Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I will open up this meeting of the Maynard Planning Board. Today's date is April 14th, 2026 and the time is 7:02 p.m. Um, all members of the planning board are here in town hall. Um, please note this meeting is being held uh in hybrid format, meaning members of the public or applicants can participate here in town hall or through the Zoom link. And please note this meeting is being recorded. Um, does everyone remember how to do this minute? Um, Bill, can we skip to item two? Yes, we don't have minutes ready, so it works out well.

All right, I will open up the public hearing for 129 Actton Street. This is a cell tower renewal application. Uh it is filed by Gregory B. Is it Buchet? Did I get that correct? You got it right. Yeah. Thanks. Um on behalf of Saul Ewing LLP. Um and this is simply a renewal uh two-year request renewal for an ex existing telecommunication special permit for the cell tower located at 129 Acne Street. Bill, do you want to you want to give a briefing on this first and then we'll turn it over to the applicant?

Sure. We This is a uh special permit renewal at 129 Actton Street for the cell tower. Uh every two years is is required to renew. Um we've uh had pretty good renewal. We had we had a little hiccup last year, but we're all pretty much up to date with everything. Um the only thing I would point out, and I already I spoke to Mr. Buché about this today. Um the engineering report uh is recommended to be replaced every five or reinspected every five years. Um it's been four years. So, what I would request the board do, and I've I've uh spoke to the applicant already, though, is to um set a a requirement that uh prior to the expiration that an updated structural um integrity report is submitted to me. So, it'll be mid in between this permit and renewal. So, that's the one thing I've asked. I I've went ahead drafted the decision. I didn't put that in. So, just to be clear, um the the bylaws uh don't require a complete application, pre-applications. However, the recommended um inspection timelines for freestanding towers uh is 5 years. Um and so I just wanted to make sure that that had been inspected and that was the only uh thing I have to point out. Mr. Bush can explain the rest. I have further information if you need anything, but I think that's pretty much

Mr. Bet I believe my turn. Yeah, Mr. Bush, if you could just identify yourself for the record, please.

Sure. Thank you. Uh, Greg Bucher, uh, attorney at Saul Yuing on behalf of SBA Monarch Towers 1 LLC, who owns this cell tower. Uh, thank you for having me again. I I was here in 2018, 2020, 2024. Um, and now, uh, back again. Uh, I submitted the application, paid the fee. Um, as Mr. Nemser said, uh, for reapplications, as long as there's no there's no significant changes to the tower, you don't need a full technical, uh, submission. I submitted an affidavit from uh our manager from the company that's in charge of this tower that says that there's been no structural changes to the tower. In fact, there's been no changes to any of the equipment on the tower since 2022. That was when the last structural report was uh provided. Anytime there's any kind of equipment swapped out on the tower, there's always a structural analysis and report to make sure the new equipment is fine with the tower. Um I did speak with Mr. Nezer and then I called my client who said no problem. Uh they're happy to provide a new structural report um in the next within the next year. So the current one that's uh in front of the board is March 15, 2022. Uh happy to have it, you know, before March 15, 2027 or whatever the the board is uh will will require. Um, in order to prepare the application like I did two years ago, uh, I went back and asked the client for a tower removal bond, uh, and make to make sure that the amount of the bond was sufficient. Uh, the client did a tower removal estimate and increase the amount that they believe that the cost of removing the tower would be. So, we increased the bond accordingly and provided those estimate in the new bond uh, at tab E. Um, and I'm just not aware

of any other issues or problems with the tower. And so I just ask that the board would, you know, approve it with, of course, subject to, uh, providing a new structural report within the next year as well. Thank Thanks, Mr. Bush. Um, questions or comments from the board? Uh, Bill, is the uh SBA monarch applicant uh up to date with any type of payments? Yes. Okay, great. No questions or comments? Uh, I'll open up to public comment. Um, Bill, if you would

mind if um for members on for members uh joining us virtually, please use the raise hand feature or turn your camera on and uh raise your hand and we will call on public comments one at a time. Bill, I'm not seeing any public comments online and I I do not see any public comments here in the room. Um, okay. Um, I'll make a motion to renew the special permit for the telecommunications tower for a period of 2 years. Uh, Bill, is that two years from this date or two years from

It would be 2 years from the expiration date. So, we have it that here's how it would read. It would be uh May 25th, 2028. it will expire. And here's the two clauses right there, A and B. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um All right. I'll I'll start again. Uh I will make a motion to renew. Sorry, I have to close the hearing, don't I? Yep. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Thank you. Second.

Um all in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand. It's 5 to close the hearing. Um and I'll make a motion to renew the special permit for the telecom telecom communications tower for a period of 2 years uh so that the special permit will expire on May 25th, 2028. And uh we'll add a condition uh that an updated structural analysis report certification uh consistent with section 7.5 of the zoning bylaw shall be provided to the office of the municipal services prior to March 15, 2027. uh and failure to provide the approved certification by that date would require uh a trigger that the special permit is null and void and a new permit shall not be issued without a new public hearing. That is the motion.

Second that motion. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It's 50 to approve the motion. Uh thank you Mr. Bush for your time. Thank you very much. Thank you for allowing me to attend virtually and uh and for not Boucher and Buché. Thank you very much. Sure. Take care. All right. Thanks. All right, Bill. Should we open up um the next public hearing? Sure.

