Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll wait for him then. Well, if he's here. I don't want him to feel... That was a close one. ...stepped upon. Everybody's here. Yeah. Okay.

We need to just start the meeting.

We can start the meeting without you.

I was about to.

I heard you walk in, so...

Okay.

Just be generally comfortable up here.

We're very far forward. Yeah. All right.

The owl is right there, too. This is too much. It's really careful. Okay. You ready, Bill?

Yeah. We have a full board. Okay. And it's recording now. We're recording right now.

All right, I'll open up this meeting of the Maynard Planning Board. Today's date is June 23rd, 2026, and the time is 7.02 p.m. This meeting is being held in hybrid format, which means members of the public and the board can participate here in town hall or virtually through the Zoom link. Please note this meeting is being recorded. Bill, we can skip item 1. You want to go to item 2?

Certainly.

This is the determination of a minor major modification for 2 to 6 Powder Mill Road.

That's correct. You'll recall that this project, Adam Stack, the developer who's on the line here, and represented by his architect, Jim, I'm sorry, could you help me with the pronunciation?

Jouzoukis. So Jouzoukis.

Jouzoukis, OK. But to give you a little refresher, this project has been at the location of the Tudor-Ciparro board approved it approximately 2 and 1 half years ago. We renewed it for an additional two years. This particular project was going to have a mix of bedrooms. However, there's been a number of factors that have led the developer to propose a downsizing of the bedrooms so that they are consisting of one bedroom units. Additionally, there was an affordable mix that will stay the same, which includes a total of nine units. 5% and I believe 60% AMI and 4% and 80%. That remains the same. The reason that the applicant has asked for his architect to attend tonight is so we can just answer any specific questions that the board may have. is allowed by our zoning bylaws and further refined in our major modification criteria of the planning board rules and regulations. So in essence, what the board is being asked to consider now is if the changes proposed change the general intent or the project to a level where it needs to re-enter the public hearing process, essentially start over again, or if the intent and the project is basically constituting a minor modification. So what that's going to be, there's not a specific criteria for the board, but you're familiar with, I think, all of this with the exception of some exterior changes. One consideration that when the applicant appeared before us, in, I think, January. And when he was discussing making some modifications, we talked about keeping the materials the same. The materials are the same. The height of the building is the same. The footprints are the same. But there are other differences that we'll pull up. And I will let the applicant and his representative explain. And Jim, would you like to... I can share the screen with you. Sure. If you like, would you like me, I'll just give you the, I'll make you a co-host so you can share. Okay. All right. There you are. And let me get your volume here. Can you guys hear it okay over there? Could you give us a sound check, Jim, please?

Yes. Chairman, I'm right here. Does that work?

Yeah, we need to get you a little louder for the- Okay.

I'll do it on my end. Sure.

Okay, let's try it now.

Okay, is that fair enough?

Can you guys hear okay? Yeah. Okay, yeah, the board's good. Okay, with that, we can go ahead and I'll let you take it away.

Chairman, members of the board, I am Jim Jouzakis, architect with Jouzakis Architectures Incorporated. I just want to talk about briefly the couple of exterior modifications we'd like to enter into this. So on the water side, we're talking about two powder mill roads. And on the water side, we're looking to remove six of the original proposed columns. And in the green sections, we're looking to not have any building above those elements. So just the one, two, and three, which are all in the, I think the 25 foot setback. So we're just pulling those right out. We found it just to be cleaner and easier in the back of the building, not maintaining its aesthetics, but also keeping all the windows and the views in the back as well. The other element we're looking to relocate the stair that was originally proposed down closer to the other entrance and pulling it back towards the water side. And that's just to keep it within the footprint of what we're proposing to be the new building size. What you're seeing in the more orange color, there'll still be a roof above, it'll be covered parking. None of the parking spaces changes, none of the footprint of the building down underneath the original design. That doesn't change. The exterior, let me just pull this up. So the front of the building, we're looking at all brick. with granite accents, maybe bring in some coin elements on the corners, soldier course belly bands, the gray metal trim up top. The parking area that we talked about would be just these covered parking area and how that would be affected, say, with get this so it's full screen. This is the original lighting plan. Nothing would be changing there. We'd still have the lighting in the parking, lighting wall packs on the side of the building that haven't been relocated. It'd still be a light right at the front door, and it'd still be lighting underneath the parking area. going out the other side entrance. Further moving on to the other civil engineering drawings. And other than those couple of elements, nothing really changes with the stormwater management or anything else. I'd be happy to address any other questions, but That's essentially it.

