okay. Um, so I just unfortunately I can't tell you for certain to now tonight that it's going to be extended. um only because I need to communicate further with the applicant and get it in writing. Okay. But what I'm trying not to do is is add another meeting here. So I guess can it be moved the fifth? Yes, it needs to be. Yeah.

I I I can't commit on behalf of the applicant. I I just I can't confirm that. What I can control um what we can control is your meeting of the 21st. So we could go ahead and cancel that. So it would make your your fifth and your 12th meeting back to back, but then that would be it for the month of January.

We said December 22nd 22nd was out, right? Uh at the time of originally drafting your schedule. Yes, that was out. I can't speak to it now. I can I'm okay with the 22nd. I am not okay with the I will be on vacation. Yeah, I think that's what it was. Take that off.

Alec, the likelihood of the fifth moving my apologies, Madam Chairperson. I I given the sensitivity around that application, I cannot commit to anything. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Understood. All right. I heard um three members say the 12th is okay. I I believe Cindy did. Yeah, that's okay. Okay. Let's um I'd entertain a motion to um continue this hearing uh until January 12th. So moved at 7:05. Amended. Okay. Seconded.

Moved by Mark White and seconded by Cindy Marowitz. Um, any discussion. Okay. Hearing none. Uh, roll call as I see you. Cindy Marowitz. Markitz. I. Um, Mark White. White. I. Rich Gazardi. Gazard. I. Chris Dowy. Douty. I. Burner. I. Um. Okay. Well, thank you very much. um Johanna and and Russ for joining us tonight. Thank you everybody for sitting through that. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Have a good day. Thank you, Adam. Have a good rest of your evening.

Okay. Um let's move through this quickly if we can. Um administrative business, uh we do not have any minutes uh in the packet, so we're not reviewing those tonight. Um received correspondence. Anything to go through specifically on that, Alec, or cruise through it? Okay. Planners report. Um, I will rather than give anything robust, I'll just ask the question. Would the board like to cancel their January 21st meeting in light of the the most recently scheduled meeting the week before? At this time, you have nothing on your agenda for the 21st. So, if we're going to cancel it, now is a good time to do it.

Yeah. I I don't have a problem cancelling. I think one of the challenges we have is one of these lingering things that continues to stay on the agenda is upcoming article upcoming town meetings and articles and we haven't had any conversation about upcoming town meetings and articles and and the associate member. Yeah. Or an associate member. So like as much as I don't want to have three meetings in January like you know I I just don't know like today we can say we don't have any applications but like we probably have town meeting prep work right maybe starting I don't know I don't know do we need to decide that tonight?

No I'm just extending the olive branch because I just made you book an extra meeting. It's fine. We might cancel the 5th if uh can we put the Well, keep the 21st in case you cancel the 5th, right? Keep it as a possible but not a a solid date. Like we won't book something if we can push it to the following meeting.

Makes sense. Um otherwise, I just have a brief enclave update um I want to share. And then uh there was a CPC application that we wanted to briefly talk through for um a letter of support. But um the enclave update so as discussed um their entirety of the applicant's tolling period expired in the month of November. Don't have that date off the top of my head sitting here at this hour. Um but um as I had previously discussed, myself and the town administrator have met with the homeowners association who has done their own exploratory work. Um I reached out to them earlier today um and they had asked for a little bit of extra time to provide me with that uh that full list of potential errors and omissions. Uh Sue is already aware of her own list, but um they have asked to to provide that likely right at the start of the new year. Um so once we receive that from them, um we will package it all up. Sue is going to spend some time with us reviewing it, um, consolidating those lists to make sure we have evolstanding, including a site visit that Sue will conduct to to put eyes on things and evaluate the current condition. And we will present that to you um, at the at the January meeting, a January meeting to be decided based on when I get their list.

Thanks, Alec. Yep. Um, okay. um committee reports, uh CPC, uh so meeting Thursday to to go through a bunch of the applications. Um Alec, is there something you wanted from for us for that for the for which the roof? Yes. Yes. Uh not the roof. No. Um uh and under general business uh we'll have the item opportunity to pick it up, but specifically Ian is seeking a letter of support on the conservation commission's request for a $25,000 contribution greater than the typical $10,000 contribution conservation trust.