All right, let's turn to item three. We will I will open up the public hearing for 141 Parker Street. This is a resoning request um by an applicant of uh Lexvest Parker LLC who is the property owner at 141 Parker Street here in Maynard. Uh Bill, would you like to give us a briefing on this and then we'll turn it over to the applicant?

Yes. This is a petition to reszone um 141 Parker Street which is the uh office complex that we've worked on with some other projects including the um the senior center and the request is this one is a request by the property owner. Now the property owner has always has the right to request reszoning typically just By the way, the the the the cookies crumble or less the planning board often is a sponsor, but in this case, this will be a sponsored article by the property owner. Um, and the intent is uh to change the current zoning, which is industrial. Now, um the industrial I've given you each a copy of the um the industrial table next to the uh business table so you kind of see what the difference is. But in general um industrial uses are little by little being phased out by design of the master plan as well as um other uses that have become more desirable in the area. Um uh the um main crossing just for your knowledge was originally industrial and it still is but we put the overlay zoning district on top of that. So, it's a little different, but it was industrial as well. Um, and um, uh, the owner, Matt Blackham, is here and, uh, Chris Alfen, who's the council for the applicant, is here with a presentation as well. Um, but I think that would get you up to date on what we're doing. Um the reasonzoning uh this is not just to

be clear for the the audience um this board does not approve the zoning. This board um makes a recommendation to the town meeting. So it this is uh that's what the purpose of this hearing is to take public input and um and consider that when they make the recommendation and um I can do now Chris if you whenever you're ready I can start and I can just give it to you and

appreciate it for the record attorney Christopher Alfan Blackman Babroski Hav and Silverstein my law office is in conquered but I'm also a resident of fer I'm here with the proper the owner Matt Blackham. Um we appreciate it and that and thank you Bill for that summary. Uh we are seeking you to um support this um at at town meeting and we're looking for you to give your recommendation and approval. Um so I'll just go through this PowerPoint here. So a picture is worth a thousand words. What we're seeking to do is convert this property right here, which is currently zoned industrial, and convert it to business. So, there's no changes in any of the bylaw. It's just a change to the zoning map to that one parcel. And as you know, that parcel is improved today with an underutilized office building and a dilapidated single family structure. One of the reasons why we're we were seeking the zoning change is in the industrial zoning district, single family structures are prohibited. Therefore, that makes that that lapitated single family house, a pre-existing non-conforming structure. And with the zoning change, that gives a little bit more uh leeway to the developer to redevelop that single family structure. Um, we just think that this makes a lot of planning sense. Obviously, as Bill mentioned, we all know this parcel. It's sort of the parcel that's sort of on the outside of Matern Crossing development and it sort of got left out of the development and we think just with the with the development of Matern Crossing and Digital Way that it makes more sense that this be zoned for business rather than industrial. Um it with the with the up building of of Maynard Way, it's a sort of a a site that's on the outskirts and

we think that it's more appropriate to have business uses here. Um you know, business uses are more things that are like Mater Crossing where industrial uses are a little bit more heavy uses that we don't think are really appropriate for this site. Um this is just a photograph again of what the building is going to look like. Anybody who's been a major crossing knows what this looks like. Um here's the liquor store here. And here's the the house here and the office building here. Uh and this is what we'd be seeking to change. The zoning map would be just changing this parcel right here. I think there's actually a little slipper here that's included, but this is the parcel that we'll be seeking. So it' be just going from industrial to business as you know. And as uh Bill mentioned, uh the remaining of this property is industrial, but it really got approved under a overlay district in and various permits. Uh one of the other reasons why we think that um we're seeking a change in the zoning is the dimensional requirements in the industrial district are a little bit more um difficult and make things harder to develop. uh with a business zoning district, we'll have a little bit more leeway, uh more opportunity to redevelop the whole parcel in general just because the dimensional requirements are a little less heavy than what's in the industrial district. Um so we just think that this makes a lot of planning sense. We think that this parcel really deserves to be a business district zone. uh we don't think that it's going to cause any adverse effects to the town and that it just makes good uh planning sense. So, we're here to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Alphan. Um, Bill, what's what's the planning department's recommendation on this? Planning department's recommend approval. Excuse me. Approval. Approval. And and is there um can you elaborate on the reasoning why? Yes, of course. No, I'll be happy to. Uh should I stop sharing? Should leave you want me to leave the PowerPoint on? No, you should stop sharing.

Um the uh the uh first reason is that the under the uh current zoning of industrial is not something that I don't think I I I don't think the town visions it. I don't think the the neighborhood would envision any of the uses that are in there and I don't think that the master plan reflects that intent. And I'll give you an example why I I think that to be the case. You may remember in 2022. There was a proposal to amend the main road crossing uh concept plan to allow a storage unit which is an industrial unit which would be allowed by right under india. Right now a storage unit self storage would just plop right there and be a site plan review with a zip. that was poorly received by the community uh to a point of where the whole thing ended up withdrawn and it kind of uh identified that as more of a mixeduse business type area. Um it's not to say that every industrial use would be incompatible there. It's just to say that the the type of retail and businesses that would be there would probably be of greater benefit to the community and greater um consistency with the surrounding area. Uh uses that were particularly intense because the first thing anybody I think would ask about is is is traffic and and ingress, egress and so on. Uh a use that's more intense. So, for example, let's say a drive-thru, something with a drive-thru uh would still require a special permit from the planning board. Whereas, on the other hand, um a a a a traditional office complex like uh Mr. Black has had

we had to amend, if you recall, we had to amend the industrial zoning already to allow physicians offices in because we wouldn't have had the doctors there or anything else. It's just an outdated um zoning district and I don't think it's in the best interest of the community in that location and I think this would be of net benefit all around. The the positives would outweigh the negatives in my opinion. Thanks, Bill. Questions from the planning board? Yeah, I got one. Yep. Um, can the petitioner's goals be accomplished simply by extending the NBOD overlay district? No. That's a great question.