Questions from the board?

A couple observations. The comment about the parking not changing is not correct because the relocation of the stairs impacts parking. So I don't know if it's gonna be the same number or more or less.

Same exact number, we're just swapping one spot for the stair and the stair's gonna, where it is now in the parking, it's just being swapped out.

I'm not 100% sure that's a geometrically correct because we have offsets from walls for parking spaces but, regardless the bigger issue to me is this seems like this is a radical change in the building passing in its relationship to the street because I think the building used to you know go up to the street edge but now we have this canopy that's the frontage along the downtown street and that seems to be quite a departure from what was previously looked at.

Do you have questions?

No questions. It just seems like, well, I guess, all right, my question is why a canopy? Why not revision that connection with the downtown streets for more pedestrian? you know, relationships, better landscaping, something. I just don't understand why a canopy is the best thing for the downtown. And I also don't understand why such a radical change in the building footprint and the building design would be considered anything but a major change.

The original footprint essentially is Right now, supposed to be this orange area as well as the red. And we're basically pulling the upper floors back to the red area and the orange would still have some structure and that parking would be covered in those areas.

Bill, do we even allow parking in front of a building downtown?

With this, we don't want open, Marty. Let me get the, edit the, one moment.

Is the building, is this Powder Mill down here? Is Powder Mill here? Is this the front door?

Well, I don't see a North Arrow on here, so I don't know. So Jim, can you orient us on this figure? Where is Powder Mill Road and where is Waltham Street?

Right here is Powder Mill.

So Powder Mill is on the bottom of the page?

Bottom of the page. The river is at the top of the page and escapes by Wall Street.

And so the North arrow is pointing up on this figure, is that correct? It's pointing up to the right, it looks like. Yeah, it's a little tiny down there. Got it, thanks. While we wait for Bill, are there other questions or comments from the board?

mean i don't have the benefit of being here from the original decision um was the original footprint the entire area that is red and peach orange is that yes as well as green okay so there's the the revised footprint is essentially the same, but the building envelope is being pulled back to red.

Correct.

I guess on the parking side, you know, as long as we're talking about parking, I'm curious if there is an expected change in request of what we think required parking would be for All one bedrooms versus multi. Do we have any ideas on that? Does it really matter?

Can I ask the question a little differently? Sure. Jim, based on the proposed new building footprint and unit counts, have you calculated the number of parking spots required? It is the same number of units, right, actually? Well, let's start with this, Jim. Is it the same number of units as before? Yes. So I guess the requirement's the same. Did you look at our bylaws to determine if the parking requirements would be exactly the same then? Because I believe you're changing some of these to one bedrooms, is that correct?

Correct.

It's only one bedrooms, right?

Yeah. Off the top of your head, anybody know what the requirement is for two?

Oh, the requirement would be different, although I I believe we gave them a waiver.

It would be less.

It would be less.

Yes.

But whether with the new number of one bedrooms, it might not need the waiver anymore, or maybe it still does.

I don't know. The underlying for the The way the parking reads, we gave them, well, let's see, we had waivers for... But in the central business, the way, typically, and I think the way the bylaws read is that it's, we call it, behind the building. So I think the question would be, like in this case with the canopy, would the board consider that enclosed or not? And I guess Bill's point is it's open. So in that case, the way I read it, you probably are. Let's see. Oh, is that the room?

Oh, in the original proposed parking summary, the dwelling units required 1.5 spaces per unit. There's 36 units, which would require 54 spaces, and there are 40 spaces provided. But since the units are going down to all one bedroom, then it would still require the I believe, for the zoning. But we're not changing that. There's no change in the number of parking spaces.

Jim, can you just highlight the facade changes? As I recall, The previous design had different exterior envelope elements compared to what I'm seeing now, which is mostly brick with some features.

If I can get my files here.

Would you happen to have the previous approved design available?

I believe so.

Okay.

Not yet. If you maybe stop sharing and then reshare. We're still looking at the current new design. Yes, thank you.

So the original design, can you see my cursor? yes all right so this is that building on the corner um the edge of the powder mill side will remain the same and we'll just instead of the building going all the way over to this proposed cut through is going to be stopped shy maybe by about five or six feet And these elements in the rear will also be cut off right there. And then this whole element here will be trimmed way back to a much smaller area.

The building.

The part fronting the wall, Sam.