That feels very likely to happen. So

um DRB, we have not met um EDC. We met uh recap on village for a day was a good turnout. 200 people participated. Feedback from the businesses was reasonably posit was positive. Some of the businesses did really well. Um the business breakfast is scheduled for I think the third Monday Tuesday in January. So sort of middle of January. Um I may have the date exactly right. And um yeah, they did we did the grand opening or uh Divia did her grand opening of Thinking Flower and um we had Senator Eldridge there and our representative Senna and select board member and cut ribbon and the whole thing and she's got a great spot on uh on Massav right next to the bank. So that is it I think for now. Oh, we got the grant. We won the grant on uh doing the economic development plan. So that'll kick off soon.

Can I ask a question about the economic development plan? Well, like is the planning board going to have any input into that? Um and you know, formally or informally. Yeah, I think Alex going through the routine of helping put together the well or Ian put together the full kind of, you know, outreach and input from other committees and boards. So, I think I think the loose answer to that is yes, but I don't know that there's a we don't have a specific plan laid out yet, Cindy, but um it will be laid out. Okay.

It's a it's a key action under the master plan. Um and it feeds like four other actions. So, okay. Um, magic, I wasn't able to make that meeting. Thanks, Mark. Uh, water resources.

Yeah. So, uh, the consultant from Weston and Samson presented the results of the phase one comprehensive water management report, I think is the title. Um, I think there would be value in having the water resources committee come to a planning board meeting and, you know, have a discussion about what sort of some of the findings in that report and what else the planning board might like the water resources committee to be focusing on. You know, they got some recommendations out of that, but we may have slightly different items, but I I think it would be useful to hear the presentation at least in some form. So, I know our schedules have been pretty busy, but you know, if uh if there's possibility to reach out, um you know, I would try I can help coordinate having one or more members of the water resources come and and speak to us about the findings in the report because I I think there's some important things there and we did have sort of an initial say in get kind of getting that going. So, I think it'd be good time to circle back with them. Um and the BLF is uh scheduled to meet on Wednesday of this week. Um okay, moving on. General business. Um I think we already ANR. I think this might be carryover. Alec,

sorry, I had to unmute myself. Yes, that's correct. Okay. uh CPC 2027 applications.

Uh yeah, so uh as Alec had said, the this year the Conscom has decided to apply for $25,000 worth of CPA funds, which is an increase from their usual $10,000. Their $10,000 application they've been awarded for the past 8 years or so. Um, this came in response primarily to a Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition partner meeting Alec and I went to this past September. Um, they identified a slew of upcoming opportunities for increased conservation efforts. Um, among a couple other really important reasons that we'll be outlining at our um at our public hearing on Thursday. One of which is um our upcoming uh open space and recreation plan update. Um, our current open space recreation plan was drafted in 2023 and goes until 2027 or sorry, 2022 to 2027. Um, however, this next one will will be able to uh have a 10-year timeline attached to it. Um so yeah, our temporary increase contribution to the trust fund um it will allow us to pursue goals in the OSRP more readily um as well as poise the the commission to respond more quickly to um things like land acquisitions. Um, so yeah, we we'd like to ask the planning board uh would consider uh writing a a letter of support for the consom CPA application um especially in the interests of the need for updating our uh open space and recreation plan in the very near future.

Comments from the board. I assume there's going to be a bunch of other CPC applications as well, which I guess I'd rather know what sort of all the all the requests coming in are before we, you know, I mean, I'm supportive of probably all of them, but I would like to understand what they are.

Uh, yeah, there's a bunch. Um, uh, nothing exceeding the budget um, at the moment. the the only one that might be the slightest bit controversial is um for Flare um the playground there. And the discussion is basically because it's a significant chunk. I think it's 300,000. It's more about the do we do this now or do we wait a cycle. Um so the three main play playgrounds in town aren't all back to back to back. So, in however many years when they need replacement, we don't have that that again. Um, outside of that, I think the next biggest line item is actually the the roof of the town hall. Um, and then everything else in order of magnitude smaller. So, 25, 10, 15, that kind of thing.

What And what's the overall budget for CPC usually or? Uh so it's it's the math is honestly hard to track. Um it essentially dumps into a fund uh periodically and it's with three given buckets and just is withdrawn as projects come up. So that's why there's so there's a a lot sitting in the uh open space recreation portion of that. That's why so much is being considered for the Flare Flare's playground because that bucket is is relatively large.

So the money's already I'm sorry I don't want to belabor this. Money's already there but there several requests totaling amount of X. Yeah. Totaling the amount of 700K. I think this is an older one that I had nearby. Right. So there's quite a lot of money being requested for CPC things. So, um I I guess I'd hold off on making a recommendation to the cons support to support the consom till we have a better idea what all the other funding mechanisms are or funding request.