I'm not asking you. I'm asking the petitioner. Well, I think Bill is the guy to answer. So, I'm I But the petitioner is presenting at town meeting. Yeah. So, petitioner needs to be able to respond to these answers. So, tell me what you got. Uh, I don't know. That's not I didn't we didn't Matt, did you review the overlay district and what's permitted in that? We were happy to be prepared to answer that question at town if it comes up. Uh but that's not something we considered. We thought that the thing that made the most sense is switching this uh to business that that made more sense for the uses that we want to do. Uh so no, we did not consider uh doing the overlay district. We're happy to review that.

I'll point out that the overlay district, everything underneath is industrial still, right? So correct. So we could certainly look at that and have an answer ready for you at town meeting, but no, we did not consider that. Okay. And then the other thing is, can you tell me what difference this would make in regards to setback to buildings and parking for the adjacent S1 district? I think we had that up as one of our slides. Can what's your question is about the setback would be the change of the setbacks

from today to the proposed. Yeah. So in the industrial there's a setback of 50 ft. A front yard setback uh and a rear set back of 30 in the industrial compared to 15. A side set back of 30 in the industrial compared to 15 in the business. And again, let me just repeat industrial uh 50 foot set back for front and compared to 30 in the business. And are there not any special circumstances for abuing a residential district? Sure, there is certain provisions for that as well. So, what are those to mention?

I I can look at the bylaw for you. We're happy to review that. I believe that it increases by 35 ft uh for side yard and rear um when a budding an S1 or S2 district. So that would increase it to 50 ft. Nope. Yes. So business would be 50 and industrial would be 100. Is that right? Yes. Okay.

So, the side and rear yard. Well, rear is not residential, right? So, it's just the sidey yard. That That's our So, that's our read of it. Let's let's um let's let's get a confirmation from either Mr. Alfin or Bill Demser. If in the in the case of you're talking about for the setbacks or for the NBOD applicability, forget the NOD question. Just the setbacks difference between industrial and business. How close to the S1 can I put my building parking under each of those scenarios? You're from parking. That's a good question. It's a S1.

Um I have to look that up. It's on page seven of the zoning bylaws. The um driveway separation. No, the dimensional requirements that talk about not for driveways, but maybe I misunderstood the question. Well, I think he's talking about both buildings and parking. Okay. Could you restate it one more time? Sorry. The question you're saying what's the difference between how close buildings and parking can be to the S1 industrial versus business?

Okay. Building could be depending on a setback. um it would be 30 ft to the property line the perimeter property line of the um business parcel in that case. So for front for a rear it's um we have 15 ft and um that would be to the perimeter and then S1 requires uh for the rear would be 30 and 15. So it sounds like 60 and 30. No, I'm not I'm not talking about S1. Oh, I think it's S1.

I know. I want to know how close a parking and buildings can get to the S1 line. Then I think we need to go back to Yeah, the parking is is right. So, let's start with buildings. Okay. Well, building is what I just I think what I just told you. Okay. But I don't think you the special provisions for approximate to S residential districts. You're saying that there's a special provision and I think I know what the member is asking about. There's a special provision for uh being next to an S1 when you're in a different zoning district. Yeah. No, there's a there's compatibility separation, but it's in that's under the drive group for driveways. You're talking about we're talking about the same thing in different place. Yeah. I'm not quite sure if that applies or not. Trying to look on my phone.

He's talking about there's there's right here is a Okay. Um and Okay. At least 25 at least 25 ft of all yards abuing S1 or S2 districts shall be landscaped open space with screening. Okay. Increase by 70 ft when abuing a residential district. That's for the industrial zone. What's the next?

Uh at least for 40 40 ft of any and all such yards abuing a residential district shall be landscaped open space with screen with screening uh provided the minimum lot minimum required side and rear yards between a lot line and existing building shall be 15 ft. That's kind of so is the answer that it doesn't matter what zoning district you're in. It's the same regulations. So the answer is there should there is no difference. Well that's not the answer the I know that's not well. So you're saying that certain uses in the business are treated differently than issues in industrial saying setbacks are different industrial and business right and that's you so that's

that's not entirely there. Okay. Well, just that that graphic doesn't show the You're not showing the footnote. The footnote that does the footnote says, right? Yeah. Pull up the the Yeah, but the footnote applies to all districts, does it not? It's different footnotes. Yeah, there's two different footnotes. Let's just let me just pull the foot, you know, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying somebody ought to know this stuff before they walk before town meeting. I think you're right, but I think we have to It's not clear what I at least I'm not clear, but uh let's see here. There you go.

Stop and share. And I think this is an easy question to answer. And let's just get on here and see if we can find it. And let's go here. And um does Bill know where those bylaws are on our website? Don't laugh. I don't use them on there on the first page. Yeah, seriously, Bill. Yeah, they're not. Um, they're on the bottom. Well, we because we because because of the wonderful things we do.