Yes. Jim, my question is more about the new proposed design looks solid brick and current approved design has different envelope features, particularly on the sides, colored gray and white and breaks up the sort of brick elements. Is there any type of, is there anything you can say that helps us understand the reasoning behind the proposed change?

Um, the current potential owner likes the longevity of the brick, not having to really maintain it, um, for the first hundred years where these elements here, um, may need, they're not materials that are hundred year materials. Um, They may get you the first 30, but they do start showing their age after 20, 30 years. So that's, he likes a solid building, a solid brick building. And granite.

Other questions from the board? I have the answer for Bill, by the way. Well, I asked for questions from the board. Oh.

I'll just echo, if we could go back, if we're done looking at the old approved version, I'd like to look at the elevation drawings, including the parking canopy again, just because I do think that that's going to pretty significantly affect the look of the entire intersection and the entire project.

I smell possibly a Zoom bomb coming.

Really?

I'm not sure. These these.

Can you can you can you look back and I guess stop share.

And Jim, just let's we're going to take a pause for a second.

We're going to do the math. I'm not sure if they are or not.

Well, hold on. Let's just pause for a second. Bill, do you want to make sure that Do you want to help them make sure that we have proper controls on? Just bear with us, Jim.

Don't admit them. Don't. Don't do that. No, no, no, I'm going to admit them.

Well, don't you have to admit them?

We will.

Yeah.

No, we have the option. This is a courtesy, presumably.

It is. This is true.

We don't have to. Oh, really? In a public meeting? Public meeting in person, not for Does anybody, I don't recognize any of these people, and I saw a couple of things, some emojis. That's got me. That we don't want to see again?

No, no, I didn't see it. We've had some bad experiences.

How are they able to do the emojis? Every time we've done, huh? How are they able to do the emojis?

Well, if we don't have to admit them, I wouldn't.

Okay, I agree with Bill. This has happened before. I can answer your question. Yeah, let's go to that. Bill, to answer your question about in front, this is in the business district. It's right on the border. It's not in the central business. Central business, you can't. On the other hand, the DOD talks about the interaction, pedestrian interaction with the street. Now, what I would say is that originally when this project came along, this board was not thrilled about having mixed use where there was commercial uses on there, so this went

Oh, wow. I mean, to me, this doesn't seem minor. There's got to be such a big change in the building itself.

Yeah, I'll just remind all board members that only determination tonight is just major-minor. That's the decision.

I'm just trying to remember the previous decision to know what a judge it is. Oh, I have a decision right here.

And I have a couple of others.

No, I know. And I reread it earlier.

So right now, it's the board's prerogative to ask questions, clarifying questions. So we have the information to make your vote. So does anyone else have additional questions for the applicant and his team?

There's probably a question for Bill. Is part of the discussion changing the way the units were set up to make them all one bedroom? Can that be part of the discussion, or that's not on the table? Oh, no, it could be. It could be a question. Because from my perspective, do we really want to have 32 one bedrooms, as opposed to having some families that have some access to these?

That was an original concern here. And I'll let the applicant respond there. There are a couple of reasons for that. On the other hand, one-bedroom units are in demand right now. And in this particular case, we have an option or an opportunity to create nine affordables and five of them are 60.

Sorry, respectfully, this is just about minor and major, right? So, like, we're not deciding if this matches the housing production plan or anything else. It's just minor, major.

You're correct.

Right. So I don't want to get too far into any discussions about, you know, that should be a special permit discussion.

Understood. The answer is yes, it would be appropriate to consider.

I have a question about the change in affordable units. I keep hearing that it's staying the same, but it looked like in the memo that I have that one of the requests was... It was Eclipse.

It was Eclipse after that we corrected that. They changed that, yes. Where there was a reduction of five? Correct. Yes. No, there's been subsequent updating.

Okay. So that is basically stricken from the request?

Correct. Other questions? Jim, any final thoughts for us?

No, I just happen to be happy to address any questions.

Okay. Bill, is a motion appropriate?

Yeah. The board's going to decide. It would just amend the session permit, and it would have to be super majority. And the option is it's basically an application to change.

Okay. So the motion is we determine that it's a...

Constitute's a major or minor.

Major determination. Well, we have to pick one vote on it, right?

That's correct.