It seems extremely likely to pass um that the request. So, I mean we can have a letter of support. I I think it'll I think it'll go without it. The only reason we asked is because uh obviously it's a new ask for us going up um 250%. Really and uh this is we said a temporary increase. We're not trying to pigeon hole oursel to a one or two years. So we didn't directly identify exactly how many years it is. And um because we did ask for such a uh an increase as such, it definitely has uh raised some questions that we're we're hoping to um to uh to pro provide a strong argument in our in our uh presentation come Thursday. Um so that's that's why we would ask that.

Yeah. No, that that was basically the main question of like why did it jump? And as long as there's a, you know, a reasonable reasonable sounding, you know, story, I I I think it'll pass probably unanimously like most of the things will.

Would it be possible to provide the planning board with some kind of documentation in and around what the asks are here exactly? So that we can just give this some proper thought and when do you need an answer by, I guess. So, my apologies, Madam Chairperson. We had included all this in your um in your last packet in full all the applications. Um but then because of the lateness of the hour, we just didn't get to the item. Um unfortunately, the public hearing for the CPC applications, as Chris said, is this Thursday. Um so, the deadline to do a letter of support is really um is really Wednesday.

Okay. Why? How come we came brought it to the wire like this? It feels like some notice would have been a little helpful for us to think of this made this decision. Um, did board members have any other thoughts or comments about this? I think that's what Alec just said. It was it was in a previous packet, but we've been busy enough we didn't get there. Sounds like they don't need our weighin so much as I mean they've got the votes to to put it before the town. I think the town's going to ask a lot of questions, especially once they find out what the total dollar amount of the budget's going to be this year. Yeah, that could be that could be the bigger question.

It's a higher hurdle than than what do we think about it? I don't really remember being asked too many times what we thought about. I I do just want to make one note there, Mark, only because of the the comment just there. As a reminder, CPC funds are set aside and separate from your general fund. And so this money is being taxed regardless of how it's being spent. This is a contribution from the CPC fund, not from the general fund. So this is irregardless of of any override votes or other measures. So it's not going to be further raised then?

No. I think in p in past years we have um provided a recommendation on the whole CPC program. So I would expect that we would do the same and I believe you know I remember when Roden was the liaison um you know we had a list and we and we made a recommendation for town meeting. So I guess my that would be my preference when we have the whole picture in front of us. Again I'm not I want to be supportive of cons but you know there's a lot of competing interests. I'd like to see the whole package before Are you saying, Alec, that it was in a prior packet? Uh, yes. Uh, this was on your agenda for a couple weeks ago was 10:30. Then that was not your last meeting. Okay.

Meeting. No, it was one of the more recent ones. But, um, Madame Chair, do you want to just table this or do you want me to give you a a motion and and we can just let it fall where it does?

It sounds like it's likely going to go forward anyways. Um, Alec, from what I'm gleaning from this conversation, um, I mean, if the board is okay with just kind of passing over the letter of support, I guess I mean, we are supportive every year when we see these things coming through, but um, I agree with Cindy. We usually do it in a different way than writing a letter. Um, does the board agree with that or Yeah, we will see all all the articles once they're once they're actually at the stage to be articles.

Yeah. So, we'll be able to have another opportunity at that point, I think. Um, is my feeling. Does the board agree or disagree? Yeah, I I I'm not inclined to jump into the middle of it right now. I mean, we without going through the packet and seeing everything, it sounds like the CPC is on a path. Um, but I agree. I think, you know, we should we should be including that in our in our pack. Well, it was in our packet. This year, I think till midnight, I can't find it in the packet. 11:17. Was it the 117 meeting?

I I don't know off the top of my head. We've had these for for about a month or so now. So, it would have been one of your last three, but um we can dig in time and it doesn't make any difference at this point because So, I I'm all for just letting it go this time. Okay. Thanks everyone. Um okay, so I guess we're at that time of the night. If folks are ready to tuck in, I can make a motion to adjourn. Thanks, Mark. Anybody want a second? I'll second it. Okay. Moved by Mark White, seconded by Rich Gazardi. Uh, discussion.

Okay. Uh, as I see you, Cindy Markitz, Markitz, I Mark White. White. I Rich Gazardi. Gazard. I Chris Dowy. Dy. All right. Thanks, guys. Have a great night. Night. Have a good night. Good night, guys. Good night.