Yeah, that's drop down. And I I want to get this answered, but I I don't want to concern troll to a point of where we're leaving the problems the central uh question here, which I think is separation out and let me I'll share this with the let me share this with our viewers and Um, okay. So, this is what Bill's talking about, I believe, right here on the um right here. And um Okay. Right. This is for Okay. Elderly housing, multiple dwellings, uh, accessory buildings.

What What footnote number are we talking about? Eight. Right now, I'm going to be going to So, a increase by 35 ft. Then right here is So that's business is 15 + 35. Is that what we got? Increased by 70 ft. So if you had 70 feet it would be whatever it would increase whatever is required by 70 feet. That's an industrial. That's that's the industrial footnote, right? That's number nine. Number eight. So eight is increased by 35 S1 S2. All right. So nine is

side side setback or would be effectively 50 in business and 100 in industrial. Is that correct? Seems like it. Yep. Seems like it to me. Okay. So now what about parking? Okay. a parking separation you're talking about, right? So, that's going to um move that. Make sure I get right. There was something about a buffer. Yeah, there's a there's a 45 ft. It's uh on business. I don't know what I don't know what it is in industrial 40 40. And I don't know what it is in the MBOD actually. That that Yeah, I don't know what that is.

Would it be the same though if it's a budding the budding numbers? cuz it set but that's set back to buildings, right? It's not set back to parking. Parking setback's not the same way. I don't I don't Yeah. No, I think we're good at that. Okay. Where is that? It's good. I mean, it's what people complain about. Okay, here we go. Um 6101. This is what I was talking about. Oh yeah. This guy out of here.

6. Did you say 610? We don't have 610. 6.1.10. Oh, that's right. That's right. I wonder if I find it. Yes. Everybody's getting dizzy online. That's right. 61. There is cuz the parking can be closer in some cases. Oh, come on. How much frontage does this parcel have? Do we know what's that? I was just asking if anyone knew how much frontage the parcel has.

I thought it's 2.6, is it? I think it went up. 2.6. I believe says 310 on the uh Oh, sorry. No, that's the side. 180 + 153. 330 change. How many acres? I thought Did you say how many how many acres? No, I said what is the frontage for the How many acres? Oh, okay. So, um the this is okay. Um Okay. Okay. No parking space or page other than access driveway should be 20 ft. The front lot line within 10 ft of any other line. This is what I thought you meant.

I mean scanning here. I don't see any difference between business industrial how the parking is set back. Unless there's something else. I don't see I don't know that it was ever called up to that. Yeah. All right. So, it's going to be the 25 foot thing that was mentioned in the Yes. of open space and landscaped area. Okay. Regardless. All right, that's good enough. So, I have one last question. Okay. Um, does this zoning change make the existing any of part of the existing stuff nonconforming? And if it does, what does that mean for considering later approvals of stuff?

It's a great question. The first Well, we already have a non-conforming use. The first use is not conforming already. The 30 the the house is non-conforming under industrial. Yeah. Well, I'm not thinking it's probably not you something. Probably not use something I'm thinking of that's non-conforming, but is there anything else non-conforming like setbacks and would you create a new coverage and all that stuff?

Um, I didn't check every setback on that that you create from what's there? I I don't have a setbacks in front of me. have to defer to the uh applicant on that one. What the number is of the um if it would meet the setbacks. The setbacks right now um if we went if they went to business um front set back we're talking 30 ft. So it's definitely going to meet that. The rear let's see rear's 15. So there's you've got over 15 in the rear for that building. Sure. Easy. Sides 15. Yeah, there's plenty there. And I I can't picture on the one side. I

It's 50 by Well, it's all dependent on how the structure was built. I don't know if it was built with a permit or if it was built special permit. Yeah. So, that permit would still be binding against the against the structure against the office structure, right? Right. And then the Oh, yeah. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. So, that's still alive and good. And then the again the the single family is non-conforming and you essentially make it a conforming dwelling by switching this over and the parking lots and landscape coverage are conforming.

Well, I think those are probably under the permit as well. It it it is under the current permit. If we if there were significant changes made down the line, they'd have to be brought into conformity whatever the you know that the businesses requirements are now. Yeah. The permit would still be living and then if you made a modification to it, it would be under the new zoning that you would be applying for the modification under. So does that mean anything that happens there is a modification of existing permit and possible other permits?

Yes. But if uses are allowed by right then it's possible that we wouldn't need a modification to the permit depending on what the permit says. I don't do we have any special permits on there now? We have the original special. We were here before this board uh seeking a modification of that special permit in order to um make the site changes that we needed for the senior center. Well, there's no others, right? I don't think we have any others on there. I know. But that senior center permit is how old is that? 6 months. 6 months, right? Yeah.

But the original special permit, I don't I don't know how old that was or what that covered. like just a use special permit. It was It was I thought it was just a use permit for the the old one. We We went over it last year when we did that. I can't remember. The existing old one for when they first built that thing. Yeah, it was Yeah, but I don't remember exactly what I pulled up. I may have to pull it up, but I don't remember. Okay. The construction of that building was done under a special permit, was it? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. PV pre-built my hand. I wasn't I wasn't preil. All right. Can I ask a question? I mean, even if it was a pre-existing Sorry to interrupt, if it wasn't done by a permit, the structure wasn't, then it's,

you know, if it's non-conforming to the existing underlying zoning, then it would be a pre-existing non-conforming structure and treated the same, unless the zoning change made it conforming. Uh I don't think that there's a circumstance here where our request is going to make it non-conforming. Um certainly can give an opinion about that if I have a site plan in front of me. It might come up at town meeting.