OK. All right, I'll make a motion to determine that the modifications proposed constitute a major determination. Do we want to ask for public input? This isn't a hearing. OK. Yeah, this is just a reminder. But it's a good question. It's just it's not a hearing. OK. And I feel the board has enough of the right information to not take public input on this one. OK. But if folks want public input, I'm happy to take it.

my perspective is we have the board's adequate enough to handle a minor major determination does anyone want public input okay uh mr chair one thing also if um whatever the board's decisions um i think it would be uh it would be in everybody's best interest to determine um what the board would like to see and we can continue to discuss after that right whatever's determined

So again, I'll make the motion to make the determination that the proposed changes constitute a major determination. I need a second.

I'll second that.

And so if this vote fails, we can make a motion to determine minor. OK. All in favor of the determination for major determination, please raise your hand.

Major modification.

Major modification. That's 5-0 of a major modification. OK. Jim, thanks for your time. Adam, thanks for your time. But let's carve out five minutes now for the board to give perspective so that you guys know what you're getting into when you present for a special hearing modification. I'll start. I think it's going to be helpful to show the changes, why the changes are made to the Waltham Street side where the parking canopy And to show how that still meets the criteria of the special permit for the downtown overlay district I think it's going to be helpful to show what the changes are for the exterior envelope changes that are being proposed and obviously we should discuss the changes of changing the unit counts to all all all single bedrooms does the board have any other. clarifying comments to help this applicant.

if relevant I would like an updated list of waiver requests and if that affects the parking at all again if it if it doesn't but I'd just like to see that yeah that should be with any new application or an updated plan the breakdown of

would be something that would be critical for the board, if there's going to be waivers requested for parking and a clear count. Does that make sense for that? Yes. Based on it. Mr. Chair? Yep. Adam can speak.

Adam?

The chairs. Adam, you're going to have to turn on your mic. Hello.

Thank you. We can hear you. Thank you for taking the time tonight. I just have one. I understand the direction here, but understanding what we're trying to present. Knowing that we just went through conservation and we're not going to change the site plan. We're not going to change the landscape plan. We're not going to change all of these things. I understand that we don't have sufficient information for you to make the determination tonight. but are you then asking us to go through a whole new peer review process with traffic study, with design review, with lighting review, with landscape review? Because part of the reasons, you know, trying to make this project work for you in the town is using all of the existing things that have already been done so that we do not need to go through all of these steps again.

So if you could just clarify that. I can help clarify a few of those items. Actually, first I'll ask, my inclination is to not ask for traffic study. I don't see any reason for traffic study. It looks like parking requirements have gone down. So, planning boards not going to require any traffic study, anything additional on traffic. I don't see a reason for landscape review. I don't see... Jim, is there any... Can you just confirm there's no proposed changes to landscaping at all? We're not adding different species, we're not adding trees or subtracting trees?

There's very little landscaping at all, other than the proposed two foot by two foot columns are actually being pulled out of a couple areas.

So what you're saying is you're adding pervious landscaping space? small amounts of impervious landscaping space. Okay. I mean, unless others feel... I don't see a reason...

I think there is some changes along Waltham, which is relatively minor. I wouldn't want it to be a big thing, but I think it comes out kind of in the design review, but I don't need it to be a huge peer review effort.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- lighting, I would like to see, I do think that the removal of a whole chunk of the building is going to affect the lighting on that side of the building. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The lighting that's on the building the walkway lighting I mean there's a lot of I realized that the side on powder mill the parking lot is going to stay the same on that side correct. um but the the waltham street side of the building is changing significantly enough that i would like to see an update as to where the locations of the lights are sconces parking lot lights walkway lights that sort of thing do you need a peer review version of that or no i would just like to see it i would like a presentation i would like to I didn't see lights on any of the documents that were provided for tonight's hearing, so I would like to see that.

Does the board feel it's needed or required or helpful to have peer review for design?

I guess I would say that it's going to be hard for me to say that, not being a part of the original decision, without seeing a set of REV plans. A set of what? Revised, like, I don't know what was and what is. Oh, we have the originals, but I understand. I mean, you should have had . I mean, typically, making changes to plan set will have revision clouds, notes, and things like that.

For clarification for the applicant, is it fair to say the board would like to see Well, in the elevation revisions, like a cloud change or whatever, we're highlighting that and with the additional features. But I think it's also important to clarify what about the parking. the visibility of the parking, if that's going to be an issue. And I think we should address that now. Yes.

So that we give them clear direction when they come back. So part of the concern that I had with the original design that required quite a bit of back and forth was the fact that that entrance to the under building parking area was so open. And that's what led us to a decision that had a smaller entry that was still appropriate for the egress for the cars. But again, isn't that the side that was only emergency?

Yeah, that was emergency only.

Yeah, the Waltham Street side is emergency only exit. Access.

Access.

In or out. So I would like to see that that's being maintained. If the parking canopy stays, it looks like it's just a simple metal frame, you know, from the elevation drawings. It's sort of hard to see what it is actually going to look like in terms of what is it made out of. That might have been on the cut sheet.

Clarification with cut sheets.

Because at the moment, the parking canopy is slightly concerning to me just because it looks like a big metal roof structure.

If we ask for a limited design review, we've done this previous, so it's not necessarily spreadsheet where comments have to be.

Yeah.

addressed and then completed and tracked, that it could be a limited design review where we have received commentary on the design changes and how it's adequate to our design standards. Would that be sufficient for folks?

Commentary from whom?

From a peer review designer. So in this case, we could ask Green to do a limited design review to provide commentary instead of compliance. Would that be sufficient for folks?

I like the word limited. Limited, yeah. Are they looking at it before we do or in response to our question?

I would ask them to look on before we do just to evaluate the changes and how it still meets the general criteria of the design standards. But what I don't want is to turn it into an engineer peer review exercise, of course, where we have, you know, comments that need to be tracked and addressed. I want it to be narrative form so that it's helpful to inform the board instead of what was done previous, which was proper, full design review.

I have two questions on that.

Hold on. Does that make sense? Does that make sense to you? Yeah, I think that could be helpful. And Adam, I see your hand up. Just give us one second. Yeah, go ahead, Bill.

Two questions with that regarding the design peer review. First of all, what would the board consider a reasonable? I have to have a peer review number there. So that would be number one for limited. Would it be worth it? Assuming I can get the same peer reviewer from Green, who was, I think, a sub, who's very good. I remember her. I can't remember her name right now. Perhaps a thing to do would be the architect, the architect, Jim, could coordinate with her prior to the submittal. And that would probably save time and money. OK.

And sorry, and Jim and Adam, I'll turn it over to you guys. Did you hear and understand that conversation? And do you have any response?

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be in front of you again without going through a couple of laws. Adam?

Yeah, Adam, go ahead. You may need to ask him to. Do we need to unmute him?

Oh, Adam, so you're muted again.

Adam, you've got to click on your mic.

OK, yep, here I am. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification there. I have one concern, just knowing how difficult it has been to get this project to where it is and understanding the amount of time that was put into the site plan and everything else and now having to go back to the potential buyer because it's not closed yet. If he decides to walk away from this project, is the existing permit what was approved before and extended still in place so I can try to sell it to somebody else and not be left in the middle here? Because there's a strong possibility that he might just walk away and then I would be left with the ball in my hand without a baseball bat. So that's kind of a concern of mine and just a clarification if we could get that.

The current decision is in effect for another two years.

Yeah.

So you have no problem with that?

This would only be if there was a modification. If you want to build it as it is, then you already have the special permit for that.

So if I may say it differently, Bill, the current special permit is in effect until a new special permit, modified special permit, is granted.

Right. It will have to be renewed in two years for the agreement.

or a special permit expires those are the those are the possible changes right but so Adam it sounds very clear to me that if the current special permit is is is in effect until until a new special permit is granted by the board so this this determination doesn't change that it'll be two years from the extension which we granted in January Yeah. Hey, Adam, can you give me a thumbs up if you've got that? Yeah.

All right.

There you go. OK. So my final thought is limited design review. Let's keep it to limit. You asked for how do we limit this bill?

Yeah.

I would say ask the design team Green Engineering who was previous to have Jim to two brief meetings with you prior to prior to the hearing so first their review of the changes to brief meetings with Jim call it 30 minutes apiece and then attendance at the hearing okay so two meetings that's just for the design of Europe if needed And it's up to the applicant if they want to engage with that.

And engineer? Did you want limited engineering?

I don't see any reason to have engineer review. It's just design. OK.

So is that acceptable? That makes sense? So we would ask for the scope of any peer review to be limited to two meetings with Jim and an appearance with the board. And that would be sufficient for the board. And, Adam, I could clarify anything on this, but I think it's pretty straightforward on this, what the board wants. Okay.

Any final questions, Jim or Adam? Good. Okay. All right. Thanks, guys, for coming in. We appreciate your time.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, guys.