Um just to clarify, this might be a question for Bill. This zoning change would allow for easier sub not easier but uh more subdivision of the land if they decided to go that route because the dimensional requirements are smaller for business as opposed like there's 75 ft of frontage as opposed to 150 ft of frontage. Uh lot sizes are 7,000 square ft as opposed to 40,000 ft. Right. So that's overall correct the the parcel would become more able to be subdivided to use be subdivided. That's correct. I'm not saying that that's the plan. I'm just kind of going over what would be for the future.

The the flip side to that is that when we do an ANR approval not required like it's done like that. Remember that's zoning. It that's irrespective of zoning. It goes to creating a non-conforming lot to the community. So you for all practical purposes what you're saying yes if it was zoned business it could be it could carve off a piece of ANR. Okay. Easier than they could with 40,000 for that's a pretty big size

right. Um and then additionally as you said that the uh single family and two family residences are allowed under the business district. So that structure would become conforming. Well, we can look at the the side like how far away it is from things, but it would become a conforming use. Yeah, he could he could rebuild it too if he wanted without um that's all my questions. What else? Other questions? Yeah, I was curious, Bill, you'd said, you know, you generally feel that the good way is the bad in this. Do you see any negatives of changing this to business?

The the the only potential negative I could see is that we we need to just keep on top of ingress and egress and keep an eye on what happens development wise. And as if a a very intensive use came in like you know with something a special permit type use a multif family or something like that comes in it may require individual mitigation. So um my concerns that would be my my main concern ingress egress. Now, I did also in I also uh checked for the fire chief and the police chief and I I think you all have a copy of that or it's on um John I can pull right up. Um, regarding guys, I want to make sure cuz there is always questions about the traffic on Park Street and uh, VHP just not VHP, Green just completed their post construction traffic analysis for Maynard Crossing. And when there are certainly busier times than there are not, but in in the conclusion of the report um and I don't know if you had a chance to look at I sent around earlier when it just came in um is that the anticipated volumes are at or below what was originally projected for that project. It doesn't mean there's not backups at certain times a day. It doesn't mean that the um there's going to uh be any reason that is going to preclude having a police officer at certain times of year with Thanksgiving with the Christmas holidays, things like that. And I wouldn't tell anybody there's not an issue there. But from a from a EMS standpoint, from a police response standpoint, there was no problem. From a traffic count

standpoint, um, at this point there was no issue that concerned me. But any intense use that's added, I would say I would want to make sure there's mitigation in place and that there's a study provided for traffic to ensure because there's a big difference if if you have three or four businesses opened here that are that are, you know, load traffic generators as opposed to a I don't know a higher density, higher traffic use that could be and and I I always think drive-thru and that's that would require a special permit. There may be other stuff with that.

Yeah, I guess the only point that we would make is that you know who is to say that a business use is going to be more traffic heavy than a industrial use. And then to the second point that Bill was just alluded to, obviously certain uses are going to trigger site plan approval or special permit and traffic mitigation and studies will be done at that point in time. So we're obviously not exempt from any type of permitting that will be required. Just to close on your question, Chris uh Chris Klein a lot of criticism. Chris Klein, to closing your question, I would be much more concerned if some of the uses that are allowed currently under industrial were all of a sudden materialize there. Sure.

Yeah. I spent a lot of time looking at the use table to say, okay, the underlying use currently or the use the zoning is industrial. There are a lot of things there that would create a lot of traffic. car wash, um, rent, car rentals, a small supermarket would be allowed by right. Um, so I while I do I am concerned about traffic, we all have to admit that we're concerned about traffic because the current because of the current situation at the shopping plaza and I don't feel that it's appropriate to put the onus of dealing with the roads traffic concerns that stem from the large development next door on the property owner next door because that's just happens to be where they are. um if there's a problem at market at the shopping plaza then they need to deal with that traffic that's not you can't expect anyone else to be

and they're working currently with DPW on they are um I do think that a lot of people I think that the public has a perception of traffic in that area being a problem and I do think it's something that they need to deal with but I don't want that to be influencing this discussion particularly because of those busy times of years because that's not that's not relevant to this conversation. station. Yeah, I have to agree with that cuz I don't know why we're talking about traffic on digital wave parcel and unless we're assuming our cars will come in and out that way. But,

you know, something like this is could derail town meeting. You know, everybody's really just mad at at Market Basket and everything over there and they're taking it out of this parcel and it has nothing to do with it. So, I don't know why we're talking about digital wide traffic. Um, you that's a it's fair point, but I if I didn't No, for sure. It's just I think that maybe there needs to be more emphasis on the separation the separation between

the separation between the two just because I again I don't want people to be like, well, I can never get it out in Parker Street, so like why would we add anything else? Well, on one hand, there are already a lot of uses that could be put in tomorrow with no permit. Well, you know, whatever, with minimal um influence, that would have increased traffic significantly. The point is that if there's a problem in the area, then that needs to be addressed on a larger scale, and I don't want that to be part of your conversation because it isn't. Right. We appreciate that. Thank you.