All right. Let's move on to item one, meeting minutes. There's two sets of meeting minutes here.

I have the same comment on both. That's to get rid of the first two paragraphs.

We've had this comment previously.

Yeah, we did.

Yes, sir.

May 12.

Number one, public hearing continued. We have not yet had an October 28, 2026 hearing. That's probably 2025. Oh, yeah.

Good call.

Now we know what we're doing October 28.

Oh, oh, I see. OK, in text. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, good catch.

So are we going to strike the first two paragraphs of both sets of meeting minutes?

Yes, I already did that. If that's what the board would like.

Anybody else have any comments about minutes? Do we feel the need to wait for Chris, or can I just? make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 12th. Can I do both of them? Of course you can. And May 26th, 2026 with the changes discussed tonight?

I'll second.

All those in favor? Bill?

Yes.

I'm a yes. Chris Klein?

Yes.

And Jeff?

Yes. And Mark?

And Mark?

Yes.

Great. That's five of us because Chris left the room and I voted on it. Okay.

So Thank you. Thank you.

I hope you didn't have anything to say about that.

Thank you both for that.

I don't care.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chancellor.

Unfortunately, no.

Just to give you a little, let's see. Because right now, I actually have a little update for you. Do you want to say anything else? Go ahead. So tomorrow night, we're Housing production advisory team will be meeting. We're going to go over what data has been collected from staff and from select stakeholders that were interviewed. Deliberately not the people like me. they're really involved in it every day. So we're going to have feedback from Council on Aging, we're going to have feedback from DBW, we're going to have feedback from Health, I think from Health. So it'll be interesting to see what information the consultants are going to bring in to us. Also, I'm expecting an upgrade, an update on our demographics which I think is going to be key in this this housing production plan but they're they're scooting right along with it um so far so good I'm imagine we're going to have them before this board at least probably in August they've reached out to their to reach out to you Chris who It would be Sarah Brent.

Not directly. You connected us.

So you're going to be, Chris will be interviewed. Mark's been working with us on, and you're going to Hawaii or something? Alaska. Close. Tomorrow? So you're going to be at the meeting tomorrow night?

They were acquired around the same time.

So this is pretty cool. We also put in the Today, we finished the draft contracts. As you guys know, for the PMOD, we did finish that and selected a most advantageous bidder.

You're never going to guess.

Yeah. And in other news, we have A interesting project that you're going to hear at the end of next month. I'm going to prep you on it ahead of time, each of you. We haven't had one like this unusual where it's going to be a code compliance case. And we've been working for about three years to make ripe. So it's going to be a little more of a, it's going to be a little different. So I'm going to have a staff report where I need, you guys can figure it out what I need. And it's going to involve you guys on the zoning board, so we're going to bust some chops to try to get that right, so that's going to come up good. And then lastly, I don't think I bit off more than we can chew, but we've got quite a few zoning by-law notes that we're blasting out real quick that are little, but... We're going to have to do those in July and August.

It's going to come fast.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah, yeah. I mean, there's a lot of little stuff that's easy, but there's some stuff that I want to, most importantly, I got, we want to finish the PMOD, the one last little bit there, and I think I'm going to need somebody to help me on that, we can work with. It's a small parcel, and I don't think it's going to change a lot, but we want to go over that. So we're busy, busy, busy.

Do you need to volunteer now or do you need to volunteer later?

Any time. Any time. So just let me know if anybody would like to just help me. Zoe and I, we're going to go and we're going to put together kind of a template for that little parcel. It's basically the adjacent parcels to the rivage. And if you can picture that, remember from our days when we were looking at this as one unit, There's kind of a chunk out front of the building that winds around. And then there's been a couple of parcels purchased adjacent to it. That worked for us, it works great as a PMOD stuff. So we need to just talk about that. So that's probably the heaviest lift. And then I sent you guys this, I haven't had a chance to really jump on it, but I'm looking at this new, this chapter 40Y. I sent you guys a little flyer on it today about the starter home districts. And I'm going to work on that with my housing production folks and see if we can get some ideas for that that might, you can take a look at it and see what you think.

That seemed insane to me until I read that it doesn't have to be contiguous.

No. As long as you have four units per acre and it's by right, 1,800 square feet max.

So it's sort of just like a... Subdivision.

Yeah. And I think the advantage... Now, to be clear, I have not gone farther with this, but I'll tell you what I'm thinking if you want to hear it. But I have no insight other than what I've told you here. But my thinking is because it's linked with... incentives to the town to set up the district. Given our water situation, I would like to look into a possibility of some areas that might work in a well district, where we could have a well district, and perhaps leverage... They give up to half a million dollars for it, so maybe we could help prep an area or something and have it dedicated with starter homes or something that matches our vision in select parcels that might not be as viable right now with water. It is a lot of uncertainty with water, as you know. But this is just a germination of an idea, that one. And I'm trying to come up, I'm hoping that with our housing production team, we have a good mix of people on there. We have everybody from, we have planning board, we have realtors, we have a developer, we have a planner, not me, and some regular people. So we've got a good mix. So I'm hoping we can come up with some stuff and do something, because the biggest thing we've identified already, of course, we knew already, the AMI is bonkers. Yeah. 80%. And I think that's all I have. I did mention to Chris, and we all get an invitation to this. We're working on, as you remember, clean energy permitting. And there's a new law that came out that Chris has been, Chris Klein has been working on. And we have a workshop on July 23rd, is it? I'm going to send an invitation. It's a freebie into the library. And it's going to have representatives from DOER and MAPC and our consultant who's helping us with it. So it'll be interesting to get caught up, if you're around. And then afterwards, The American Planning Association, Massachusetts chapter, will have a small social at Barrels and Mines for a little bit afterwards.

Whoa. This meeting at the library, is this being held by any committee or board, or how is this being entered into the record?

It's being held. It's a joint effort by... The APA, Massachusetts Chapter, MAPC, Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, they're sub-regional governing body, which is MAGIC, which we're a member of.

So this is not a town meeting, essentially, this is a regional event that's occurring in town?

No, it's not connected with town, other than this, I'm just trying to bring that stuff here to highlight Maynard. yeah and because i said that and um it's also doer but the funds um that are being used are going to be from apa okay massachusetts chapter excellent and i think that's all i got guys um we've i reappointed bill crenshaw to the cpc rep representative for the board for this board hope there's no concerns with that

Hearing none. Are you guys jumping to be part of the CPC?

No concerns, but somebody should in the future when Bill's tired of it or when Bill wants to go back to be the Housing Authority representative, it is actually very interesting to be on the CPC. And their meetings are not year-long, you know, like it's not a year-round thing. They have sort of a more intense work period and then

I'm by no means going to be ready for this anytime soon with my workload, but it would be helpful to know what CPC stands for.

Community Preservation Committee. And it's funds available to the town that are matched by state funds to do projects that are related to affordable housing, open space recreation, or historical preservation.

Bill sounds great. How much money is it a year? $450,000.

And so we always vote on the CPC articles at town meeting. I don't know if you've ever heard, but it's like fixing up a fence or fixing up a whatever or giving money to conservation so that in the future they can buy a piece of land if one comes up for sale. But then there are always some interesting projects that come up.

Are there public meetings for this?

There are.

The planning board sponsored two grants, three grants? We did... Oh, the walkway at Memorial Park? The... what's it? The ramp? Or the stage? No, that was the stage. We did the performance area.

We sponsored some work at Coolidge Park that the tree folks are helping with, too.

So some of the improvements there, because it was like... And if affordable housing stuff, which is kind of... The Affordable Housing Trust used funds to buy down a unit at 1 Summer Street at 60%, which was kind of, it's not a planning board thing, it was planning board related, so I kind of think it's like...

The CPC uses its funds to try and catch projects that aren't big enough or important enough in the eyes of whomever to be funded, but that are deemed important or wanted by the citizens.

It's funded in property taxes, right?

Yeah, it's a surcharge on your property taxes that's matched by the state. Bonus money.

So like last year, we've had some pretty cool stuff.

So someday when you guys have more time. When I was made alternate, the same night I was made the CPC rep for planning board.

Wait a minute.

Yes, that was absolutely true. And it was on Zoom and it was in 2020 during the pandemic. It was? Yes, I was, I was voted to be a member of the planning board and Jim Coleman was like, and there's this other committee. It's every other Wednesday and we think it should be you. And I was alone in a bedroom in my house on Zoom during the pandemic with a two year old child. And I was like, what? And then that's how it went.

Well, you were on it for a couple of years.

I was. And then I wasn't.

Well, so that's all I have, guys. Anything else?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll make a second.

All in favor to adjourn, please raise your hand. 5-0 to adjourn. 6-0 to adjourn. Thanks, guys.