And I I do have another question. Um it was brought up earlier. Uh, sounds like a may not have that information yet, but I'm curious if you do, Bill, why an NVOD wouldn't work here. Oh, no. I So, um, this is a that to do if we were to, let's just say we were going to amend the NBOD and and we would have to start with a new concept plan that incorporated the first thing. You can't do it without concept plan. The um so the concept plan as you remember is kind of a master master plan which was BC before Chris B. No, actually I was involved that but um no that was that is a extraordinarily ownorous

okay that would be beyond and and the applicant would not have the ability to go forward with that's a that would be a zoning text amendment it's parcel specific and ours and there's things that would have to be changed in zoning bylaws concept plan would have to be changed the development agreement would have to be open probably I'm not positive about that it would I believe um and It's designed when they designed the NBOD, a lot of it was done uh over a period of time and it was designed to be contained.

Uh and but but this is I'm not going to say it's a simple map amendment, but it's a typical zoning map amended request to amend a zoning map as opposed to a bylaw change if that. So that's why the other thing I don't know and I I I if uh attorney Alpha has said that that the um development agreement have to be open probably I I know I'm forgetting something else. There's another there's another governing document there. I can't think of another we're talking about I know Jonathan Silverstein my colleague looked more depth into this and it just doesn't make sense. It makes it very more complicated. We talked about it years ago. Remember you and I did years ago and it was it was just

the two things are sort of unrelated because they're by themselves and sort of independent. Right. So it just it would it would have been the easiest at one time we thought. Sure. Right. But you missed the Yeah. But now it's outside of it. Other questions. I'll open up to public comments. Um, for members online, if you would like to issue a public comment, please use the raise hand feature or turn on your camera and raise your hand. We'll call you one at a time. Are there any public comments here in the room tonight? Yes. If you could just identify yourself for the record, please.

Yes. Uh, Judy Burgess, 18 North Street. Um, two things. Who owns that dilapitated house? Is that and just wondering we many of us have wondered why that has stayed like that. It's really an eyesore probably ratinfested. Who knows? Just curious. I know it says a full lease. Is that you trying to lease it? We are. Yeah. You're welcome.

So we're challenged with that home for two reasons. The um first is that it's not a um um it's a non-conforming use uh an industrial um zone. Secondly, it sits on the same parcel as an office building. And the feedback we received from realtors and potential buyers for that home is that it's undesirable because you don't have a separate parcel. it would be sharing the same parcel of land as an office building and ultimately subject it to us as an owner who's managing that parcel. Um this um proposed owning change allows us to pursue that potential use and some retail uses. In the past, the only uses that have approached us with respect to the home have been marijuana cultivators. Um we've had a lot of those come through uh over the years. Um the other uses that have come through we haven't been able to accommodate because of the zoning. Um so it's our hope the zoning change will help facilitate the redevelopment of that home either as a single family home or potentially as a retail use.

M the math works out that it can be on its own parcel if we switched over to this so that it doesn't need to be part of a condominium. Four years ago when I tried to move to Maynard, I looked at trying to buy that house from Matt and I looked into it. No, I'm not being a condo with a with an an office building. It made no sense and everybody would be scared of that. So that solves the single family. We hope this this zoning change here. You could had good parking if you had a party.

If you wanted single family, can't you just cut the parcel out and tag it into the S1? Uh, I think that the zoning dimensions, my predecessor, Mark Babrowski, looked at this at one point in time and I think it would make the other lot non-conforming or something like that. Just it didn't work as each individual lots. I forget the exact reasoning. I feel like probably not enough frontage or something like that remaining for the industrial remaining.

I forget what the dimensional math worked out, but it was something like that. Yeah. I had another question. Uh I am concerned about the possibility and not that I'm approved. Uh I'm 81. I'm glad the senior center is going there. Um the marijuana, it's not appropriate, frankly, near a senior center or any building. We have enough of them in town and I don't see any big income coming from them either. So for the temp. Well, um um I don't know if that your comment is understood.

Um through the board, I think the question is do we have any plans to put a marijuana facility there? And the answer is no. Okay. Um Judy, if it helps, I will point out that uh this is currently under industrial use. And under industrial use, there are craft marijuana cultivator cooperatives allowed, marijuana cooperatives or marijuana cultivators that are allowed, career facility,

marijuana testing facility, marijuana product manufacturer. Um, and so those are allowed under industrial currently. Um, there are, as I think you're pointing out, there are business, if it would were to change to business zoning, there are some marijuana. There's marijuana. Um, there's a few of those as well. So there's a lot of those would not be allowed. Some of those would not be under both business and industrial. There are various marijuana operations that are allowed. my right special permit right without special permit but yeah if that helps

thank you um I don't I don't see any comments online bill uh we have two folks online all right um can any comments under Michael no okay Bill question Bill is there any means for a zoning change like this to include special considerations like, you know, uh, no marijuana or no drive-thrus or something on this parcel. Is there a way to make that happen? Not with a map amendment. Not without text. The only the only So, it's all or nothing, right?

I'm sorry. It's all or nothing. It's everything in the B. That's correct. Without Yeah, we didn't want it. Right. This is just a simple they want to use our BA, right? The only way to accomplish that is to essentially create a zoning district, which I don't think the town has any interest in doing at this time. Okay. Never mind. Are you sure? No, I was just going to say that um this is unrelated, but for everyone's knowledge that I know that the select board has looked at ways of discussing the number of marijuana facilities in town as a whole lately. So, that's a different conversation than the one about this specific zoning district.

Thank you. uh when we were at the just for the record when we were at the select boards meeting that that conversation came up and uh at the last hearing and they had a lengthy discussion about it. Just for the record, not that it's relevant to this petition, but we have no plans to have a marijuana tenant in any way, shape, or form. Yay. Thank you. And I'm just looking over the changes and the potential uses and I'm seeing that it's probably more restrictive under business for mar generally for all marijuana operations. So I feel like looking at this it looks like industrial has is less restrictive overall to various marijuana operations allowed.

Any other questions, comments? Okay. Um, anything else to add before we close? No, we we appreciate it. Um, appreciate your consideration. Matt, anything to add other than thank you for um supporting the development so far and we appreciate the opportunity.

All right, Bill, before I close the hearing, um, what's what's the what is the ask here? The ask tonight is for if the board chooses to recommend approval to town meeting for the zoning map amendment as proposed um for 141 Parker Street and that would and if that's the case um the board would be asked to speak to it at town meeting. the difference between, you know, it wouldn't say the warrant wouldn't say sponsored by a planning board. Say it' be say property owners petition and they'd ask us if we support it and the board would answer how we did. What you're being asked for here is to make a recommendation be the applicant's asking for a favorable recommendation um for the zoning change and then that the town meeting would have to take the vote and that's ultimately up to them.

It's just a recommendation. There's no comment or no the purpose is to take the comments you know as we heard but but this is the public hearing but there's no so we don't need planning board does not need to prepare a comment for town meeting it would be prudent and I will help you with that in a report okay um I think that it's a plan it's entirely under our jurisdiction and it would be something we would want and that's something we that comment we can bring back to the planning board in a coming uh meeting of course

okay we also I think there was a lot of uh intelligent conversations and questions today. We'd like to provide just a simple memo on some of those questions so that we can pro provide to the planning board so that if those questions come up town meeting uh you have the answers ready to go because I think uh it's fair to ask about the uh the setback issue about why the overlay district doesn't work. Um, and was there anything else that the Well, I think the Bill's question is is and I know where he's going with this cuz he's worked with me on the bylaws. The footnotes sometimes do get confused and and and and

and I think that would really help because I what what the board is doing here is preparing you for, you know, what may come up. I think that's a valuable tool and in this case something like that where it's it really is cut and dry when you read it but you got to look and it's a footnote it says okay it's next to an S1 district so in my opinion anything graphic you put together any you know like that um the other the MBOD is um so far as why it can't be done but I'm happy to put something that that is there's there's a lot of reasons. Oh yeah. Why it's not more more than three. Yeah.

Can can you guys take this offline afterwards? Of course. Okay. So um so for town meeting questions will be as I understand it will be directed towards applicant. Um planning director will be available for for any technical commentary. Um as chair I will be available to clarify any discussions that planning board had. Right. But uh we are not providing um a general opinion beyond what was discussed during our hearing tonight. We are going to I believe in our planning board report to town meeting. We would say that we held a public hearing uh for this uh petition and here's what we found. Here's what we thought.

Here's PL just and the FinCom will be asked you know the same type of thing. But just just for your awareness, if if there's a a question that says, "Can planning board comment on traffic?" The answer is going to be I can't. That's not that's not the perview of us right now. We can only I can only comment on what we discussed about our support or not support for that particular um zoning change. Okay. All right. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Second. All in favor to close the hearing, please raise your hand.

5-0. Um, so for the board's awareness, we typically make motions in the positive, meaning the affirmative, and then we vote yes or no on the affirmative motion. Um, so I'll make a motion to recommend uh the proposed U zoning bylaw change um to annual town meeting 2026 as what was presented tonight. I'll second that. All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand. That's 421 or are you abstaining? Abstain. Abstain. So it's 4. Okay.

Um, do I need a If you're obstaining, do I need do I need an alternate vote? No. 401 vote. That's it. I think it's four four, right? Because there's abstain, right? That's right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, we're understand. Um Okay. And then you'll work offline on on comment to bring back to the board for review. Yeah. And I'll get I'll make sure I'll I'll work for you. I'm going to make sure that if there's any questions from a technical standpoint, we've prepped as fast and I think that would be okay. Thanks guys for coming. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Let's turn to item four, the discussion for planning board rules and regulations and landscape regulations. Yeah, I'm just going to give you an update real quick. Um I'm going to ask um Zoe to work with you further on this, but we we had we got some feedback on rules and regulations. Um I just got um if that's great because we haven't heard from everybody. So, everybody wants to do it, you know, give any more, throw them in and we'll take look at and then we're going to have them I want to do it with a public hearing. You know, I don't know if I told you guys this or not. I can't remember. But it was it was

we were with town council and they said it is a public hearing. It's a public meeting public hearing and they were not sure and they they dug and they said statute doesn't silent to whether it actually is a public hearing for our um rules regulations. I choose to be let's do it with a public hearing and it's easy enough but the point is it takes I I just have to advertise it. So if we could please two requests of you tonight. Um first of all the um I would request that um you please try to get me any comments say by maybe in the next couple weeks if you have anything else on the rules and regulations. Um the second request is in two weeks uh I'm going to the planning we have no art we have no items on our second meeting this month. Uh we have nothing scheduled. I'm going to be coming back from the national conference. I can make it or I can zoom in but I'd rather not or Zoe can come in. But if you if the board is inclined I wouldn't mind missing. we don't have anything scheduled and if the next um meeting in uh April we could skip it wouldn't break my heart and it would be easier I think and then we come back we can start and go uh full speed and get the um rules and regulations adopted the landscape regulations adopted we'll know what happened at town well no I don't know what happened at town meeting yet but we know what we're doing with our what's been suggested to address the dark sky components of our our landscape regulations. Um, and then the last thing I have, I just kind of segueed into planners updates, so I shouldn't do that yet. Do you do you have any any questions on that those requests? Well, a little concerned that the public meeting

setup will limit our ability to modify the original proposal presented or advertised. That's why he wants you to send in the things. Now, I know, but the ability of, you know, a dozen people inputting this and putting it all together and being advertised that way and it kind of come through the approval process untouched. I see what you're saying. Um, no. No, no, no. You're a good That's a good point. I mean, don't don't we maybe want to work on it heavy first in a meeting and then take the result? I think you're right. I think you're right. Yeah, I would. Could we work on it at the next meeting with Zoe?

I have to check if she's going to be available. I think so. For you talking about in two weeks? I'll ask her. I I'll get you to answer tomorrow. If not, I can do it. I might be online. I'm just coming back from the conference. So, I'll be at the airport. Uh, I should be back in time, but if not, we can make it work if you want. By the way, do we need them? Hey, that was my second That was going to be my second. Yeah, I don't. Technically. Really? Technically, get another plan. Um, yeah, I can ask if she could come in and help on that if you think that or not. Bill could just spearhead it. It sounds like No, I just, you know,

public meetings are very restrictive and yes, how you can debate and change things. I just think highly likely it needs some changes before it gets to the public meetings, Steve. Well, there's no rush. We don't need to have then I would appreciate if we could boot the next meeting and we got and we have town meeting. So, we're going to have extra meeting in there as well. Um, and Bill's uh, poor Bill's already he's bamboozled with the tax season for next 24 hours, right? Yep. All right. Planning update.

Yeah. Okay. So, here's a couple of things happened today. Um, today cool housing production plan. Uh, we are we we have the firm um, selected which we're going to announce. Um, Mark uh Donna Dodson who's on the affordable housing trust and works um on the last housing production plan and uh a new nice uh new uh lady um Rachel Min I think is her name is going to be working with she's not new to town but wants to get involved and and uh has a background also in um in housing. So I and so my thought we were talking today about the direction of the housing production plan, what we're going to need to change what we had and and what I suggested and I think would be something we need to acknowledge some of the it's a 5-year plan. So we need to figure out what we can do in five years and where our limitations are, i.e. water or something like this. Um, I was telling Donna and and Mark that because we have Bill working with us on the planning board as well, there might be some really cool stuff we can do with affordable housing trust and some programs that we could come up with something really cool that makes that we could do something that is outside the box maybe. So, anyway, that's going um I anticipate um I'll have an announcement in the next uh week or so when it's finalized and everything, but we're pretty happy. We got some We got some really good stuff. Um powder mill um overlay district. Um I got about seven or eight RFQS responses for our stuff. I haven't looked them yet. I on the board I'm I'm

um I have Danny uh Schlerler. I asked him to help with it. Steve Smith from tree committee. Isn't Danny also tree committee? Yeah. Okay. Uh but I have for someone else. Um either um Natalie and Bill or both of them or and um and who else? Who? I'm outnumbered by tree guys. I'm a tree guy, too. So you and and somebody else. And um they're just going to speak loud the whole time. Suck it. So, that'd be really cool.

Does that violate open meeting law? I don't know. That's a good question. Don't have to get a translator. Sorry. Yeah, we need accessibility. It's true. Oh, accessibility. Yeah. And we And we awarded the ADA contract. Oh, great. Yeah. So, the ADA contract's good. And the other good news about the ADA contract, how many how many responses did we get on the ADA contract? One I had to throw some out, but they they were incomplete. There was only one complete one. The one that wrote Yeah, the one that wrote the RFP originally. They're great. I mean, they were doing That's fine with me. But here's the good thing.

I I lost our H this year. I didn't get our housing choice designation because I couldn't we couldn't build the last of the the houses. So, I lost that for a year. which is which is what is we have a housing choice designation which was how we get a lot of our grants but you have to maintain a certain amount of housing production each year what the housing production plan lays out we couldn't do it this year because of the water the the stack units and um the water uh we have them permitted but they said it's not good enough for a housing choice that we have to have

so we lose that for a year now the good news is I'm working off a housing choice grant for the next year this year anyway, which is $580,000 or whatever it is for the powder mill stuff. So, that's good. But the good thing about the ADA plan is this is the transition plan, which is we're going to inventory everything. We're going to see what needs to be made accessible or improved of town owned facilities and infrastructure. they now have a construction, they're in the same pipeline, a construction um grant to make the changes that I can go ahead and apply to now before our plan is done and make it contingent on what they do in the plan. So May one it opens, we're going to apply for the construction of the ADA improvements while our transition plan is being done. Never. So that's cool. And if we can get that done, that's another It's not It's not gazillions, but it's probably $250, $300,000.

As long as we can find things to do. Oh, we'll be there. We have plenty of stuff to do. We do have some no parallel parking spaces, though.

Just saying. Can we Can we take out um parking meters with that money? Cuz that does help with accessibility. No, those are staying forever. Those are not my pets. I like them. That's all I got. That's pretty good. I didn't get an answer to that. Oh, did you see my um did you see the the decision I left you for the um you guys can sign the decision for the um right in front of you. Yeah. Or I can stamp it if you're okay with it. That's self hourly condition. Can I make a motion to adjurnn the meeting? Yeah. Oh, I'm not sure. Sorry. You just did. I make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. I'll second. All

in favor to adjurnn, please raise your hand. 50 to adjurnn. Thanks everyone.